Bangalore District Court
State By Savadatti Police Station vs Vishnath @ Anand on 6 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH82)
:Present :
Sri RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, B.Com., LLM.,
LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)
Dated: This the 6th day of May, 2020
Spl. CC No. 95 / 2019
COMPLAINANT:- State by Savadatti Police Station,
Belagavi Taluk
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED:- 1. Vishnath @ Anand
s/o Chandrashekar Mamani
Aged about 49 years
r/o Savadatti Taluk
Belagavi District
Mysuru
2. Hanumanthegowda Balagowda Patil
Aged about 27 years
r/o Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi
Date of offence 29.04.2018
Date of report of offence 30.04.2018
Name of the complainant Sri Hanumantappa
Date of commencement of 12.02.2020
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 03.03.2020
Offences complained of Sec.323, 355, 504, 506 r/w 34
of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) S.C.
2 Spl.CC 95/2019
and S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities)Act 1989
(Amendment 2015)
Opinion of the Judge Accused are found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri S.M.Y., Advocate for
accused
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 and 2 have been charge sheeted by Deputy Superintendent of Polie, Ramadurga Sub-Division, Belagavi District for the offences punishable Under Sec.323, 355, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act 1989 (Amendment 2015).
2. Brief and relevant facts leading to the case of the prosecution are as under:-
That the complainant by name Hanumantappa Govindappa Appanaikar r/o Khagadal village in Saundatti Taluq, Belagavi District filed complaint on 30.4.2018 at 8.15 p.m. before SHO, Savadatti Police Station, Belagavi District alleging that, on 29-04-2018 @ 5.00 p.m, when the
3 Spl.CC 95/2019 complainant was near his house, at that time accused No.1 Anand C.Mamani and Accused No.2 Hanumanthegowda Balagouda Patil being the driver for accused No.1 came near Siddarudh Math situated in Kagadal village. His house is situated near the said Math. When they came there, complainant asked accused No.1 that Rs.2 lakh grant is given to Siddharooda Muth situated in the village of the complainant, but no work was carried out, so also his loan from the Society was not returned and he had asked loan for the purpose of Dairy farming, but he was not granted with said loan. When he asked the above questions to accused No.1, who came to village on the above said date, accused No.1 became angry and abused the complainant stating that, "ನನವ ಬಬಡರ ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳರ ಬರನ ಇಇತಹದದನನ ಕನಳಳತತನರ"
and used abusive language against the complainant, took his chappal and assaulted the complainant. Accused No.2 the driver, by coming near the complainant made the complainant to fall down and treaded him. He also assaulted the complainant by using his chappal.
4 Spl.CC 95/2019 It is further alleged in the complaint that, accused gave threat to him stating that, if the Complainant comes to Savadatti, they will beat him with the help of their people, abused the Complainant in filthy language, gave life threat to him by saying that, he has come regarding election campaign and after completion of election he knows what to do. By warning so, accused No.1 and 2 went away from the said place. With these allegations, Complainant filed complaint as per Ex.P.1 before the aforesaid police station.
3. PW12 Shivaji Nikkam, the then ASI of Savadatti Police station, received said complaint as per Ex.P.1 and registered the same in Cr.No.195/2018 and set the criminal law into motion, prepared FIR as per Ex.P. 15. Sent the injured Complainant to the hospital for treatment along with his staff. Thereafter, handed over the investigation to CW16 examined as PW14 by name Renuka Prasad, the then Dy.S.P. of Ramadurga Sub-Division.
4. On 2.5.2018 PW14 visited scene of occurrence, conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex.P. 8 in the 5 Spl.CC 95/2019 presence of Panchas in between 4 and 5.15 p.m. prepared the eye-sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P. 11. He secured the panchas to the spot panchanama by issuing notices. Took the photographs as per Ex.P. 2 and 3, recorded the statement of witnesses and further statement of the Complainant.
5. On 24.5.2018 obtained the injury certiicate as per Ex.P. 12. During investigation itself, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Belagavi, he arrested both the accused and released them on bail.
6. Recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.2.
7. On 5.6.2015 accused No.2 produced his chappal alleged to have been used by him for assaulting the Complainant under panchanama Ex.P.4. Got the statement of Complainant identifying the said chappal now marked as per M.O.1. Thereafter, PW14 obtained the caste certificate of Complainant and accused persons. Because of his transfer, he handed over investigation to CW17 examined 6 Spl.CC 95/2019 as PW13 by name Basavanagoud Patil. This PW14 after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.
8. After filing of charge sheet, the jurisdictional 3 rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, took the cognizance of the offence and registered the case as Spl.CC No.276/2018. Presence of accused was secured. They appeared before the said court.
9. In view of establishment of this court as per Government Order No.LAW 10 LCE 2018 dt.8.2.2018 and notification of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka bearing No.GOB(I)1/2018, Dt.23.2.2018 exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka, the entire records of this case are transmitted to this court vide order dated 19.1.2019. After transmission of the records, this case is re-numbered as Spl.CC No.95/2019 i.e., present Spl.CC. Presence of accused No.1 and 2 is secured.
10. Copies of police papers were supplied to accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Counsel 7 Spl.CC 95/2019 for accused filed an application U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge of accused No.1 and 2. Said application is resisted by the prosecution by filing detailed objection. After hearing both sides on the said application, it was dismissed vide orders dated 24.12.2019. Thereafter, charge against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 355, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015) was framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in the language known to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. To substantiate the allegations made against the accused, prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 24 with respective signatures thereon.
12. After closure of evidence by prosecution, accused No.1 and 2 are questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution.
