Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manjunath S @ Koli Manja on 9 January, 2023
KABC010251282016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 9 th d ay of JANUARY, 2023
: Present :
Sri A. EARANNA, M.Com, LL.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 1274/2016
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Vyalikaval Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused 1. Manjunath S @ Koli Manja
Robbery Manja,
S/o Sathyappa,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.E-37, 2nd Cross,
2nd Main Road, Janatha Colony,
Mysuru Road, Hale Guddadahalli,
Bengaluru.
2. Raja @ Sagayi Raju,
S/o Late Fransis,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.104, 2nd Cross,
Bhumatha Seva Sangha,
Hale Guddadahalli,
Near 54th Bus Stop,
Mysuru Road, Bengaluru.
2
SC No.1274/2016
3. Shiva @ Ajith,
S/o Late Mallesh,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.10, 'C' Line,
Swathantra Palya,
Srirampura, Bengaluru.
[A1 - by M.C. Venkatarangaiah,
A2 and A3 H.K.Chandrappa, advocate]
Date of commission of offence 01.04.2016
Date of report of offence 01.04.2016
Date of arrest of the Accused Accused No.1 arrested on
06.04.2016
Accused No. 2 arrested on
13.05.2016
Accused No.3 arrested on
07.05.2016
Date of release of the accused Accused No.1 released on
on bail 12.07.2016
Accused No.2 released on
11.07.2016
Accused No.3 released on
7.2.2019
Name of the complainant Sri. Revana Sidhappa
Date of commencement of trial 15.11.2018
Date of closing of 31.03.2022
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 09.01.2023
Offences complained of U/s 333, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are
acquitted and accused No.3 is
convicted
3
SC No.1274/2016
JU DG M E NT
The I.O of Vyalikaval Police submitted a charge sheet
against the accused persons of the offences punishable
U/s 333 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC before the learned VIII
Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, who committed the case for
disposal in accordance with law.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as
under;
On 31-03-2016 night at about 12.15 a.m. when CW.1
Shri. Revana Siddappa and CW.2 Nagaraja i.e., Police
Constables of Vyalikaval Police Station were discharging
night beat duties near pipeline road, Ganga Tiffin Center,
one Auto rickshaw came on said road and on noticing CW1
and 2 driver of said Auto rickshaw tried to escape by
droving Auto rickshaw in a high speed and hence on
suspicion CW1 and 2 chased and intercepted the said
Autorikshaw driven by accused No.1 near Muneshwari
Block, 4th Cross. Since the accused No. 1 to 3 who were
in the said auto rikshaw failed to provide proper
information about them and said Auto rickshaw, CW.2 sat
in the Auto rickshaw and asked the accused No.1 to take
the Autorickshaw to the Police Station and at that time the
4
SC No.1274/2016
accused No.2 and 3 were on the back seat of the said
Autorickshaw and when the Auto rickshaw reached near
Charminar hotel next to Vinayaka hotel, Palace Guttahalli,
the Accused no.3 with the dragger assaulted on CW.2 and
the accused no.2 threatened to assault CW.2 with long and
accused no.3 pushed CW.2 out of said Auto rickshaw and
they sped away in their Auto rickshaw. Hence the
complaint. On the complaint of the complainant, the
Vyalikaval police have registered a case and after
completion of investigation, the I.O. of Vyalikaval Police
Station have submitted a charge sheet against the accused
persons for the above said offence.
3. The accused No.1 to 3 faced the trial through
their counsel and thereafter, charge for the offences
punishable U/s 333 and 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. has been
framed against the accused, wherein he pleaded not guilty
and claim to be tried.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has
examined PWs-1 to 19 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P26
and M.O.1 to M.O.4 and closed it side. Thereupon, the
accused has been examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. by stating
5
SC No.1274/2016
the incriminating evidence appearing against them,
wherein they have denied the same and they did not
choose to lead any evidence on their behalf and thereby,
the defence evidence is taken as nil. On the other hand
learned public prosecutor given up the evidence of CW.6,
CW.16 and CW.20.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points for my consideration are;
1.The prosecution prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that on 01.04.2016 in between 12.15 a.m., to 12.30 a.m., in front of Charminar Hotel, Vinayaka Circle, Palace Guttahalli, Bengaluru, you accused Nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to CW.2 i.e., Nagaraja - H.C.4137 of Vayyalikaval Police Station who was on Police beat duty for deterring him from discharging of his duty as a public servant by assaulting him with dragger and long and thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of IPC within cognizance of this Court?
2. The prosecution prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused Nos.1 to 3 in 6 SC No.1274/2016 furtherance of your common intention, with deadly weapons of dragger and long assaulted on the right hand elbow and right thigh of CW.2, with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act if accused Nos.1 to 3 caused death of CW.2, they would have been guilty of murder of CW.2 and thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC within cognizance of this Court?
3. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Negative against Accused Nos.1 and 2, Affirmative against accused No.3.
Point No.2 : In the Negative against
Accused Nos.1 and 2,
Affirmative against
accused No.3.
Point No.3 : As per final order, for
the following:
R E A SON S
8. Points No. 1 & 2 :- To avoid the repetition of facts and evidence and documents, the point nos. 1 and 2 are taken together.7
SC No.1274/2016
9. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that on 31.03.2016 P.W.1 and PW5 deputed to beat duty. As per the beat duty P.W.1 and PW5 were patrolling in a motorcycle that they came near pipe line road. At that time one auto bearing No. KA-05-ED-7521 came from Dattatreya temple towards pipeline road. Accused No.1 was driving the auto in high speed. After suspecting on the said auto, they chased the auto. At few distance said auto was stopped and PW5 seated in the said auto and asked the accused to proceed towards Police station. At that time PW1 was proceeding behind the auto in motorcycle. Auto came at some distance accused No.3 assaulted with dragger on P.W.5. P.W.5 try to escape from the assault and he sustained injuries on right hand and accused No.2 assaulted on the right thigh. Due to it P.W.5 sustained grievous injuries. At some distance went in high speed, then accused Nos. 2 and 3 pushed the P.W.5 from the auto.
