Bangalore District Court
State By City Upparpet Police Station vs Nos.1 And 2 By Opening Non-Governmental on 21 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 21st day of April 2016
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.CC No 38874/2010
2.Date of Offence 06-01-2010
3.Complainant State by City Upparpet Police Station
4.Accused 1) Vivekananda S. Kudtarkar,
S/o Shivananda Kudtarkar,
Aged: 43 years,
R/at No.604, 14th cross,
Isro Layout, Kumarswamy Layout,
Bangalore - 78.
2) Satish S. Kudtarkar,
S/o Shivananda Kudtarkar,
Aged: 48 years,
R/at No.604, 14th cross,
Isro Layout, Kumarswamy Layout,
Bangalore - 78.
3) Chandru,
S/o Chamaiah,
Aged: 49 years,
R/at No.128, 2nd cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Hesarghatta Road,
T. Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 50.
4) Rafiq,
S/o Maliq Sab Aktar,
Aged: 24 years,
2 C.C.No.38874-10
R/at Mudol Taluk,
Bagalkot District.
5) Manjunath,
S/o Venkataramanaiah,
Aged: 35 years,
R/at No.43, Avalahalli,
Vinobha Colony,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore.
6) Gopal Singh,
S/o Late B. Ramsing,
Aged: 44 years,
R/at No.78, Chamarajpet,
Karekallu, Near Anjaneya Temple,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore.
7) H. Siddaramaiah,
S/o Hanumanthaiah,
Aged: 31 years,
R/at No.523, Avalahalli,
Vinobha Colony,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore.
8) Shivakumar K.S.,
S/o Shivanegowda,
Aged: 30 years,
R/at No.590/A, 15th main,
Manjunath Nagar,
West of Chord Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore.
9) Anjaneya Shetty,
S/o Lakshminarayana Shetty,
Aged: 55 years,
R/at No.11, Revenue Building,
Subedarpalya,
Kali Temple Street,
3 C.C.No.38874-10
Yeshvanthpura,
Bangalore.
10) Peeter,
S/o Augstin,
Aged: 33 years,
R/at No.122, Rayapura main
road, J.J. Nagar, Bangalore
5. Offences complained U/s.143, 17, 324, 354, 420, 504 and
of 506 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 10 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 10 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 21-04-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos.1
to 10 for the offences punishable U/s.143, 171, 323, 324,
354, 420, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of prosecution case are that on
06-01-2010 at 12-00 p.m., in Karnataka State Human
Rights Parishath Pvt., office located in Brigade Plaza, Anand
Rao circle, Bangalore City, within the limits of Upparpet
Police station, C.W.1 Smt. Veena, C.W.3 Smt Vedavathi,
C.W.4 Smt. Umadevi, C.W.5 Smt. Prema Ramamurthy,
C.W.6 Smt. Anitha Krishnamurthy, C.W.7 Smt. Sangeetha,
C.W.8 Smt. Theresa Marry and C.W.9 Smt. Lalithamma
visited the said office to talk in respect of injustice caused to
4 C.C.No.38874-10
C.W.2 Kumari Priyanka. At that time, the accused Nos.1 to
10 who were in the said office picked up quarrel with
C.Ws.1 to 9, intentionally insulted them in filthy words and
thereby gave provocation to them to break public peace,
further accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt to
C.W.1 to 9 with hands, further accused No.1 voluntarily
caused simple hurt to C.W.1 with chair, accused No.3
outraged modesty of C.W.6 Anitha Krishnamurthy by
picking pen camera from her blouse, further accused Nos.1
to 3 threatened C.Ws.1 to 9 with dire consequences of life if
they intervenes in respect of the matter of C.W.2, further
accused Nos.1 and 2 by opening Non-governmental
organization in the name of Karnataka State Human Rights
Council, having assured to provide justice to the victims,
made general public to become member of the said council
and illegally collected Rs.1,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- respectively as membership fee, having
collected the same not provided any documents to the said
public and thereby mis-utilized said amount, further the
accused No.1 projected himself as the government officer,
got fixed national flag to his car and red light on the top of
his car illegally, prepared the number plate as if the said
vehicle number is government vehicle number and further
he kept national flag on his table and also the photos of
reputed persons and thereby cheated general public as well
as government and committed aforesaid offences.
5 C.C.No.38874-10
3. The accused Nos.1 to 10 are on bail. On receipt
of charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offences
and furnished the copies of prosecution papers to the
accused persons as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. After
hearing both counsels on charge, this court has framed the
charge for the offences punishable U/s.143, 171, 323, 324,
354, 420, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC, and questioned. The
accused Nos.1 to 10 denied the charge and claims to be
tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove guilt against
accused Nos.1 to 10 has examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1
to 6 and got marked eight documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.8.
5. Since the prosecution has not adduced any
incriminating evidence against accused Nos.1 to 10, their
statement as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.
6. I have heard both counsels and perused entire
file.
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt
against accused Nos.1 to 10 has examined six witnesses.
P.W.1 Smt. Veena is the complainant and victim to the
alleged incident. P.W.2 Smt. Priyanka is the victim and
injured witness. P.W.3 Smt. Umadevi, P.W.4 Smt. Theresa
Marry, P.W.5 Smt. Prema Ramamurthy and P.W.6 Smt.
B.G. Lalithamma are the eyewitnesses and victims to the
alleged incident. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities,
6 C.C.No.38874-10
the prosecution has not examined C.W.3 Smt. Vedavathi,
C.W.6 Smt. Anitha Krishna Murthy and C.W.7 Smt.
Sangeetha the victims and eyewitnesses to the alleged
incident and C.Ws.10 to 39 the police officers who assisted
the investigation officers in conducting the investigation and
also the investigation officer.
8. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt
against accused Nos.1 to 10 has examined six witnesses.
P.W.1 Smt. Veena the complainant and victim and P.Ws.2 to
6 other victims and eyewitnesses to the alleged incident
have totally turned hostile. The Learned Sr.APP treated
these witnesses as hostile and further cross-examined
them, but nothing worth is elicited from them.
9. In the cross-examination P.Ws.1 to 6 have
admitted that they and accused persons have compromised
the matter outside the court. Since P.Ws.1 to 6 and accused
persons have compromised the matter outside the court i.e.,
reason why they have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
10. As stated above, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. Even though the prosecution to prove
guilt against accused persons has examined six witnesses
they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the evidence available on record, this court is
7 C.C.No.38874-10
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove guilt against accused Nos.1 to10 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 10 are
entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences U/s.143, 171, 504, 323, 324, 354, 506 and 420 R/w. Sec.149 of IPC.
Hence, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 10 have been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
The interim order dt.24-02-2010 pertaining to release of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-041/P-1301 seized under P.F.No.12/10 i.e. item No.2 is made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
8 C.C.No.38874-10ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Veena P.W.2: Priyanka P.W.3: Umadevi P.W.4: Theresa Marry P.W.5: Prema Ramamurthy P.W.6: B.G. Lalithamma
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
[ Ex.P.1: Complaint EX.P.1(a): Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a): Signature of P.W.1 EX.P.2(b): Signature of P.W.5 EX.P.3: Further statement of P.W.1 EX.P.4: Statement of Priyanka P.W.2 EX.P.5: Statement of Umadevi P.W.3 EX.P.6: Statement of Theresa Marry P.W.4 EX.P.7: Statement of Prema Ramamurthy P.W.5 EX.P.8: Statement of B.G. Lalithamma P.W.6 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.9 C.C.No.38874-10
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under section 63, 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Sec. 420 of IPC, and section 29, 77, 78, 79, 81(2) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.
Consequently, acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
M.Os.1 to 3 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.