8 Spl.CC 95/2019 They denied their complicity in the crime, did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
13. Heard the arguments of learned PP and learned counsel for accused. Meticulously perused the record.
14. In view of the rival submissions on both sides, the following points arise for my consideration:-
1) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on 29-04-
2018 at about 5.00 p.m, when the complainant was near his house, at that time accused No.1 Anand C.Mamani and Accused No.2 Hanumanthegowda Balagouda Patil being the driver for accused No.1 came near Siddarudh Math situated in Kagadal village. When they came there, complainant asked accused No.1 that Rs.2 lakh grant is given to Siddharooda Muth situated in the village of the complainant, but no 9 Spl.CC 95/2019 work was carried out and about non-
sanctioning of loan to him by the Society, being enraged by the same, accused No.1 with common intention abused the complainant, took his chappal and assaulted the complainant, accused No.2 the driver, by coming near the complainant made the complainant to fall down and treaded him, he also assaulted the complainant by using his chappal and voluntarily caused hurt on his person and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec. 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time, and place, the accused No.1 and 2 herein, in furtherance of their common intention, being enraged by the words used by 10 Spl.CC 95/2019 CW1 as aforesaid assaulted him and did so otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 355 r/w 149 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further beyond reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 herein, in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally insulted CW1 Complainant by abusing him as "ನನವ ಬಬಡರ ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳರ ಬರನ ಇಇತಹದದನನ ಕನಳಳತತನರ" etc., and thereby gave provocation to him which would cause breach of public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, and place, the 11 Spl.CC 95/2019 accused No.1 and 2 herein, in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal intimidation by threatening the Complainant CW1 with intent to cause alarm to him and thereby committed offence punishable U/s.506 r/w sec.34 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, and place, the accused No.1 and 2 herein, in furtherance of their common intention, insulted Complainant CW1 by abusing him as "ನನವ ಬಬಡರ ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳರರ ಬರನ ಇಇತಹದದನನ ಕನಳಳತತನರ" with an intention to humiliate him being the member of Schedule Tribe in a public place within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 3(1)(r) and 12 Spl.CC 95/2019
(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 ?
6) What order?
15. My answer to the above points is as under:-
Point No.1:- In the Negative Point No.2:- In the Negative Point No.3:- In the Negative Point No.4:- In the Negative Point No.5:- In the Negative Point No.6:- As per final order for the following.
REASONS
16. Point No.1:- These points are inextricably mixed up with each other. Therefore, I would like to discuss them together so as to avoid repetition of the discussion and conclusion.
13 Spl.CC 95/2019
17. It is argued by the learned PP that the evidence of witnesses so examined in this case duly prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of her submission, she relied upon the evidence of Complainant-victim and other eye witnesses, so also the evidence of I.O.s and the Doctor. According to her the panchanamas are duly proved in accordance with law. Hence, she submits that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. As against this submission, learned counsel for accused submits that though the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses in this case, but there is no consistency in the evidence of these witnesses. It is further submitted by him that the evidence of PW1 is full of contradictions, omissions and embellishments and such evidence cannot be accepted. In support of his submission, he relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He craves to acquit the accused.
19. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions of both sides.
14 Spl.CC 95/2019
20. As could be seen from the records of this case, there are certain admitted facts. Accused No.1 Vishwanath @ Anand S/o Chandrashekar Mamani is an MLA. It is also not in dispute that he contested for Vidhanasabha Election from Yellammana Gudda Constituency in Belgaum District during the year 2018. Accused No.2 is his driver. It is also not seriously disputed that on 29.4.2018 accused No.1 and 2 visited the Khagadal village, Savadatti Taluk, where complainant is residing. There is no serious dispute about these facts. As there is no serious dispute about these facts, these admitted facts need not be proved.
21. A specific allegation have been made by the prosecution in this case that, on 29.4.2018 at about 5.00 p.m. accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention when them came to Siddharoodha Math situated at Khagadal village on the kaccha road situated in front of said village, at that time, complainant Appanaiker enquired about providing Rs.2 lakh grant to said Siddharoodha Math. He also enquired about non-sanctioning of loan to him by the Society and also for the purpose of dairy 15 Spl.CC 95/2019 farming. At that time, accused No.1 became angry and started abusing the complainant in filthy language and accused No.1 and 2 by using chappals assaulted the complainant, so also, abused the complainant as "ನನವ ಬಬಡರ ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳರ ಬರನ ಇಇತಹದದನನ ಕನಳಳತತನರ" and also told the complainant that, if he comes to Savadatti, he will ask his people to beat him and as he has come for election campaign, after completion of election he knows what he wants to do. So also this accused No.1 abused the complainant with an intention to insult him by abusing as "ಇನಳ ನ ಮಳಇದ ಸವದತತಗ ಬನನ ಮಕಕಳರ ನಮಮ ನಳ ನ ನಮಮ ವರ ಕಡಯಇದ ಹಸಡಸಳತತನನ ಈಗ ಚಳನವಣಗ ಬಇದದನ. ಮಳಗದ ಬಳಕ ಎನಳ ಮಡಬನಕಇದಳ ನನಗ ಗಸತತದ" with an intention to humiliate him being the member of Schedule Tribe in public place within the public view.
22. In a case of present nature, heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The law on this aspect is very much clear. In a criminal case, the onus lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the 16 Spl.CC 95/2019 prosecution cannot be said to be established merely because defence is weak or false. The law is that the accused must be presumed to be innocent. The onus is on the prosecution and it never shifts. Therefore, the prosecution cannot gain strength from the conduct of the accused or from absence of some explanation given by the accused. In criminal case, the accused is not bound by his pleadings and it is open to the accused to prove his defence even from the admission made by the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances proved in the case. Keeping aforesaid principles in mind, let me analyse the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.
23. Ex.P.1 is the complaint filed by the complainant in this case. He specifically states in his complaint that, on 29.4.2018, accused No.1 and 2 came to Khagadal village near Siddharoodha Math. His house is also situated near the said Math. At that time, complainant asked accused No.1 about providing of grant to the said Math to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs and also no work was carried out, so 17 Spl.CC 95/2019 also he had sought loan from the society, but society has not sanctioned him loan and even he asked for providing loan for dairy farming. He was not granted. At that time, accused abused complainant in filthy language and accused No.1 by using chappal assaulted the complainant, so also accused No.2. He specifically states in his complaint as under:-
"ನಮಸ ಮ ರಗ ಬಇದಗ ಬಬಡರ ಸಸಳಮಕಕಳರ ನಯ ತರ ಇದನಳ ನ ಕನಳಳತತನರ ಎಇದಳ ಬಬದಳ ನನಗ ಅವಜಹಕ ಅವರ ಚಪಪಲನಇದ ಒಡದಳ."