Due to it P.W.5 fell down. Then auto went in high speed. PW1 came and C.W.15 and C.W.16 came to the said place. PW5 shifted to the hospital. On that day accused No.1 was driving the auto, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were seated in the auto. Then the accused persons have committed the 8 SC No.1274/2016 offence. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.19. All witnesses were supported the prosecution case. Therefore prosecution prays to convict the accused persons for the alleged offence.
10. Counsel for the accused filed written argument stating that the accused persons have not came in the said auto and P.W.5 was not in the said auto. Accused persons have not assaulted on the P.W.5. Police have filed the false charge sheet against the accused persons as the police have demanded the amount from the accused persons, the accused persons denied to give the amount, then they have lodged the false case against the accused persons. Therefore they prays to acquit the accused for the alleged offence.
11. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 and 5 that they have not at all stated in the examination in chief nor in the cross examination the accused Nos. 1 and 2 instigated the accused No.3 to assault on PW5. The accused No.1 is driving the auto, accused No.2 is seated back side of the auto and seated by the side of accused No.3. The accused No.3 seated beside the P.W.5. On perusal of the evidence of independent witness nor 9 SC No.1274/2016 evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 that they have not at all stated in their presence M.O.4 is seized. On the other hand P.W.1 and P.W.5 have not at all stated in their evidence the accused No.2 is having M.O.4 in his hand. So also the M.O.4 seizer mahazar witness have not at all stated in their presence M.O.4 seized by the police. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the alleged offence. Further accused No.2 is having M.O.4 in his hand and try to assault with M.O.4. Therefore from the said evidence prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused No.1 and 2.
12. P.W.1 - Revana Sidhappa, who is the P.C. working in the said station at the time of incident. He deposed from 01.02.2012 he was working in the Vyalikaval Police station as P.C. On 31.03.2016 at about 8.30 p.m. to 8.30 a.m. he along with C.W.2 deputed first and 6 th beat then he along with C.W.2 while petrolling on the motorcycle, at about 12.15 p.m while proceeding on the pipe line road nearby Dhattatreya temple, one auto came from pipeline towards Dhattatreya temple, in the said auto accused No.1 was driving the auto in high speed. After suspecting, they chased the said auto. To the said auto there was a sticker 10 SC No.1274/2016 pasted on the number plate. Due to suspecting the same chased the said auto, at some distance stopped the auto. On enquiry driver of the auto stated his name as Manjunath and other two persons who seated back side of the auto that they have not said name and address properly, then directed to take the auto towards Police station. Then C.W.2 was seated in the said auto. He was followed the said auto. Nearby Vinayaka circle at about 12.30 a.m. that the accused No.2 and 3 assaulted on the C.W.2 with dragger on the right hand and right thigh and pushed C.W.2, he fell down from the auto. Then auto went in high speed. Then C.W.15 and 16 came to the said place. C.W.2 was taken to the hospital. Then auto went further and auto capsuled. Then the accused persons ran away from the said place. P.W.1 try to chase the accused persons, but they have not caught hold by the P.W.1, C.W.15 and C.W.16. Thereafter he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. P.W.1 is the material witness who accompanied with the C.W.2. As per his evidence that on 31.03.2016 he and CW2 were deputed for 1st and 6th beat. As per direction of higher authority P.W.1 and C.W.2 were patrolling in the said area, then at about 12.15 a.m. at near Dhattratreya 11 SC No.1274/2016 temple the above said auto came pasting the sticker on the number plate. On suspecting they chased the auto. At few distance auto was stopped and C.W.2 seated in the said auto and directed to take auto to the Police station. At some distance the accused persons have assaulted on C.W.2 and C.W.2 fell down from the auto. P.W.1 rushed to the said place. As per evidence of P.W.1 he is eye witness to the incident as accused Nos. 1 to 3 were in the said auto, C.W.2 seated in the said auto, C.W.2 was pushed from the said auto. Due to it C.W.2 fell down and he was taken to the hospital. He further deposed on 01.04.2016 C.W.22 conducted the spot mahazar. He deposed he has shown the spot. He further deposed he has identified the accused persons and dragger which was used for commission of offence. He deposed he came to know that on the same night accused No.1 was admitted to P.G. Halli Bilva hospital. Then he and C.W.16 went to the hospital and accused No.1 caught hold and produced before C.W.22. He further deposed he has given report in this regard. He further deposed on 01.04.2016 the said auto was seized in presence of witnesses. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He has stated in the cross 12 SC No.1274/2016 examination that on 31.03.2016 K.S. Halappa was the station officer. He deposed he has written the Ex.P.1 at 2.30 a.m. to 2.50 a.m. He further deposed there is no initial who typed the same. In the Ex.P.1 he has not mentioned the name of the persons who assaulted with the dragger. He further deposed at that time of lodging the complaint he do not know the name of the accused persons who assaulted on P.W.5. He further deposed in the Ex.P.2 he has not signed. As per the prosecution case he has shown the spot then C.W.22 conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Mere non signing by the P.W.1 on the Ex.P.2 is not fatal to the prosecution case. However he has shown the spot as per the information of the P.W.1 spot mahazar was conducted by the I.O. On the other hand independent spot mahazar witnesses supported the prosecution case. He denied he was not present at the time of incident in the said place. He denied they have not been deputed on the same day. He deposed he cannot say name of the persons who were deputed on 2 to 5 beat. Based on this sentence counsel for the accused prays to acquit the accused persons. On careful perusal of the prosecution case on 31.03.2016 the alleged incident was 13 SC No.1274/2016 taken place. P.W.1 entered into witnesses box in the year 2022 and deposed. Mere non saying 2 to 5 beat persons name has not stated by the said witnesses, based on this Court cannot come to conclusion that he was not present on the same day, he and C.W.2 were not chased the accused persons, P.W.5 was not in the said auto and he was not assaulted by the accused No.3 and he deposing falsely. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.1 the prosecution has proved its case.
