Bangalore District Court
Gopalakrishna Hd vs Aslam Am Alias Aslam on 6 June, 2024
KABC030462662022
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.CMM BENGALURU
C.C.No.17765/2022
Dated this the 06th Day of June, 2024
Before : Sri. MANJUNATH D. R.,
B.sc, LL.B.,
VI Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
Complainant : The State, P.I. S.J. Park
Police Station.
(By Learned A.P.P)
-Versus-
1. Aslam A.M. @ Aslam,
S/o Siriyan Catel Mohammed Kunni,
Aged about 46 Years,
R/at. No.10, 1st Floor, 5th Cross,
Someshwaranagar, Jayanagar, 1st
Block, Bengaluru city.
(Sri.V.A. Advocate for Accused )
Date of taking cognizance : 06.06.2022
Offences Registered
against accused : U/s.279, 337, 353 of I.P.C.
Date of commencing
evidence : 07.11.2023
2 C.C.No.17765/2022
Date of Judgment
pronounced : 06.06.2024
Duration of 2 0 0
Judgment : Year/s Month/s Day's
(MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
**** *
JUDGMENT
1. The S.J. Park Police have charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections U/s. 279, 337, 353 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
On 24.01.2022 at about 01.35 p.m. on J.C. Road, near Ravindra Kala kshethra Gate while CW1 and 6 to 8 were on duty, the accused rode the Honda Activa two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-05-JV-1489 in a rash and negligent manner from Bharath Junction towards Town Hall signal and jumped the red signal and even he has refused to stop the vehicle when CW6 gave 3 C.C.No.17765/2022 him a hand signal. And further on the said date and place the accused by riding the two wheeler in rash and negligent manner pushed the CW6 police constable while he was trying to stop him by hand signal and thereby caused injury to the CW6 by rash and negligent act and by riding two wheeler in rash and negligent manner prevented the CW6 public servant from discharging his public duties. On the first information given by the CW1, FIR came to be registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the above said offences.
3. After taking cognizance, this court has complied Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by supplying charge sheet materials to the accused. The Charges read over and explained to the accused and he has not pleaded guilty of alleged offences and claimed to be tried.
4. The Prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to 12.
5. The Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has denied the 4 C.C.No.17765/2022 incriminating materials found against him and he has not led any defence evidence.
6. I heard learned APP and learned counsel appearing for the accused.
7. The points that arose for my consideration are:
:: P O I N T S ::
Point No.1 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that On 24.01.2022 at about 01.35 p.m. on J.C. Road, near Ravindra Kala kshethra Gate while CW1 and 6 to 8 were on duty, the accused rode the Honda Activa two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-05-
JV-1489 in a rash and negligent manner from Bharath Junction towards Town Hall signal and jumped the red signal and even he has refused to stop the vehicle when CW6 gave him a hand signal and there by committed offence punishable under section 279 of IPC?
Point No.2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place, the accused by riding the two wheeler in rash and negligent manner pushed the CW6 police constable while he was trying to stop him 5 C.C.No.17765/2022 by hand signal and thereby caused injury to the CW6 by rash and negligent act and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable under section 337 of IPC?
Point No.3 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place, the accused by riding two wheeler in rash and negligent manner prevented the CW6 public servant from discharging his public duties and thereby committed offence punishable under section 353 of IPC?
Point No.4 : What order?
8. After going through the records and hearing the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused. I answer the above points as under :
Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4 : As the facts involved in these points are common, in order to avoid repetition of facts, they are taken together for consideration.