24. He also alleges that, accused No.1 abused him in filthy language so as to insult him by taking his caste name. Accused No.2 assaulted the complainant on his person.
25. PW1 Hanumantha Appanaikar, being the complainant in this case has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence on oath. But in his examination- in-Chief itself he says as under:-
18 Spl.CC 95/2019 "ಆಗ ಒಇದನನ ಆರಸನಪಯಳ ನನನ ಮನಲ ಒಮಮಲ ಸಟಟಗ ಬಇದರಳ ಮತಳತ ನನನನಳ ನ ಕಳರತಳ ಬಬಡರ ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳ ಸಲವನನ ಕನಳಳತತನರ ಅಇತ ಬಬದರಳ."
26. Throughout his examination-in-chief if scrupulously perused, he never says that accused No.1 has assaulted him by using chappal. He says, accused No.2 only has assaulted him by using his right leg chappal. Accused No.1 slapped him 2-3 times on his cheeks. He lodged a complaint on the following day in Savadatti police station. He identifies his complaint as per Ex.P.1.
27. PW1 further says that, after filing the complaint, police came to scene of occurrence. He has showed the scene of occurrence to the police. He identifies the photographs as per Ex.P.2 and 3 which have been taken by the police at the time of conducting panchanama as per his evidence. He identifies M.O.1 Chappal used by accused No.2 to assault him. Police have seized said chappal under Ex.P.4 in his presence. He has put his signature on the said panchanama Ex.P.4. This PW1 being the complainant has 19 Spl.CC 95/2019 spoken so many evidence in the examination-in-chief as well in the cross examination beyond the contents of the complaint.
28. So far as, caste of complainant as belonging to Valmiki community, called as 'Bedara' community, the defence is not disputing. According to him, he has given the document to the police station to show his caste. But those documents are not produced by the I.O. along with the charge sheet. A question is directed to PW1 that, he is drunkard. He denies the said suggestion. He also denies the suggestion that, by drinking alcohol he does galata, tease the ladies, etc. He denies all these suggestions.
29. It is elicited in the cross-examination that, in the said Siddharoodha Math in the morning hours in between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. and in the evening hours from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. pooja takes place. He goes to landed property in the morning at 6.00 a.m. It is further stated by him that, on the day of the incident, he went to his landed property at 6 a.m. On that day, he came to his house at 3 p.m. He made 20 Spl.CC 95/2019 arrangement to provide fodder to his cattle. On that day he did not go to arrack shop.
30. According to his evidence, his elder son Santosh is taking care of his family affairs and landed properties. He further says that, in the said Siddharoodha Math, pooja takes place for about 1 - 2 hours. Any devotee enters the said Math, they come out of the said Math only after completion of the pooja for a period to 1 to 1 ½ hours. Again the pooja takes place at 5 P.M., after the pooja in the morning hours. When pooja takes place in the said Math no devotee comes out of the Math. He also visits said Math. He did not remember the day of the said incident.
31. According to evidence of PW1, when the said incident took place, he cannot say who were all there along with accused persons. He did not notice any person there. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that, the scene of occurrence is about 10 to 15 ft., away from the said Siddharoodha Math. Further he says that " ಘಟನ ಅಯತಳ ಅಇತ ಹನಳಳವ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಮತಳತ ಆರಸನಪಗಳ ಹಸರತಗ ಬನರ ರರಸ 21 Spl.CC 95/2019 ಇರಲಲಲ, ನಇತರ ಬಇದರಳ." Further it is elicited that "ನನನನಳ ನ ಆರಸನಪಗಳಳ ಹಸಡದ ಸಮಯದಲ ಬನರ ರರಸ ಇರಲಲಲ. ಪಜರಗಳಳ ಗಲಟ ಶಬದ ಕನಳ ನಇತರ ಬಇದರಳ." Thus, his evidence is very much clear that when the said incident took place, except himself and accused, no other persons were there. The poojari came to the spot after hearing the galata.
32. It is further stated by him that, the Patel of his village called as 'gouda' told about the grant to be given to the said Math to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs. He was a former MLA. He belongs to Congress Political Party. He has not met accused No.1 previously. According to him, accused No.1 assaulted him by using his right hand on his cheek. He did not go to the primary health center. He went to Savadatti hospital. No Government Hospital is situated in Khagadal village. Further, he says that on the day of the incident he was taken to his landed property. In the landed property, his houses are situated. It is further stated by him that, from his landed property, he was taken to Ramadurga. Thereafter, he went to Savadatti for filing complaint. He 22 Spl.CC 95/2019 also visited the office of SC and ST. Thereafter, went to Savadatti. He reached Savadatti by 11.30 a.m. He went to Ramadurga in Bolero car belonging to his relative. Two hours time is required to reach Ramadurga town. He talked about half-an-hour at Ramadurga office. The main officer was not available in the office and he waited for him. He talked with the said officer for about 15-20 minutes. Only once he met him. Said officer told him to go to Savadatti police station to lodge complaint. He went to Savadatti police station at about 1 p.m. along with his brothers. Even his relatives also came to Savadatti police station. He talked with the police, he narrated about injuries sustained by him. He was not sent to the hospital immediately. At 9.00 P.M. on that day he was sent to Hospital. He had a swelling on his face. He had no difficulty to visit the Hospital. He denied the suggestion that by consuming alcohol he fell down and sustained injuries, etc.
33. According to the evidence of PW1, his brother Basava wrote the complaint. When the complaint was written, it was about 2.00 p.m. Immediately, police did not 23 Spl.CC 95/2019 take the complaint. At 9 P.M. police took the complaint and sent him to hospital. He put his signature. Again he says that, the complaint was written by his brother as per his say. According to him, at 2 P.M. he went to police station to lodge a complaint. He further says that as the police did not receive the complaint, therefore, he did not contact any person. He says that, the chappal which used by the accused No.2 is made by Paragon Company. It was not a hawai chappal. It is further stated by PW1 as under.