13. P.W.2 - Mohammad Kuthbuddin, who is spot mahazar witness. He deposed that on 01.06.2016 the Vyalikaval police have given notice for conducting spot mahazar. At about 6.30am he along with another pancha and P.W.1 went at P.G. Halli main road nearby Charminar hotel where one auto rickshaw capsulized. P.W.1 shown the incident spot, then police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2. He deposed he signed in Ex.P.2 as per Ex.P.2(a). he was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed he do not know read the Kannada language. He was working as mechanic in the garage from 10.00 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. in the said garage. Said garage is situated ½ k.m. from the said place. He further deposed 14 SC No.1274/2016 said place is populated area. He deposed he cannot say phone number of the police who called to him. He deposed in his presence police have conducted the mahazar. He deposed he cannot say boundaries of the said place. He denied he signed on the Ex.P.2 at station Police have obtained the signature. P.W.2 is independent witness who accompanied the police to the said place. As per evidence of P.W.2 P.W.1 shown the said place and in the said place the police have conducted the mahazar. Even he was working in the Vyalikaval road but he is not interested person nor he is having any enmity against the accused persons. He has stated in the evidence before conducting the mahazar police have given notice and he went to the said place, in his presence the police have conducted the mahazar. Admittedly he do know the boundaries of the said place. Mere non saying of the boundaries the entire evidence cannot be thrown out. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.2 the prosecution has proved its case.
14. P.W.3 - Harish deposed on 01.04.2016 at about 6.00 am when he was proceeding at Vinayaka Circle, Vyalikaval police have called and conducted the panchanama where they have assaulted one police. He 15 SC No.1274/2016 deposed police have conducted the mahazar and taken signature on Ex.P.2. On perusal of the cross examination of P.W.3 he deposed the police have conducted the mahazar. He deposed in the cross examination he cannot say name of the police who wrote the Ex.P.2. He further deposed he cannot say contents of Ex.P.2. He further deposed he cannot say at what time Ex.P.2 was conducted. He denied he put his signature on the Ex.P.2 in the Police station. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 he has stated that in his presence police have conducted the Ex.P.3. Mere he may not know name of the police who wrote the Ex.P.2, as already stated about on 01.04.2016 he went to the said place and in his presence, police have conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.2. On the other hand he deposed before the Court in the year 2019. Normally he may not know who wrote the Ex.P.2. Mere not saying the name of the police who wrote the Ex.P.2 the entire evidence cannot be thrown out. On the other hand his evidence to be taken into consideration regarding in his presence I.O. has conducted the mahazar. As per evidence of P.W.3 in his presence police have conducted the mahazar. He further deposed at that time P.W.1 shown the spot. Therefore from 16 SC No.1274/2016 the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 prosecution has proved that in their presence the police have conducted the Ex.P.2 mahazar.
15. P.W.4 - Raja, who is the seizer uniform of P.W.5. He deposed on 01.04.2016 at about 10.30 a.m. Vyalikaval police called him to the Police Station and he went to the said station where the police have seized the blood stained police uniform in his presence and conducted the seizer mahazar as per Ex.P.5. The Uniform i.e., shirt marked as M.O.1 and blood stained pant marked as M.O.2. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed he do not know read and write the Kannada Language. Ex.P.5 was written on 01.04.2016. He further deposed he cannot say name of the person who wrote Ex.P.5. M.O.s like M.O.1 and 2 colour dresses may also worn by the rickshaw drivers. He denied in his presence the police have not seized M.O.1 and 2. he denied he has deposing falsely to help the police. On careful perusal of entire evidence of PW4 in his presence police have conducted the seizer mahazar of M.O.1 and 2. Except that he do not know read and write Kannada language, apart from this there is no evidence brought from this witness that he was not present 17 SC No.1274/2016 at the time of seizer of M.O.2 and 3 and he is independent witness and he has not taken to the said Police station and he was not as stock witness, due to it he has supported the prosecution case. P.W.4 is independent witness who supported the prosecution case. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.4 the prosecution has proved its case.
16. P.W.5 - Nagaraj, who is eye witness and injured. He deposed on 31.03.2016 he and P.W.1 Revan Sidhappa were deputed for 1st and 6th beat. As per the order of C.W.22 he and P.W.1 were petrolling and at 12.00 a.m. they came near Muneshwar Block on pipe line road from Dattatreya temple to pipeline road one auto bearing No. KA-05-AD-7125 with sticker on the number plate. Suspecting the same they chased the said auto and stopped said auto and asked the driver of the auto to take the auto towards Police station. At that time P.W.5 was seated in the back side, the accused No.3 who seated by the side of the P.W.5 try to stab on the right stomach then he try to escape and brought his right hand, due to it dragger hit on the right hand. Thereafter accused assaulted on the right thigh with dragger. Due to it he sustained bleeding injuries. Then they pushed the PW5 from the 18 SC No.1274/2016 auto, he fell down, then auto went forward. P.W.1 chased the said auto. Then C.W.15 and C.W.16 came to the said place and he was taken to the Fortis hospital and he was taken treatment as in patient. On 05.04.2016 he identified the accused persons. On the said date he has given statement before I.O. He further deposed he identified M.O.1 dragger and M.O.2 shirt and 3 pant. He is the material witness in this case.
