Bangalore District Court
State By vs Madan S/O.Ramesh on 25 October, 2021
CC.No.55315/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 25th day of October 2021
PRESENT: Smt.ARATI B.KAMATE
B.A., LL.B.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No. 55315/2016
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
Halasuru Police Station
/vs/
Accused 1. Madan S/o.Ramesh, 26 yrs. No.247,
Neela Kanta Mudaliar Road, Halasur,
Bengaluru.
2. Ashwini D/o.Chandrashekar, 31 yrs.
No.17, I Cross Gauthampura, Halasur,
Bengaluru.
3. Madhavi W/o.Sampath, 33 yrs. No.289,
8th Main, M.V.Garden, Halasur,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The PSI of Halasuru police station has filed this chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/S. 504, 354, 323 R/w 34 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 26/2/2016 at about 1.00 PM when CW.2 was going by walk near Murphy Town market, Halasur, Bengaluru A.2 and A.3 were coming from her opposite direction and her hands touched A.2 CC.No.55315/2016 and A.3 accidentally. When CW.2 asked apology A.2 and A.3 picked up quarrel with CW.2 and abused her in filthy language. A.1 being the relative of A.2 and A.3 came there on two wheeler and picked up quarrel with CW.2 and assaulted her by hands. The accused tried to outrage her modesty by using criminal force and dragging her hair in public place. Hence, it is alleged that accused have committed the alleged offences.
3. On the basis of the FIS lodged by the informant, case was registered against the accused in Halasur P.S., Cr.No.60/2016 and FIR was submitted to the Vourt. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused persons. Accused persons appeared before the court through their counsel and they are on bail. Copy of charge sheet was furnished to accused persons u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused persons for the alleged offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3, got marked 2 documents as Exs.P1 to 2. The statement of the accused was recorded u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating materials available against them. They did not lead evidence.
CC.No.55315/2016
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused persons and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 26/2/2016 at about 1.00 PM near Murphy Town market, Halasur, Bengaluru, in furtherance of common intention A.2 and A.3 picked up quarrel with CW.2 and abused her in filthy language. And thereby accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 504 R/w 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the same date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention accused No.2 and 3 assaulted CW-2 by hands. And thereby accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 323 R/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the same date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention accused tried to outrage her modesty by using criminal force and dragging her hair in public place. And thereby accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 354 R/w 34 IPC?
4. What order?
8. The above points are answered in the following manner;
Point No.1 to 3 - Negative, Point No.4 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 to 3: It is the case of prosecution that the accused abused CW-2 in filthy language and assaulted her by hands. Accused tried to outrage her modesty by using criminal force and dragging her hair in CC.No.55315/2016 public place. The criminal law was set into motion by CW-1 by lodging FIS as per Ex.P1. She was examined by the prosecution as PW1. During her evidence she has stated that on 26.2.2016 when her daughter CW.2 had been to town market of Murphy town, accused No.2 and 3 picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her by hands. Accused No.1 came to the spot and pulled her dress and torn her dress and slapped over her neck and outraged her modesty by dragging her in the public place and also abused her in filthy language. She has further stated that on previous occasions also the accused persons had troubled her daughter. In that regard she lodged FIS as per Ex.P1. She has also deposed regarding drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P2.
10. PW.2 in her evidence deposed that on 26.2.2016 when she went to town market of Murphy town, accidentally her hands touched to accused and for that she apologized them and all of a sudden accused No.2 and 3 picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her by hands. Accused No.1 came to the spot and pulled her dress and torn her dress and slapped over her neck and outraged her modesty by dragging her on the public place and also abused her in filthy language. She further stated that on previous occasion also the accused persons had troubled her.
CC.No.55315/2016
11. PW.3 is the mahazar witness. He has deposed that on 26.2.2016 the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the spot and took his signature in the spot.
12. As per the case of prosecution the accused assaulted CW2, tried to outrage her modesty and also abused her in fitlhy language. In FIS it is stated that accused No.2 and 3 were abusing CW1's daughter and when her daughter walked away afte asking about the same, the accused No.1 came there. He assaulted her daughter, harassed and torn her garments. It is further stated that she intervened and asked about their misbehaviour and warned them. In the evidence it is stated that PW2 alone had gone to the market. As per the case of prosecution PW1 came to know about the incident after her daughter intimted regarding the same. It is stated that the dress was torn by the accused. During cross examination PW1 has stated that she had gone to police station to give torned clothes. But there is no mention regarding the same in the chargesheet. If she had produced the same before the police, the same could have been seized and produced in this case.
13. It is alleged that the alleged incident took place when CW-2 had been to the market. If the incident had happened in the market the public might have witnessed the same. But none of them have been enquired or examined in this case. The mahazar witness is also the brother of PW1. No independent witnesses secured for mahazar also. Merely because all the witnesses are relatives CC.No.55315/2016 their evidence cannot be discarded. But there is inconsistency in the evidence.
14. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. After considering the materials on record, if two views are possible in such circumstance, the one which is favourable to the accused be considered. If any doubt arises, the benefit of the same should go to the accused persons. The facts and circumstances revealing from the evidence by itself are sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. By considering the facts and circumstances, the prosecution is not able to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
15. POINT NO.4: For the afore said reasons, the following order is passed;
ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/S. 504, 354, 323 R/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused persons and surety stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of October 2021).
(ARATI B.KAMATE) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
CC.No.55315/2016
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 Jayashree Nil
PW.2 Preethi
PW.3 Naresh Kumar
Exhibits Marked
Ex.P1 FIS.
Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2 Mahazar
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2(b)Signature of PW.3.
Material Objects got marked
NIL
(ARATI B. KAMATE)
X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.