"ನನನನಳ ನ ಹಸಡದ ಸದಳದಲಯನ ಚಪಪಲ ಸಕಕತಳತ ಅದನ ಮಳದಮಲಳ 1 ಆಗದ. ಮಳದಮಲಳ 1 ಚಪಪಲ ನನಳ ರಮದಳಗರದ ಅಧಕರಗಳಗ ತಸನರಸಲಳ ತಗದಳಕಸಇಡಳ ಹಸನಗಲಲ. ನನಳ ರಮದಳಗರದಇದ ಬಇದ ದನವನ ಪನಲನಸರಳ ಮಳದಮಲಳ 1 ನಳ ನ ತಗದಳಕಸಇಡದರ.
ಅಇದರ ನನಳ ರಮದಳಗರಕಕ ಹಸನದ, ಸವದತತ ಪನಲನಸರಳ ಮಳದಮಲಳ 1 ನಳ ನ ತಗದಳಕಸಇಡಳ ಹಸನದರಳ.
ಪನಲನಸರಳ ಚಪಪಲಯಲಯನಳ ನ ತಗದಳಕಸಇಡಳ ಹಸನದ ದನ ನನಳ ರಮದಳಗರದಲ ಇದ."
24 Spl.CC 95/2019
34. Thus according to him, said M.O.1 Chappal was found at the scene of occurrence itself. He did not take the said chappal to Ramadurga. When he came from Ramadurga, already police have seized M.O.1. When police took the said Chappal to Ramadurga, he was at Ramadurga itself. He further states that when he went to hospital, he was given two injections. After taking treatment, he came to Khagadal village. Further he says that, from the Hospital, he went to Savadatti police station. Further, he says that, after filing the complaint, after two days the police came to Khagadal village. First, Ramadurg police came there. Thereafter, Savadatti police came to Khagadal village. Thus he says that Ramadurga police and Savadatti police came at different times. He cannot say the names of the police who came there. According to him, police took the photograph of the scene of occurrence. Further, improves and says that, on the following day police came to the scene of occurrence.
35. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, one Raghavendra Venkappa Poojari being the Advocate 25 Spl.CC 95/2019 examined in this case, has written the complaint. According to PW1, before the incident, he has not met the said Raghavendra Venkappa Poojari - cited as PW8 in this case. Further he says that after some time of the incident, CW8 came to police station at 6.00 p.m. He took the particulars of the incident. When first complaint was lodged, it was not taken by the police. CW8 was possessing the said complaint. He has not seen about the corrections being made in the complaint being written by Raghavendra Venkappa Poojari. Further he says that the complaint was written by his brother i.e., CW6. At his instance only the complaint was written in the police station. He has not lodged any complaint at 1 p.m. On Tuesday, the police wrote the panchanama and the incident had taken place on Sunday. He further says that, he signed the panchanama in the police station.
36. If the evidence of this PW1 is scrupulously perused, we find exaggerative evidence spoken to by this PW1 and there is no consistency in the evidence with that of the complaint allegations. We also find so many 26 Spl.CC 95/2019 embellishments in the evidence of this PW1. So also it is noticed that, there are so many discrepancies, contradictions and omissions with that of the complaint averments and his further statement given by this PW1 before the police. If such an evidence is spoken to by PW1, it really requires corroboration.
37. PW3 Basavalingappa Angadi is cited as eye witness in this case. He is the poojari of said Siddharoodha Math. He says in his evidence that, about 02 years back at about 5.00 P.M. he was performing pooja at Math. At that time CW7 was sitting on the katta of the Math. He heard the noise. When he went to said place, he noticed that accused No.2 was holding his right leg chappal. He was found assaulting complainant Hanumanthappa. Hanumanthappa was lying down. People gathered there. To this extent he has seen. He went to Savadatti Police Station and gave his statement. Identified M.O.1 as chappal alleged to have been used by accused No.2. He was partly declared as hostile witness and cross examined by the prosecution. But he says that, he has not given statement as per Ex.P. 7 27 Spl.CC 95/2019 before the police. This Ex.P. 7 is statement of this PW3 stating that Anand Mamani and his driver gave threat to the complainant stating that if he come to Savadatti, they will look after him and thereafter went in their car. Thus, he has not stated that accused No.1 was assaulting the complainant.
38. This PW3 is an eye witness who have been thoroughly cross examined by the defence. According to his evidence, in the said Siddharoodha Math there is a 10 ft., depth cave and it has got 18 steps. If one to reach the said sanctum sanctorum of said Math, he has to get down said 18 steps. Prayer can be done in the said Math. Nothing is heard from outside. Meditation can be done. According to him, every day he performs pooja in the said Math from 5.00 a.m. upto 8 a.m. In the evening he performs pooja for one hour at 4.00 p.m. Even he says as under:-
"ಗವಯ ಒಳಗ ಸಮಧ ಇದದ. ಸಮಧಯ ಪಜಯನಳ ನ ಮಡಳತತನನ. ಗವಯಳಗ ಪಜ ಮಡಳವ ಸಮಯದಲ ಬಹಳ ಶಬದ ಆದರ ಕನಳಳತತದ."
28 Spl.CC 95/2019
39. According to him, in the said cave, if pooja is performed, to hear the sound, from outside, sound must be loud. According to him, he heard the noise of the people. No information was available to him that, accused No.1 was coming to said Math. On that day accused No.1 did not enter the Math. Election campaign was in progress. The patel of his village is the Chairman of the Trust Committee of the said Math. He obey him.