17. As per the evidence of PW.5 he and P.W.1 was deputed to first and sixth beat. As per the direction of the higher authorities he and P.W.1 went on motorcycle, when they came near Muneshwar Block pipeline road then the above said auto came in a high speed pasting the sticker on the number plate. Suspecting the same they chased the auto and stopped the auto. P.W.5 sat inside the auto and directed to take the auto to the police station. At about 12.15 a.m. the accused No.3 assaulted the P.W.5 and accused No.3 pushed the P.W.5 from the auto. Counsel for the accused argued that no independent witness were examined and at 12.15 a.m. it was dark then they cannot say the accused persons came in the said road and assaulted on the P.W.5. P.W.5 deposed in the cross 19 SC No.1274/2016 examination the nearby Vinayak Circle there is Rock bar, nearby the Rock bar Udupi hotel is situated. He further deposed at 12.00 a.m. the said Rock bar is opened and on the said road always persons are moving here and there. In order to prove its case the prosecution has not examined independent witness. They further contended police have not produced the CCTV footage. Nearby the said place there are ATMs situated. In the said ATMs there will be security guard. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case by producing the independent witness. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 he has stated the alleged incident was taken place 12.15 a.m. Normally at 12.00 a.m. midnight lesser vehicles were moving here and there and least of the people were moving here and there. When the auto was proceeding on the said road no one can suspect in the said auto the accused persons are proceeding along with P.W.5 was proceeding. When the accused No.3 assaulted with dragger on P.W.5 then no one can see what would happened in the said auto except accused Nos. 1 and 2. Counsel for the accused argued that after assault made by the accused No.3 P.W.5 was not shouted therefore the accused has not assaulted on the 20 SC No.1274/2016 P.W.5. As per the prosecution that all of sudden accused No.3 assaulted with the M.O.1 and went few distance pushed the P.W.5 from the auto. Then there is no chances making hue and cry by the P.W.5. After he fell down auto went in high speed, immediately P.W.1, C.W.15 and C.W.16 came to the said place, P.W.5 was taken to the hospital. PW5 is discharging his duty then without any provocation and without exchange of words and without instigation the accused No.3 all of sudden assaulted on P.W.5 in the cities. Even they are not deputed for the said place there is no bar to the police to maintain peace and law and order. Under such circumstances any illegal act committed by any person then the police cannot squat and silent spectator of the said act. The police may to do his duty to maintain the peace and to control the harm by any person to the society. In the present case P.W.1 and P.W.5 while they are discharge their duty then the said auto came by pasting sticker on the number plate, then they have suspected and try to stop the auto went in high speed and chased the auto at some distance and stopped the auto and asked them to take the auto to the police station. Herein this case 21 SC No.1274/2016 P.W.1 and P.W.5 were discharging their duties then the accused No.3 assaulted on PW5.
18. Counsel for the accused argued that assuming that the accused may pushed the P.W.5 why he has not caught hold the colar of the accused. P.W.5 deposed accused No.3 all of sudden pushed him from the auto then he cannot caught hold the colar of the accused No.3. The accused has taken contention that M.O.1 is not dragger M.O.1 is small knife. Therefore on this count they prays to acquit the accused. Suggestion put by the accused itself reveals that accused is having M.O.1. The counsel for the accused argued that nearby the said place there are commercial shops are situated and number of pushcarts where stopped nearby the Vinayaka circle. Inspite of it the independent witness has not examined by the prosecution. On this count they prays to acquit the accused. As per the police manual nor as per the police circular normally all the commercial shops may close within 12.00 a.m., so also pushcarts may not stay more than 11.00 p.m. Such being the case by securing the independent witnesses does not arises. As already stated above in the auto the alleged act was taken and auto was proceeding on the said road, such 22 SC No.1274/2016 being the case securing the independent witnesses does not arises.
19. From the evidence of P.W.1 the accused has not brought due to previous enmity P.W.1 has lodged the false complaint and P.W.5 deposing falsely to support the Ex.P.1. On perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 the accused have not brought there is previous enmity nor there was already case registered in their station due to it they have filed the false complaint against the accused persons. P.W.5 does not know the accused persons before this case and there is no reason to lodge the false complaint and depose falsely does not arises. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 the prosecution has proved that on the said date the accused persons have came in the said road along with their auto. After the assault the P.W.5 was taken to Forties hospital. On the other hand P.W.16 deposed that on 01.04.2016 at about 1.35 a.m. the P.W.5 brought with history of assault and he was examined on the same day. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.5 prosecution has proved its case.
20. P.W.-6 - Muragesh is the long seizure mahazar witness deposed C.W.-12 is his younger brother. About 2 23 SC No.1274/2016 years back he went to Vyalikaval Police Station where the police have obtained the signature. He deposed he do not know what was written in the said document. He has identified his signature. The prosecution has got marked the seizure mahazar as Ex.P.6. He identified his signature as Ex.P.6(a). He deposed in his presence police have not seized material objects. He deposed he has not seen the accused No.2. Accused No.2 along with police he went to the said place and seized the M.O.4 long. P.W.6 is the independent long M.O.4 seizure mahazar witness has not supported the prosecution case.
21. Thereafter, the prosecution cross-examined this witness. He denied on 13.05.2016 at about 9.30 a.m himself and C.W.12 called by the Vayyalikaval Police. They along with accused No.2 Sagay Raj @ Raj went to the Vyalikaval, 2nd Main Road, nearby Jalagangamma Temple, where the accused No.2 kept the M.O.4 long in the open place nearby the temple compound and denied in their presence police have seized the M.O.4 long, which was kept in the bushes of the said temple. He denied in their presence the police have conducted mahazar at 10.10 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. After conducting the mahazar he signed on 24 SC No.1274/2016 the Ex.P.6. He denied he has given the statement before the Vyalikaval Police. His statement is marked at Ex.P.7.
22. P.O.-6 is the long seizure mahazar witness inspite of lengthy cross-examination made by the prosecution he has not supported the prosecution case.