6 C.C.No.17765/202210. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the complainant as P.W1, the injured as PW2, eye witnesses as PW3 and 4, head constable as PW5, the investigating officer as PW6, Doctor as PW7, Panchas to the spot panchanama as PW8 and
9. panchas to the recovery panchanama as P.W10 and owner of the alleged vehicle is examined as PW11 and got marked complaint at Ex.P1, spot panchanama at Ex.P2, FIR at Ex.P3, notice at Ex.P4, Bond at Ex.P5, notice at Ex.P6, seizure panchanama at Ex.P7, bond at Ex.P8, photo at Ex.P9, wound certificate at Ex.P10, statement of PW11 at Ex.P12, (Ex.P9 and 11 are the same photos)
11. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the complainant, injured and eye witnesses as PW1 to 4 and in their evidence they have deposed that on 24.01.2022 at about 01.30 p.m. on J.C. road infront of Ravindra Kala kshetra they were on traffic duty and at that time, the accused rode the Honda Activa bearing No.KA-05- JV-1489 from Bharath Junction to Shivaji Junction in a rash and negligent and jumped the red signal and contended that PW2 has given hand signal to 7 C.C.No.17765/2022 stop the offender vehicle but the accused pushed CW6 and went away from the spot and thereby PW2 got injured and thereby shifted to hospital and thereafter on the same day PW1 has given the complaint as per Ex.P1 and panchanama was conducted at the spot in the presence of witnesses.
12. The injured who is examined as PW2 also deposed that, the accused refused to stop the offending vehicle inspite of hand signal given by the PW2 and he pushed him and thereby he fell down and got injured and thereby taken treatment in Apollo hospital and PW1 to 4 have identified the accused. The counsel for accused argued that, the accused is not riding two wheeler and he is falsely implicated in the case and prays for acquittal of the accused.
13. Before appreciating the evidence of PW1 to 4, it is just and necessary to appreciate the evidence of Panchas and Investigating officer and the alleged owner of the offender vehicle. The prosecution has examined the investigating officer as PW6 and in his evidence he has deposed that he registered an FIR 8 C.C.No.17765/2022 on the basis of the compliant given by the CW1 and appointed CW11 and 12 for finding out the accused. He conducted the spot panchanama in presence of panchas.
14. The prosecution has examined panchas to the spot panchanama as PW8 and 9 but they have not at all supported the prosecution case and they deposed that they do not know the contents of the pachanama and PW8 and 9 are cross-examined by the learned APP, but nothing worthy was elicited in the course of cross examination in favour of the prosecution.
15. The prosecution has examined Head constable as PW5 and he deposed that, CW12 and himself found the accused in his house and brought him to the police station and produced him before CW13. Further the PW5 is cross-examined, he clearly deposed that, investigating officer has not provided any identification or photos of the accused. The evidence of PW4 discloses that on what basis and on what materials he has nabbed the accused is not found from his evidence. PW6 investigating 9 C.C.No.17765/2022 officer further deposed that, he recorded the voluntary statements of the witnesses and the accused were brought before him by CW11 and 12 and he obtained his voluntary statement and conducted the seizure panchanama in presence of CW4 and 5 witnesses and seized the offender vehicle two wheeler under the panchanama.
16. The seizure panchanama witness is examined as P.W10 and he has not at all supported the prosecution case and he has deposed that he does not know the contents of the panchanama and he was treated as hostile witness and he was cross- examined by the learned App by suggesting that seizure panchanama was conducted in his presence but the said suggestion is denied by the PW10. PW6 further deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted the further investigation to CW14. PW6 is cross-examined and in the cross- examination he has clearly stated that there was CCTV installed at the spot but he has not at all taken any footage of the CCTV and further deposed that, he has seized the offender vehicle on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused, but the 10 C.C.No.17765/2022 panchas to the seizure panchanama has not at all supported to the prosecution case and prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of the offender vehicle from the accused.
17. The PW6 contended that, the CW9 is the owner of the offender vehicle but the alleged owner is examined as PW11 and in her evidence she deposed that, the two wheeler was sold long ago by her husband and she does not know anything about the case and she is cross-examined by the learned App by suggesting that, the offender vehicle belongs to her and it was taken by the accused and later caused the accident and injuries to the PW2. But the said suggestion were denied by the PW11 and she has denied that, she has given statement as per Ex.P12 before the police.
18. The prosecution has examined Doctor as PW7 and he deposed that, PW2 was brought to Apollo hospital for further treatment and he was given treatment in the hospital and found the following injuries.