40. In the further cross examination at page No.5 he states as under:-
"ಘಟನ ಆಯತಳ ಅಇತ ಹನಳಳವ ದನ ನನಗ ಜನರ ಗಲಟ ಮತ ತ ಕನಳಸತಳ. ನನಳ ಗರರಗಳಡಯಇದ ಹಸರಗ ಬರಬನಕದರ ಸಳಮರಳ 2 ನಮಷ ಬನಕಯತಳ. ಸಕಷಳ ಟ ಜನ ಸನರದದರಳ, 1 ನನ ಆರಸನಪಯನಳ ನ ನನಳ ಜನರಳ ಕರದಳಕಸಇಡಳ ಹಸನಗಳತತದದ ಳದದನಳ ನ ನಸನಡದ. ನನಳ ನಸನಡದಗ 2 ನನ ಆರಸನಪಯಳ ಗಳನನ ಸದಳದಲದದ. ಘಟನ ಆದ ಬಗಗ ನನಳ ಕನಳ ತಳದಳಕಸಇಡ. ಘಟನಯನಳ ನ ನನಳ ಪ ಪತಬಕ ನಸನಡಳವ ಅವಕಶ ಸಗಲಲಲ."
29 Spl.CC 95/2019
41. According to him whatever he has seen he has spoken before the court. The evidence spoken to culled out above shows that he took about 02 minutes to come to the scene of occurrence, at that time so many people gathered there. Accused No.1 was found taking by some persons there. Accused No.2 was still in the scene of occurrence. He came to know about the incident from others. Thus he is not an eye witness as per his own evidence. But prosecution cited him as eye witness. Accused No.2 was holding black chappal. But he cannot say that said chappal belongs to which leg. Even he says that, he cannot say whether on that day, accused No.2 took away the said Chappal or not. He does not know about the same. If the evidence of this PW3 is scrupulously perused, he has given altogether different evidence with that of the statement before the police. He has been declared hostile witness. Though he has been cited as eye witness in this case, but his cross-examination falsifies that he is an eye witness in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We find 30 Spl.CC 95/2019 inconsistent, discrepant evidence of this witness spoken before the court.
42. PW6 Babu Sab Nadaf is also an eye witness in this case. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident took place at 5.00 P.M. on that day. But, this PW6 says about two years back, he was sitting on the katta of the Siddharoodha Math at about 3.00 p.m. At that complainant came from his house. PW3 was performing pooja in the Math. At that time, both accused came there. There was galata between complainant and accused persons. Complainant was abusing the accused No.1. Accused also abused complainant in filthy language. Accused No.2 took the Chappal and assaulted the complainant. Thereafter, people gathered there. Then these accused went away in their car. He identifies M.O.1 is the Chappal.
43. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place at 5.00 p.m. Pooja took place in the said Math in between 4 to 5 p.m. But this PW6 says that the incident took place at 3.00 p.m. At that time PW3 was performing pooja. So, we find an inconsistent evidence in the 31 Spl.CC 95/2019 examination-in-chief itself. No doubt he says that he has not studied. According to him from morning 10 a.m. till 6 p.m. he goes to agricultural work. Since 30 years he is in the habit of going to landed property at 10 a.m. and returning at 6 P.M. In his house, his two sons and his wife are residing. Further he says that, at Siddharoodha Math in the morning 6 a.m. pooja takes place upto 8 a.m. In the evening pooja starts at 6 p.m. The poojari comes to the Math at about 4.30 p.m. He says that, on the day of the incident he came from his landed property at 2.00 p.m. Incident took place at 3.00 p.m. At that time PW3 also came to said Math. When the said incident has taken place PW3 has not commenced his pooja. But PW3 says that, he heard the noise when he was performing pooja. PW3 came out of the Math at about 3.00 p.m. on that day. He was sitting on the Katta.
44. PW1 says that, he is not consuming any liquor. But PW6 says that complainant is alcoholic. On that day about 5-6 people were there with accused No.1. He cannot say who were all they. The accused came to Siddharoodha 32 Spl.CC 95/2019 Math on that day. PW3 says that, accused No.1 did not come to Math on that day. He did not notice about performing of pooja by this accused No.1. Further, he specifically says that, accused No.1 came out the Math at about 3.10 p.m. He did not hear what the complainant was speaking in loud noise. He did not hear the abusive words. People gathered there tried to rescue. The people gathered there were telling the complainant Hanumanthappa not to abuse. At 3.10 p.m. he went to his house. There were exchange of words between complainant and accused. He says specifically as under:-
"ಆ ಸದಳದಲ ಮರಮರ ಆಗಲಲಲ, ಬಯ ಬಯ ಅಇತ ಹನಳಳತತನನ."
45. He did not enquire the complainant about the incident. So, if the evidence of PW1, 3 and 6 is scrupulously perused, compared and read meticulously, we find very inconsistent evidence spoken to by these witnesses. If the evidence of one witness is believed, then the evidence of 33 Spl.CC 95/2019 other witness cannot be believed. If such an evidence is adduced, as stated supra, it really requires corroboration.
46. With regard to the said incident, it is the specific case of the prosecution that PW4 Raghavendra Poojari wrote the complaint as per the say of the complainant. This PW4 has come before the court to say that, about two years back when he was in his house at Ramapura site, in Savadatti Taluk, the elderly members of Khagadal village called him through telephone, narrated about the incident. He went to Savadatti Police Station, there he noticed presence of complainant and others. Complainant narrated about the incident. He wrote the complaint as per Ex.P.1. In the cross examination he says that he wrote the said complaint in the Savadatti Police Station itself. Complainant contacted him at about 4.30 p.m. complainant and the elderly members of Valmiki caste came to his house at about 12 Noon. The patel of Khagadal village informed about the incident through telephone. At the instance of complainant, he wrote the complaint. One Suresh Govindaiah was accompanying the complainant.