23. P.W.7 - Ravindra, he deposed about 3-4 years back he went to Vyalikaval Police Station where the police have obtained his signature on Ex.P.8. He deposed he went to the police station for his private work. Then the police have shown one person and from the said person seized one dragger i.e. M.O.1. He denied that the accused persons have assaulted him with the dragger and the same is seize din his presence. He identified the dragger and the same is marked at M.O.1. He has not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter the prosecution cross- examined this witness. He denied on 06.05.2016 he along with accused No.3 went to the place where accused No.3 hidden MO-1 dragger. He denied nearby, Vyalikaval Swimming Pool Extension, 8th Main Road, nearby park one dragger M.O.1 was kept below the bench and same was seized as per Ex.P.8. He denied in his presence police have seized the M.O.1 dragger and conducted mahazar as per 25 SC No.1274/2016 Ex.P.8 and he signed on the Ex.P.8. He denied he has given statement as per Ex.P.9. He denied he has identified the M.O.1.
24. P.W.7 is the independent seizure mahazar witness, he has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, from the said witness the prosecution failed to prove Ex.P.8.
25. P.W.8 - Honnegowda seizure mahazar witness, he deposed on 01-04-2016 he went to Vayyalikaval Police station where police have obtained his signature on Ex.P-
10. He deposed at the time of seizure of the Auto bearing No.KA-05-AD-7125 the police have obtained his signature on Ex.P.10. He further deposed on the said Auto the sticker was pasted on the last number of the number plate. After removing the sticker he came to know the said auto number. He has identified the photos of auto and same was marked at Ex.P.11 & P.12.
26. He further deposed, in the display card the name of the person mentioned as Manjunatha and it is also mentioned the name as Suresh in the display card and the same is marked as Ex.P.3 & P.13. P.W.8 is the independent witness he deposed in his presence above said 26 SC No.1274/2016 auto was seized by the police and he has identified the display card. In the display card the name is mentioned as Manjunatha as well as Suresh. He further deposed that at the end of number plate sticker was pasted. After removing the sticker he came to know the auto number. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed before conducting the mahazr as per Ex.P.10 the police have not issued notice. He further deposed he cannot say that at what time the mahazar was conducted. He further deposed he cannot say the boundaries. He further deposed he cannot say who were present at the time of conducting the mahazar. He denied he signed Ex.P.10 an the say of police. The police have not seized anything in his presence at the time of conducting mahazar.
27. On perusal of entire evidence of P.W.8 he was supported the prosecution case. He has deposed about conducting of mahazar, seizure of auto and so also to the said auto in the display card two names were appeared. P.W.8 is the independent witness. From the said witness the police have elicited that why he is deposing false against the accused persons. As per the prosecution case, in the year 2016 the alleged incident was taken. In the 27 SC No.1274/2016 year 2019 he entered into the witness box and deposed he may not say the boundaries. Based on the said evidence, the entire evidence cannot be thrown out. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8. Therefore, the police have proved that in his presence the police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.10 and also Ex.P.3 & P.13.
28. P.W.9 - Subramanya, he has deposed that on 01.04.2016 in the event to Vyalikaval Police Station the police have conducted the mahazar in Auto bearing No. KA- 05-AD-7125 and to the said auto in the number plate last number was pasted by sticker after removing the said sticker, the entire auto number is visible and he identified the photos of auto same is already as marked as Ex.P.11 & P.12. In the display card name is appears as Manjunath and Suresh. The said display cared are already marked as Ex.P.3 & P.13. P.W-9 supported the prosecution case he was cross-examined the counsel for the accused. He deposed before conducting the mahazar. Police have not issued the notice from 8.00 a.m. to 8.40 a.m. the police have conduct the Ex.P.10. He deposed he cannot say the boundaries of the said place. He further deposed he cannot say who wrote the Ex.P.10. He deposed he has not 28 SC No.1274/2016 put to his signature on the Ex.P.11 & P.12. He denied in the cross-examination he has put the signature on Ex.P.10 in the Police Station. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.9 he stated in his presence police have conducted the Ex.P.10. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.8 & 9, it clearly reveals that on 01.04.2016 Vyalikaval Police have seized auto bearing No. KA-05-AD-7125 in their presence. They deposed in their display card the name appears as Manjunath and Suresh. They deposed in their presence police have conduct the mahazar as already stated above in the year 2016 the alleged incident was taken place in the year 2019 the witness entered into witness box before the Court. After lapse of three years he entered into witness box and deposed normally the person may not see the boundaries non saying boundaries is not failed to adduced the prosecution case. On the other hand, he deposed in their presence police have conducted the mahazar. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.9 prosecution has prove that the police have conducted the Ex.P.10 in their presence. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.8 & 9.
29
SC No.1274/2016
29. P.W.10 - Ramu, he is the A.S.I. of Vyalikaval Police Station. He deposed on 31.3.2016 he was petrolling near the Vinayaka Circle at about 12.00 p.m. staff of their Police Station were also discharging their duty. One auto came from Nagappa Street, then the police have try to stop the auto all of sudden one of the stop here fell down from the auto, then he went to said place he came to know said persons. C.W.2 - Nagaraj, the said Nagaraj has got injuries on right thy and right hand. He was taken to Bilva hospital their from to Fortis hospital. He further deposed due to assault he was sustained bleeding injuries and another staff C.W.1 has discharging his duty near the Pipeline road after suspect in the same. The auto was try to stop from the auto C.W.2 fell down. He came to know that one person has assaulted with dragger their from he was pushed from the auto. He has deposed in the cross- examination there is mentioned in the SHD regarding discharging his duty near Vinayaka Circle. He has denied he has deputed in the said place. He denied he do not know the incident. He has deposed after the incident immediately injured was taken to the hospital due to it he 30 SC No.1274/2016 has not see in the auto number. He delay he was not taken to the hospital. He denied is deposing is falsely.
30. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.10 is also deputed to the said area then at 12.00 p.m. while he was proceedings then one person i.e. C.W.2 fell down from the auto. He went to the said place and C.W.2 was taken to the hospital. Admittedly, he has not eye witness to the incident. But immediately C.W.2 fell down from the auto the said place and injured was taken to the hospital. After, C.W.2 fell down the auto was not spot went away from the said place. Such being the case, the P.W.10 may not see the auto number mere non saying the auto number the evidence of P.W.10 cannot be discarded. As per the prosecution case after the incident P.W.5 was taken to Fortis hospital for treatment. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, 5 & 10 corroborates each. P.W.5 has deposed immediately he fell down from the auto C.W.15 & 16 came to the said place and he was taken to the hospital. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.10 cannot be discarded. Hence, from the evidence of P.W.10 prosecution is proved his case.
31
SC No.1274/2016
31. P.W.11 - Uday is the long seizure mahazar witness. He deposed about 3 years back while he was proceeding towards Vyalikaval, then police called him to the station and obtained signature on one document. Said document is seizure mahazar same is marked as Ex.P.6. He deposed he do not know for what purpose police have obtained the signature on the said document. He further deposed that he has not seen accused persons in the station. PW.11 is the independent witness he has not supported the prosecution case. Prosecution cross- examined this witness he denied on 13.05.2016 he went to the station and in the station the accused No.2 was present, he along with accused No.2 and police went to Jalagangamma temple of Malleshwaram where in the open place one bush is there, nearby the bush one long was seized. He denied in his presence police have seized the M.O.No.14. He denied that he has given the statement as per Ex.P.14. PW.11 is the long seizure mahazar witness, he has not supported the prosecution case. As already explained about the prosecution has failed to prove that in their presence police have seized the MO No.4 long as per 32 SC No.1274/2016 the Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act, prosecution has failed to prove that M.O.4 long was seized from the said place.
32. PW.12 J. Suresh is the owner of auto bearing No. KA.05.AD.7125 about 3 years back the accused No.1 has obtained the said auto on rental basis and he was riding the said auto. At about 10 a.m. the police called to the station when he went to the station, in the station he has seen the accused No.1. He deposed said auto were given on rental basis to the accused No.1. He came to know that one person assaulted on the police, in this regard police have seized the said auto. He identified the display card as Ex.P.11 and also display card of accused marked as Ex.P.12. As per prosecution case the said auto belongs to PW.12 he deposed that he has given the said auto to the accused No.1 who is resided nearby his house. As per the prosecution case, on the date accused No.1 is riding the auto, accused No.2 and 3 were in the backside of the auto. Then PW.5 were also proceeding in the said auto, the accused No.3 assaulted with dragger, accused No.3 pushed the PW.5, he fell down the said auto went away and police have seized the said auto. After seizing the said auto the police have collected 'B' register extract. He came to 33 SC No.1274/2016 the station, he identified his auto as well as his display card. As per the evidence of PW.12 he has given the said auto on rental basis to the accused No.1. From the evidence of PW.12 prosecution has proved that as on the date of incident, accused No.1 was driving the said auto. PW.12 deposed in the cross-examination that he has not produced any document to show that he has given the said auto on rental basis to the accused No.1. He deposed on the said date the accused No.1 was taken the said auto or someone have taken the said auto he does not know. He further deposed that as per the say of police he deposing falsely. On careful perusal of PW.12 it is not denied said auto belongs to him he has given said auto to the accused No.1. Mere non-production of document to show that he has given the said auto to the accused No.1 is not fatal to the prosecution case. As per the evidence of PW.12, the accused no.1 is resided nearby the house of the PW.12, he is very well known accused No.1. Such being the case he may gave the said auto without obtaining any document from the accused No.1. At the same time, prosecution has produced Ex.P.11 which is display card belongs to him and Ex.P.12 is another display card. From the said document 34 SC No.1274/2016 that the prosecution proved that he has given the said auto to the accused No.1.
33. PW.13 Vijaya Mahanthesha deposed that he was working in Vyalikaval Police station on 01.04.2016 he went to Fortis hospital where CW.2 Nagaraj taking the treatment and collected the blood stained uniform of CW.2 and same is handed over to CW.22. He was cross- examined by the counsel for the accused that CW.22 has not gave written letter to bring the said blood stained uniform of PW.5. He denied that he was not brought the M.O.2 and 3 from the Fortis hospital and same is not handed over to CW.22. On perusal of the evidence of PW.13 that while he was discharging duty in the said station he brought the said uniform and same is handed over to CW.22. Except putting the suggestion, the accused has not brought any evidence that for what purpose he was deposing against the accused persons. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.13 prosecution proved that he has brought the blood stained uniforms of PW.5 and same is handed over to CW.22.
34. PW.14 Jagannath Patil deposed that he was working as a Head constable in the said station. On 35 SC No.1274/2016 12.05.2016 he and CW.20 were deputed to trace out the accused No.2. As per the direction of CW.22, he and CW.20 went to the house of accused No.2 where he was not there, then after getting the credible information that the accused No.2 is at Old Guddadahalli main road he along with CW.20 went to the said place after coming from accused No.2, accused No.2 arrested on enquiry he has stated as Raju @ Saggai Raja, he was brought and produced before CW.22. He has given the statement before CW.22. As per the evidence of PW.14 that as per the direction of CW.22 he and CW.20 were went to the house of accused No.2 where he was not present. Then while they are proceeding they received the credible information then rushed to the Old Guddadahalli main road where the accused No.2 is there and he was arrested and produced before the CW.22. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused that at the time of receiving the instructions from CW.22 they have not taken the identification of the accused. He further deposed that after caught hold the accused not intimated to the nearby the person regarding the arrest. He further deposed at that place they have not conducted the mahazar. He denied he 36 SC No.1274/2016 was not caught hold the accused no.2 and produced before CW.22. As per the evidence of PW.14 while he was discharging his duty he arrested the accused No.2 and produced before CW.22. Prosecution case is that in the said auto there are three persons proceeding then PW.5 was went in the said auto. PW.5 was pushed from the auto, auto went from the said place, then auto went forward and capsized, then the accused No.1 has sustained injury and he was taken treatment in the hospital. Accused No.2 and 3 flew away from the said place. As per the prosecution case, accused No.1 has given the statement, then PW.5 has identified the accused No.1 to 3. When the PW.5 has known to accused no.2, then as per the complaint the PW.14 along with CW.20 has caught hold arrested the accused and produced before the CW.22. Mere non mentioning the appearance of the person cannot fatal to the prosecution case. Moreover after caught hold the accused may not conducted the mahazar and it is not very essential to conduct the mahazar after caught hold the accused. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.14 prosecution told that they have arrested the accused and produced before CW.22.