11 C.C.No.17765/20221. ತಲೆಯ ಮುಂಬಾಗದ ಎಡಭಾಗದ ಲೋಬ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತ ಹೆಪ್ಪುಗಟ್ಟಿತ್ತು. Bilateral basicfrontal region.
2. Bilateral Convexity subdural Hemorage.
3. Minimal Subarachnoid hemorage.
4. Occipetal bone fracture.
and he further deposed that he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P10. The evidence of doctor only discloses that, the Pw.2 received injuries and obtained treatment in the hospital but it does not disclose whether the said injuries were caused by the accused by riding the alleged offending vehicle.
19. I have carefully perused the entire evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution case is that, the alleged offender vehicle is belong to PW11 but she has clearly deposed that her husband long back sold the two wheeler and she does not know anything about the case and she has not at all supported the prosecution case. The prosecution in order to prove that, the alleged vehicle was taken by the accused from PW11 not placed any records before the court. The prosecution case is that on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused, offender vehicle 12 C.C.No.17765/2022 was seized under Ex.P7 panchanama in presence of panchas but seizure panchanama witness examined as PW10 not at all supported the prosecution case and alleged seizure of offender vehicle is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is relevant to mention that any voluntary statement given before the police is not an admissible evidence unless recovery is proved but in this instant case the recovery of alleged offender vehicle on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused is not all proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not placed any material before the court to show that, the alleged vehicle is belonged to CW9 and prosecution has not examined the real owner of the vehicle before the court and further the investigating officer has admitted that there are CCTV installed at the spot but no footage taken for proving the case. PW1 to 4 oral evidence not at all corroborated by the material witnesses examined as PW7, 8 and 11. The evidence of PW1 to 4 is contrary to the evidence of investigating officer PW6 and prosecution has failed to corroborate the evidence of PW1 to 4 by producing the cogent evidence with regard to the alleged involvement of the accused 13 C.C.No.17765/2022 riding the offending vehicle. The prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused has taken the offending vehicle from CW9. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged recovery of the offending vehicle under the seizure panchanama at Ex.P7. Therefore the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
20. It is relevant to mention that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Jaganath Markand v/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (1) SCC 537 has clearly held that;
"the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and further held that, the degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability."14 C.C.No.17765/2022
I have carefully perused the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also the materials on record, the evidence produced by prosecution has failed to carry a high degree of probability with regard to the alleged offences committed by the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is entitled to be Acquitted. Hence, with the above observations, I hold point No.1 to 3 in the NEGATIVE.
21. Point No.4: For the reasons stated and discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following ;
ORDER The accused is ACQUITTED U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337, 353 of I.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by accused shall be continued for a period of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of June, 2024).
(MANJUNATH D.R.) VI Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
15 C.C.No.17765/2022ANNEXURE
1. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
1. P.W.1. : Gopala Krishna
2. P.W.2. : Madhusudhan T. N.
3. P.W.3. : G. R. Lavesh Kumar
4. P.W.4. : Ravindra Kumar B.S.
5. P.W.5. : Sagar S.
6. P.W.6. : Sridhar Gugri
7. P.W.7. : Dr. Jagan Mohan Reddy
8. P.W.8. : Manju R.
9. P.W.9. : Govindaraju
10. P.W.10. : Suresh
11. P.W.11. : Ajeera
2. The List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
1. Ex.P1. : Complaint
2. Ex.P2. : Spot panchanama
3. Ex.P3 : FIR
4. Ex.P4 : Notice
5. Ex.P5 : Bond
6. Ex.P6 : Notice
7. Ex.P7 : Seizure panchanama
8. Ex.P8 : Bond
9. Ex.P9&11: Photos
10. Ex.P10 : Wound certificate
11. Ex.P12 : Statement of PW11
3. The witnesses examined on behalf of accused :-
-NIL-16 C.C.No.17765/2022
4. The List of documents marked on behalf of accused:-
-NIL-
5. The list of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution.
-NIL-
Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH DR
DR Date: 2024.06.11
17:25:54 +0530
(MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.