34 Spl.CC 95/2019 But said Suresh Govindaiah is not cited as witness in this case. For 10 minutes the complainant and others were in his house. The complainant did not inform him that, he went to Police Station prior to coming to his house. The patel of Khagadal village told him to solve the galata. He wrote the complaint at 4.30 p.m. He does not know that after 12.10 p.m. complainant and others went from his house. He further says that when the complainant came to his house, he has not requested him to write complaint. Therefore, he did not write the complaint. At 4.00 p.m. on that day the complainant requested him to write the complaint. So far as writing of complaint by this PW4 is concerned, PW4 has spoken to that effect. Whereas, complainant throughout his evidence maintains that, his brothers wrote the complaint. Even he names the person who has written the complaint. So when PW1 says that, his one of the brother has written the complaint, where is that complaint is not properly explained by the prosecution. Thus we find inconsistent evidence with regard to very 35 Spl.CC 95/2019 writing of the complaint in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
47. This PW4 has stated that, when complainant came to his house, his face was found swelling. He did not take him to hospital, but asked the complainant to go to hospital. This evidence spoken to by PW4 is not at all being corroborated by PW1. So therefore, we find very inconsistent evidence lead by prosecution with regard to very writing of the complaint in the manner stated.
48. As stated supra, in a case of present nature the prosecution is under obligation to adduce acceptable, credit worthy evidence. In this case evidence of PW1, 3 and 6 is quite inconsistent. PW4 has given different evidence with that of evidence of PW1. This is one aspect.
49. PW2 Basapa Shirannavar is seizure mahazar pancha Ex.P.4. he says that the police issued notice to him as per Ex.P. 6. In his presence M.O.1 was seized in the police station. It is a paragon chappal. The cross examination of PW2 shows that, he is an agriculturist by 36 Spl.CC 95/2019 profession. Since 2-3 years prior to giving evidence, he knows the complainant. He is the resident of Inamhongal, which is very much near Dharwad. But he went to Police Station on that day for special work. How this PW2 reached Savadatti on that day and was called by the police is not properly explained. His presence is not disputed seriously by the defence. To the extent of preparing the panchanama as per Ex.P.4, evidence of PW4 has to be accepted. To that extent I believe his evidence.
50. PW5 Sydu Sab is scene of occurrence pancha marked as Ex.P.8. According to his evidence as per notice Ex.P.9 he went to the scene of occurrence. In his presence panchanama was written by police. He identifies Ex.P.2 and 3 photographs. It is elicited in the cross examination that, his relationship with complainant is good. He has denied all other suggestions. But in the cross examination at page No.3, he says that, in a white paper his signature was taken. CW3 also put the signature on the white paper. Panchanama was not written in his presence. Panchanama has taken place, but it was not written. The Dy.S.P. told 37 Spl.CC 95/2019 that, signature be put on the said paper, thereafter, they will reduce said panchanama in writing. From the evidence of PW5 it is very much clear that, the presence of PW5 and CW3 panchanama was not written. PW3 and CW3 put the signature on the white paper.
51. The case of the prosecution is that, in the presence of this PW5 and CW3 panchanama was conducted and it was written. But this PW5 has given a clear go bye to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of this PW5 cannot be accepted as it is that it is a truthful evidence.
52. PW7 Girish Prasad is a photographer and videographer. According to him, as per the instructions of the police he has prepared the CD as per Ex.P.10 by recording the videograph of statement of witnesses. He has not mentioned the date of said videograph. On perusal of said Ex.P.10 by using the laptop in the open court, it is noticed that the said video recording has taken place on 5.5.2018 at 8.46 a.m. It is the case of the prosecution that, the said video graphing of statement of witnesses has 38 Spl.CC 95/2019 taken place on 3.5.2018. On what date said statements were recorded by the I.O. is not properly explained by the prosecution. It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that, no formatting was done and no date was adjusted. Therefore, it shows that, it was recorded on 5.5.2018. To that effect, no evidence is placed on record by the I.O. So the very recording of statement of witnesses through videograph is not duly proved in accordance with law. So, evidence of PW7 will not come to the rescue of the prosecution.
53. PW8 Shivappa Jangavad is the person who wrote the panchanama Ex.P.8, prepared the sketch as per Ex.P.11. But PW6 says that no panchanama was written at the scene of occurrence. This PW8 is ASI. His evidence is quite against the evidence of PW6 scene of occurrence pancha. According to his evidence, they went to scene of occurrence in a police jeep. One Abbas accompanied with them, who was investigation assistant. He do not remember who has taken the photographs Ex.P.2 and 3. The panchanama Ex.P.5 was typed at 5 p.m. Accused No.2 39 Spl.CC 95/2019 produced the chappal. He was on duty on 3.5.2018. He was the author of these panchanamas according to the case of the prosecution. But the witnesses i.e., scene of occurrence panchas and seizure panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. So, the evidence of this PW8 do not come to the case of the prosecution in any manner.
54. PW9 Bhimanaik Sanna Malagi is ASI, Ramadurga, who obtained the mobile sim numbers belong to Accused No.1. According to his evidence, these mobile numbers stated in his examination-in-chief are being used by accused No.1. Defence is not disputing that, these SIM numbers are not belonging to accused No.1. He is one of the VIP in Savadatti being the MLA. To the extent of collecting mobile numbers of accused No.1, evidence of PW9 is to be accepted.
55. PW11 Ravindra Nesargi was the incharge Tahasildar at the relevant time and issued Ex.P.14 to Dy.S.P. of Ramdurga mentioning the caste of complainant and accused persons. According to his evidence, on enquiry he 40 Spl.CC 95/2019 came to know that complainant belongs to Schedule Tribe and accused belongs to Lingayath Caste. Caste is not disputed in this case. So, to the extent of issuing Ex.P.14, evidence of PW11 has to be accepted.
56. PW12 Shivaji Nikkam is the then ASI of Savadatti Police Station. He has received the complaint and set the criminal law in motion. He says with regard to receipt of the complaint on 30.4.2018 at about 8.15 p.m. submitted by complainant. He sent the complainant for treatment. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that, he went to the Police Station on the following day of the incident at 1.00 p.m. But police did not receive the complaint. This PW12 says that, PW4 was accompanied with complainant and he narrated about the incident. PW4 presented the written complaint to him. PW1 says that complaint was written in the police station, so also PW4. But PW12 says that, a written complaint was filed. It was not signed at that time. No documents were available in the police station about visit of the complainant prior to 8.15 p.m. According to him, on that day from 8.00 a.m. to 41 Spl.CC 95/2019 till 2.00 p.m. he was Police Station in-charge. In between that time, the complainant has not visited the Police Station. No telephone communication was made with regard to the incident. Complainant came to the police station directly from Khagadal village. But PW4 says that at 12 noon on that day, complainant and others came to his house about 5-10 minutes prior to presenting the complaint, the complainant came to the police station from Khagadal village. The complainant has not sustained any swelling on his face. He has sustained inner injury. There was pain in his face. He noticed some swelling etc. Therefore, he sent the complainant to Government hospital. So, evidence of this PW12 if compared with the evidence of PW1 and 4, we find a contradictory evidence with regard to very visit of the complainant to the police station. At one breath, PW1 says that his brother wrote the complaint. PW4 says that he wrote the complaint. PW12 says that PW4 brought the written complaint which was not signed by the complainant. So we find a inconsistent 42 Spl.CC 95/2019 and discrepant evidence with full of contradiction and omissions.