37
SC No.1274/2016
35. PW.15 Dharanendra who is Home guard, he deposed from 2014 to 2020 he was worked as Home guard in the Vyalikaval PS. On 01.04.2016 while he was verifying the vehicles nearby the Malleshwaram Ullal theater, as per the instructions of CW.17 he was discharging the duty. At about 8.30 p.m. he went towards Ullal Theater at that time he and CW.17 were discharging their duties. CW.1 has shouted that one auto was coming from Malleshwaram, Vinayaka circle who "caught hold and caught hold". Then they tried to chase the auto at about 1 a.m. they have raised their hands to stop the auto, but the auto went in high speed, due to un-control the auto was turtled. Then himself and CW.17 went nearby the auto that one person in the auto and other two persons were flew away from the said place. Then he has seen the auto driver. The said auto was taken to the station. He deposed that he came to know that some one has assaulted on CW.2 with knife. Then they have taken the auto and brought to the station. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed he do not know he has not seen the incident. He further deposed that he do not know who dragged CW.2. he do not know while auto was capsulized in it. Where are 38 SC No.1274/2016 they. He deposed he has taken the said auto and stopped in the station. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW.15 he deposed he along with CW.17 while discharging their duty, then one PC was shouted, caught hold the auto while they raised their hands, auto went in high speed and nearby the Raghavendra temple auto was turtled, then the person in the auto flew away and auto was brought to the station. As per the prosecution case, PW.15 is not eye witness to the incident. But they have tried to stop the auto, auto went forward and capsulized, auto was taken to the station. As per the prosecution case is that PW.5 while proceeding with the accused No.1 to 3 then accused No.3 has assaulted with dragger and pushed him and he fell down, auto went in high speed, then the police have shouted caught hold the auto, he and CW.17 raised their hands and tried to stop and said auto went in high speed came near Raghavendra temple, auto was capsulized, same was brought to the station. It is not put any suggestion that he was not discharging in the said place and the said auto was not came in the said place and they have not tried to stop the auto. Even they have not put suggestion that in the auto, accused No.1 to 3 were not there, even 39 SC No.1274/2016 they have not put suggestion that in the said auto there is no accused No.1 to 3 and said auto is not pasted the sticker on the number plate. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.15 prosecution has proved that he was present and the said auto was taken to the station.
36. PW.16 Dr. Basawesh deposed from 2014-2018 he was working as Registrar in Fortis hospital, Bengaluru, on 01.04.2016 at about 1.35 a.m. while he was in the hospital one Mahantesh brought one Nagaraj with the history of assault. He deposed he has given first aid to the said injured Nagaraj. He found the following injuries:-
1) Clean lacerated wound on the right fore arm, 6X1 cm on the lateral aspect.
2) Cut wound on the lateral aspect of thigh/Gluteal region measuring of 3x1 c.m.
As per his opinion the above said injuries are simple in nature and he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.16. As per his opinion if the person assaulted with sharp edged iron long, the injuries mentioned in the Ex.P.16 may caused. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused if a person fell on sharp edged weapons or stones, he may caused injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.16. He 40 SC No.1274/2016 denied that he has given Ex.P.16 as per the say of the police. On careful perusal of the entire cross of PW.16 that they have not put any suggestion the injuries mentioned in the Ex.P.16 may not cause if the person assaulted with dragger or sharp edged weapon. Even they have not put any suggestion that on 01.04.2016 at about 1.35 a.m. PW.5 were not brought with the history of assault and he was not given treatment. Even they have not put any suggestion on 01.04.2016 he was not working in the said hospital. On the other hand, they put suggestion that he has issued the wound certificate as per the instructions of police. PW.16 is Doctor working in the said hospital, there is no need to give the false wound certificate as per the say of police. Even he has not known to accused No.1 to 3 at the time of incident or before the incident and there is no reason to give the false evidence against the accused. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.16 prosecution proved that in the incident PW.5 was sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.16.
37. PW.17 Halappa who is ASI, he deposed on 08.08.2012 to 31.05.2016 he was worked as ASI in the Vyalikaval PS. On 01.04.2016 at about 2.30 a.m. while he 41 SC No.1274/2016 was discharging as SHO in the station CW.1 came and lodged the written complaint. Based on the complaint, registered the case in Cr.No.53/2016 for the offences punishable under Sec.307, 333 r/w 34 of IPC. He further deposed that he handed over the entire records to CW.22. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. He denied he has created the Ex.P.1 for the purpose of case. He deposed in Ex.P.1 it has not mentioned and typed Ex.P.1, at what time Ex.P.1 was typed. Apart from this that there is no suggestion put forth by the accused that he was falsely implicated the accused No.1 to 3 and PW.1 has not give the complaint as per Ex.P.1. Apart from this, that they have put suggestion who typed the Ex.P.1 apart from this that they have not at all brought from this witness then they have registered the false case and he was known to accused no.1 to 3, he came to know before incident he was registered false case. Therefore, from the evidence PW.17 who receiving complaint Ex.P.1 registered the case and handed over the entire records to CW.22.
