Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1: Smt.Shakuntala on 2 November, 2016
1 C.C.No.19441/2012
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 2nd November 2016
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc., LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No:19441/2012
Complainant : The State represented by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Madivala Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1: Smt.Shakuntala,
W/o Sri.Narayana,
Aged about 45 yrs,
R/at:No:20/2, 4th Cross,
3rd Cross, near Classic Bakery,
Mattikere,
2 C.C.No.19441/2012
Bengaluru.
A2: Smt.Radha,
W/o Cheluvaraju @ Babu,
Aged about 32 yrs,
R/at:No:52, 11th Cross,
near Mamatha Store,
Mattikere,
Bengaluru-54.
A3: Sri.Babu,
S/o Chandrappa,
Aged about 40 yrs,
R/at:No:20/2,
Near Classic Bakery,
Mattikere,
Yashavanthapura.
A4: Smt.Hamsa,
W/o Kuppaswamy,
Aged about 65 yrs,
R/at:No:20/2, 3rd Cross,
Near Classic Bakery,
Mattikere,
Yashavanthapura.
Bengaluru-54.
(By Sri. MVA Adv., Bengaluru)
---
3 C.C.No.19441/2012
JUDGEMENT U/Sec.355 of Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.19441/2012
Date of offence : 9/11/2009
Complainant : Smt.Ramadevi
Accused : As detailed above
Offence : U/Sec.323, 324 and 506
R/w Sec.34 of IPC
Charge : Accused claimed to be tried
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 2/11/2016
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
JUDGEMENT
The PSI of Madivala Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 324 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
4 C.C.No.19441/2012
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that on the CW1 was having financial transaction i.e. chit business with accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 9/11/2009 at about 7-30 a.m. in connection with financial transaction all the accused persons insisted for payment of amount as well as signature on stamp paper and on refusal by CW1 the accused Nos.1 and 2 by holding hair of CW1 dragged out from the house, assaulted by making use of a broken tiles piece resulting in bleeding injury. It is also the case of the prosecution the accused Nos.3 and 4 with an common intention joined with accused Nos.1 and 2 and assaulted by their hands and threatened with dire consequences. On the complaint of CW.1 by name Smt.Ramadevi the Madivala Police have registered a case in Crime No.1160/2009 and after completion of investigation filed the chargesheet.5 C.C.No.19441/2012
3. The accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged the services of a counsel. The charges framed by the learned Predecessor and the accused persons claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and relied upon the documents as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and Mos.1 and 2. The 313 of Cr.P.C., statement is recorded. No defence evidence adduced by the accused persons.
4. Heard, perused the entire case records.
5. The following points that arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 324 and 506 R/w 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:6 C.C.No.19441/2012
::REASONS::
7. Point No.1: In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined Smt.Ramadivi as PW2. By identifying the accused persons the witness as made an attempt to reiterate the contents of the complaint marked as per Ex.P2 and identified the signature as per Ex.P2(a) and also identified the tiles piece and blood stained sari as per Mo.Nos.1 and 2. It is the evidence in connection with chit business and jewels the accused persons have quarreled.
8. The PW2 was subjected to a lengthy cross examination and it has been elicited in detail with regard to the chit business. It has also been elicited with regard to the presence of her son and brother who have not witnessed the incident. It is the admission at the fag end her brother visited the place of incident. It has also been elicited with regard to the nature of treatment. The suggestions about the due on her part in connection with chit business have been denied. It is the admission she has not mentioned 7 C.C.No.19441/2012 about the chit transaction as well as purchase of site. All the other suggestions denying the case of the prosecution have been denied.
9. The prosecution has examined Sri.P.M.Prakash- Medical Officer as PW1. It is his evidence that on 9/11/2009 at about 2.00 p.m. examined Smt.Ramadevi and issued the Wound Certificate as per Ex.P1 and identified the signature as per Ex.P1(a). During the course of cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused persons it is the admission except the Wound Certificate he has not issued other supporting document. It is also the admission in the event of slip or fall on a hard surface there are possibilities of sustaining the injuries as mentioned at Ex.P1. The other suggestions denying the treatment and for having issued manipulated Wound Certificate as per Ex.P1 has been denied.
10. The prosecution has examined Sri.Papanna as PW3. By identifying the accused persons and the CW1 it is his 8 C.C.No.19441/2012 evidence that on 9/11/2009 at about 7-30 a.m. all the accused persons assaulted, abused and also threatened CW1 by name Smt.Ramadevi and that he has given a statement before the Police. It is his evidence about the identity of MO.Nos.1 and 2. The witness was not tendered for cross examination.
11. By referring to the available evidence it was the submission of the learned Sr.APP to convict the accused persons. As against the said submission it was the submission of the learned defence counsel the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. It was also the submission the PW3 has not tendered for cross examination and the prosecution has also failed to examine other witnesses, hence, prayed to acquit the accused persons.
12. On consideration of the materials available on record the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. It is necessary to mention no 9 C.C.No.19441/2012 supporting documentary evidence is available to accept the contention of CW1 particularly with regard to chit business and non payment of chit amount. In the absence of supporting documents it is not possible to accept the fact of chit business. The order sheet reveals the other charge sheeted witnesses remained absent from appearing before the Court and the PW3 has also not tendered for cross examination. The evidence of PW2 itself is not sufficient to accept the case of the prosecution particularly in the absence of supporting documentary evidence.
13. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 itself is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW3 does not survive for consideration. Inspite of repeated issuance of summons, bailable warrant and non bailable warrant the other witnesses remained absent from appearing before the Court, hence, the prayer of the learned Sr.APP to issue summons to other witnesses rejected. There is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all 10 C.C.No.19441/2012 reasonable doubt. Under the said circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the accused persons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
14. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused persons are hereby
ACQUITTED for the offences
U/Sec.323, 324 and 506 R/w Sec.34
of IPC.
The bail bond of accused persons
stand cancelled.
The accused persons are at liberty
to withdraw the cash security amount of Rs.2,000/- each after appeal period.11 C.C.No.19441/2012
The MO.Nos.1 and 2 being
worthless ordered to be destroyed
after appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 2/11/2016).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.P.N.Prakash PW2 : Smt.Ramadevi PW3 : Sri.Papanna
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Wound Certificate Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW2 12 C.C.No.19441/2012 3.Material objects marked : MO1: Tiles piece MO2: Sari 4. Defence Evidence: NIL --- III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. 13 C.C.No.19441/2012 14 C.C.No.19441/2012