57. This PW12 handed over the investigation to PW14 Renuka Prasad then Dy.S.P. of Ramadurga Division. This PW14 has come before the court to say that on 2.5.2018 he went to the scene of occurrence and as shown by the Complainant in the presence of panchas prepared panchanama as per Ex.P. 8. Panchanama was written in between 4 p.m. and 5.15 p.m. But the scene of occurrence pancha examined in this case never says about writing of panchanama at the scene of occurrence. He prepared the eye sketch. Took the photographs as per Ex.P. 2 and 3. In this case, PW8 Shivappa Jangavad says that he has written the panchanama and prepared the sketch. So also PW14 says. There are two panchanamas as per the evidence of this witness. But one panchanama is produced. May be at the instruction of PW14 said PW8 must have written panchanama. This PW14 identifies CD as per Ex.P. 10.
58. According to evidence of PW14 in the cross- examination about the said incident, he has received the 43 Spl.CC 95/2019 information on 30.4.2018. At that time he was on bandobasth duty at Chikkodi. On the following day, this Complainant did not come to his office. But PW1 says that on the following day of the incident, he went to Ramadurga, the office of PW14, talked with him, etc. On 2.5.2018 he returned to his head quarters. Thereafter, went to the scene of occurrence. His staff took the photograph of the scene of occurrence. He was accompanied with some of the police. They took the photograph. He is I.O. in this case. If the evidence of this PW14 is compared with the evidence of other witnesses in this case, we find inconsistent evidence.
59. PW13 B.S.Patil is the charge sheeting officer. During he investigation, he collected call-detail-records as per Ex.P. 19 to 24. Wherein it is noticed that, on the day of the incident, it was noticed that the accused were at Khagadal village. Defence has not seriously disputed about the presence of these accused at Khagadal village. Evidence spoken to by this PW13 shows that, these CDRs 44 Spl.CC 95/2019 are not the conclusive proof with regard to the presence of accused on that day at the scene of occurrence.
60. In all criminal cases, investigation officers are the supervisors of investigation. Unless of the evidence of other witnesses is corroborated, the evidence of I.O.s become formal in nature.
61. Then remains the evidence of Doctor PW10. PW10 Dr.Kavitha has come before the court and spoken about the injuries being sustained by the Complainant when she medically examined him on 30.4.2018. According to her evidence, she noticed the following injuries on his person.
1) Abrasion over nose measuring 1 c.m x 1 c.m bluish black colour.
2) Abrasion over right clavicular area measuring 3 c.m x 1 c.m (bluish black colour)
3) Abrasion below right eye measuring 1 c.m x 0.5 c.m (bluish black colour)
4) Tenderness over lower back
5) Tenderness over sternal area 45 Spl.CC 95/2019
62. On perusal of the injuries as noticed in Ex.P.12 wound certificate, there are in all five injuries noticed by the Doctor. According to Doctor, the age of the injuries was 24-36 hours. The evidence of PW1 is quite silent with regard to the injuries sustained by him as noticed in Ex.p.12. He never described the injuries as noticed in Ex.P.12 throughout his evidence. So we find a inconsistent evidence with that of Doctor with regard to the very injuries sustained by this PW1 in the manner stated by him. It has come in the evidence of PW10 in the cross- examination that, the Complainant did not tell about the kind of assault on him. She did not remember that said Hanumanthappa was already drunk. She also do not remember that he has consumed alcohal on that day. According to her, Complainant was very normal on that day when she medically examined him. It has come in the evidence of witnesses that the Complainant consumes arrack. Though PW1 denies, his close friend says that the Complainant consumes arrack.
46 Spl.CC 95/2019
63. It is defence of the accused that, in a intoxication mode the Complainant must have fall down and sustained injuries. In view of this inconsistent evidence spoken to by the witnesses, the possibility of defence of the accused has to be accepted. So therefore, in the considered view of this court, if the evidence of all the witnesses in this case is scrutinised in proper perspective, no doubt the Complainant is injured in this case and his evidence has to be accepted. But in view of his inconsistent evidence with omissions and contradictions, such evidence really requires corroboration. The case of the prosecution cannot be established merely because defense is weak or false. The prosecution cannot gain strength from the conduct of the accused or from absence of explanation given by the accused persons. No doubt, it is the case of the prosecution that the Complainant is victim of assault. But the standard of proof which is required is not duly proved in accordance with law. The Complainant has failed to explain all the injuries in his evidence on oath. The prosecution witnesses in this case have suppressed their part exaggerating part 47 Spl.CC 95/2019 of the accused, suppressing fact of injuries to the Complainant etc. Though PW3 and 6 are branded as eye witnesses in this case, but their evidence is quite against the case of prosecution.
64. From the point of view of degree of proof in criminal trial, when the evidence for the prosecution and the defense appears to be evenly balanced, the prosecution proves its case through independent evidence to the hilt or the accused admitting the commission of offence, but wishing to escape through some exception or throwing defence, clearly through witness, then some weight has to be given. In such cases, even if the defense is not so formidable as the prosecution, the principle of benefit of doubt would operate and accused would be allowed to reap the benefit of doubt.
65. During the course of arguments, learned PP submits that the evidence spoken to by the witnesses is consistent. Therefore, it is to be accepted. With all vehemence she submits that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused. But this submission cannot 48 Spl.CC 95/2019 be accepted, for the simple reason that though the alleged incident has taken place on 29.4.2018 as per the case of the prosecution at 5.00 p.m. But the complaint was lodged on 30.4.2018 at 8.15 p.m. There is a delay. Even we find inconsistent evidence of PW1 and other witnesses in this case with regard to very filing of the complaint. No doubt the FIR is not encyclopedia. In this case, the evidence of PW1 is quite inconsistent. It is full of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies. Delay is not properly explained.
66. To appreciate about the delay and other aspects, the learned counsel for accused relied upon various judgments as under:-
a. AIR 1977 SC 381 (Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others Vs. State of Maharastra) b. AIR 1979 SC 1408 (Suraj Mal Vs. the State (Delhi Administration) 49 Spl.CC 95/2019
c) AIR 1973 SC 501 (Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamilnadu)
d) (2006) 10 SCC 601 (Syed Ibrahim Vs. State of A.P.)
e) AIR 1974 SC 1822 (Jamuna Chaudhary and others Vs. State of Bihar)
f) 1997 SCC OnLine Kar 280: 1998 Cri.L.J. 53( Chandra Poojari Vs. State of Karnataka)
g) LAWS(DLH) 1993 11 49 (Jaspal Singh Vs. State of Delhi)
h) AIR 2004 SC 85 (State of Karnataka Vs. Mapilla P.P. Soopi)
67. I have scrupulously perused the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. In the first judgment stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have stated with regard to delay and evidentiary value with regard to delayed complaint. It reads as under:-
50 Spl.CC 95/2019 "(B) Cr.P.C., S.154 - First information report - Evidentiary value - Delay in giving report - Information lodged about five hours after occurrence - Information in circumstances of cases held not so delayed as to cause suspicion."
68. In the second judgment, it is with regard to the importance of FIR. In this case the very filing of complaint gives room for suspicion.
69. The principles laid down in other judgments are not strictly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case.
70. More so, when an offence is allged under the provisions of SC-ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989, the prosecution is under obligation to prove the ingredients of said offence. So to say, the scope of Sec.3 of the Act has to be established, the prosecution has to prove the intention or mens rea, which is an essential ingredient to constitute the offence. A criminal offence is only 51 Spl.CC 95/2019 committed when an act which is forbidden is done voluntarily. In this case, such ingredients are missing. The very ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are not proved by the prosecution with legal and acceptable evidence. So to say, the complainant must disclose the essential ingredients of the offence and in case complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the essential ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled up by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement, etc. In this case, the complaint lacks essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused persons. So therefore, the prosecution case suffers from material particulars. It is full of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies, which are not been properly explained by the prosecution by leading evidence. Therefore, doubt arises in the case of the prosecution and that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Hence, I record my findings on the point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
71. Point No.6:- As a result of my foregoing discussion and reasons stated thereon, accused No.1 and 2 52 Spl.CC 95/2019 are entitled for acquittal by giving benefit doubt of the offences alleged against them. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the charge leveled against them for the offences punishable Under Sec.323, 355, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015) by giving benefit of doubt.
Bail bond of accused No.1 and 2 stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
M.O.1 Chappal being worthless is ordered to be destroyed. The disposal of the property shall takes place after the appeal period is over. In case of appeal, after disposal of the appeal, whichever is later.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, same is revised and corrected by me and then pronounced through video conferencing on this the 6 th day of May, 2020) (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)
53 Spl.CC 95/2019 ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
PW1 Hanumanthappa PW2 Basavappa Shivappa Shirannavar PW3 Basavalingappa Angadi PW4 Raghavendra Poojari PW5 Sydusab PW6 Babu Saba PW7 Girish Prasad PW8 Shivaputrappa Jangawada PW9 B.R.Sannamalagi PW10 Dr.Kavitha PW11 Revindra Nesargi PW12 Shivaji Nikam PW13 B.S.Patil PW14 B.Y.Renukaprasad
Witnesses examined by the defence/accused. -- NIL Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2-3 Two photos
Ex.P.4 Chappali Panchanama
Ex.P.5 Photo
Ex.P.6 Notice to CW4
Ex.P.7 Statement of PW3(CW6)
Ex.P. 8 Spot panchanama
Ex.P. 9 Notice to PW5(CW2)
54 Spl.CC 95/2019
Ex.P. 10 C.D.Panchanama
Ex.P. 11 Rough sketch
Ex.P. 12 Wound certificate
Ex.P. 13 Requisition for caste certificate Ex.P. 14 Letter to Police of Ramadurga Ex.P. 15 FIR Ex.P. 16 CDR of Accused mobile Ex.P. 17 CDR of Complainant and Witness mobiles Ex.P. 18 Certificate of Girish Revadi Ex.P. 19 I.D. Cards to 24 Documents exhibited by the defence/accused. - Nil List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:--
Nil LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) rrk.
55 Spl.CC 95/2019 6.5.2020 Certificate with regard to pronouncement of judgment is kept in the file.
Case taken today for pronouncement of judgment. Judgment pronounced through video conferencing. (vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the charge leveled against them for the offences punishable Under Sec.323, 355, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015) by giving benefit of doubt.
Bail bond of accused No.1 and 2 stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
M.O.1 Chappal being worthless is ordered to be destroyed. The disposal of the property shall takes place after the appeal period is over. In case of appeal, after disposal of the appeal, whichever is later.
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with 56 Spl.CC 95/2019 criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) Office of the XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge [Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka (CCH82)] City Civil Court, Bangalore. Dt: 06th May, 2020 CERTIFICATE In this case, the arguments of both sides are heard long back and the case was posted for judgment. Because of declaration of closure of courts due to COVID-19, the judgment could not be pronounced, though it was dictated, corrected and kept ready for pronouncement. Yesterday, there is transfer order received by me. As the judgment is kept ready for pronouncement and accordingly, in view of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to pronounce the reserved judgment and orders through video conferencing, accordingly, the judgment in this case is pronounced through video conferencing today.
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)