38. PW.18 Sreedhar Poojar deposed from 26.07.2015 to 30.08.2017 he was working in the Vyalikaval station. On 01.04.2016 he was received the records from 42 SC No.1274/2016 CW.22 on the same day conducted the spot mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of CW.3 and 4. On the same day went to Fortis hospital where CW.2 was taking treatment and Cw.17 brought the blood stained uniforms of PW.5 and produced the same. He deposed in presence of CW.5 and 6 he has seized the uniforms of PW.5 as per Ex.P.5. He further deposed on the same day his staff were produced the said auto and said auto was seized in presence of Cw.7 and 8 as per Ex.P.10. He further deposed that he has collected the B register extract of the said auto from the RTO office and collected the RC card permit, same are marked as Ex.P.18 to P.20. On 01.04.2016 collected the Insurance copy and other documents same are marked as Ex.P.21 and 22. He further deposed on 01.04.2016 accused No.1 was produced by Revana Siddappa and Narase gowda and gave report. Accused No.1 was driving the said auto then auto was capsulized he was sustained injuries on head and accused no.1 told that he will appear before the station after taking the treatment. On 05.04.2016 Accused No.1 appeared before the station and he has given voluntary statement as per Ex.P.23. On 05.05.2016 accused No.1 was produced under body 43 SC No.1274/2016 warrant and recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.3 as per Ex.P.24. As per the voluntary statement of the accused No.3 himself and CW.9 and 10 went near the Vyalikaval park where behind the bench in the mud one dragger was seized and same were conducted under seizure mahazar Ex.P.8. On 13.05.2016 CW.19 and 20 were produced accused No.2 along with report. Then voluntary statement of accused No.2 they went to near Jalagangamma temple in the open place where accused no.2 has hidden the Ex.P.4 same was seized in presence of witnesses. He further deposed on 03.04.2016 recorded the statement of Cw.2. He further deposed after conducting the entire investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
39. Counsel for the accused No.1 cross-examined the PW.1. He deposed that nearby the said place there is a CC TV in camera was installed in the said CC TV footage were not produced before the Court. He further deposed he has not arrested accused No.1 on the same day. On the other hand he deposed it is the discretion of the IO he may arrest the accused or not. He denied that when the accused No.1 has not seized Ex.P.3 & P.13. He denied 44 SC No.1274/2016 before conducting the mahazar has not issued the notice. He denied Ex.P.2 was not conducted in the said place and created in the station. He denied he has collected the wound certificate to help the case. He denied he has not recorded voluntary statement of the accused No.1.
40. Counsel for the accused No.2 has cross- examined this witness. The number of persons having moving here and there in said place. He denied he has not recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.2. He denied he has not seized MOs-1 to 4. He denied CW.9 & 10 has not given statement before him. He denied he has not collected Ex.P.8 to help the case.
41. Counsel for accused No.3 cross-examined this witness. He has not denied recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.3 as per Ex.P.4, he denied he has not seized the MO.1. He denied accused no.3 is falsely implicated in this case.
41. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW.18 that accused No.3 has not cross-examined this witness that he was not seized the MO.1 and he has not conducted the investigation and he has not put suggestion that accused No.3 not assaulted on the PW.5 and due to it 45 SC No.1274/2016 PW.5 has sustained injuries. Even he has not put any suggestion even he has not recorded the statement of witnesses and created the witnesses for the purpose of case. Even he has not put any suggestion came in an auto bearing No.KA.05.AD.7125 even he has not put any suggestion that on that day accused is not having MO.1 on his hand and he has not assaulted on PW.5. He has not put any suggestion that due to grudge PW.18 has implicated the accused No.3 and filed Charge Sheet against accused No.3. In this regard he has not cross-examined PW.18. Mere putting suggestion that MO.1 is not seized and the same was denied by PW.18. Apart from this there is no evidence brought from this witness that accused no.3 were not proceeding in the said auto and said auto were came on the said road, said auto was not driven by accused No.1, accused No.3 and 2 were not seated in the back side. Then the accused came on the said road, PW.5 seated on the said auto and went little forward. In this regard, there is no evidence brought from the PW.18. Even he has not put any suggestion that he was not pushed PW.5 from the auto and PW.5 were not fall from the auto and auto went in high speed due to uncontrolled auto 46 SC No.1274/2016 capsized himself and accused No.1 and 2 were fell down and he himself and accused no2 flew away from the said auto. In this regard there is no suggestion put by the accused No.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.3 has assaulted with MO.1 on PW.5 due to it PW.5 sustained injuries. Even he has not put any suggestion that PW.5 has not sustained any injuries. Apart from suggestion that MO.1 is not seized. Except this there is no evidence brought from this witness.
42. Prosecution has produced the evidence of PW.2 who is the independent witness. He has stated in evidence that in his presence police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2. At that time police were present in order to prove its case. PW.1 has also stated he showed the said place and in presence of panchas panchanama were conducted in this case evidence of PW.2 is corroborated the evidence of PW.18. Pw.4 deposed that in his presence police have seized the blood stained shirt and pant of PW.5. PW.18 deposed that in presence of witnesses he stopped conducting the mahazar of blood stained clothes and same was handed over. PW.7 deposed in his evidence that the police have seized the MO.1. In order to 47 SC No.1274/2016 corroborate the evidence of PW.18 that PW.7 deposed that in his presence police conducted the mahazar and seized MO.1. In this regard the accused no.3 has not put any suggestion that PW.18 has not seized the MO.1. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.18 prosecution has proved that the accused No.3 has committed the alleged offences.
43. Pw.19 Jahir Khan deposed that on 06.05.2016 at about 2.30 to 3 p.m. while he was in the Vinayaka circle the police have obtained the signature. He has not supported the prosecution case. Then prosecution has cross-examined this witness he denied in his presence police have conducted the Ex.P.8 and seized the MO.1.
44. On perusal of the entire prosecution case that on 31.03.2016 at 12.30 am accused No.1 to 3 were came on the auto bearing No.KA.05.AD.7125 of pasted the sticker on the last number of the number plate PW.1 and 5 suspecting them and stopped the auto and then the said person have not gave proper answer suspecting them PW.1 and PW.5 asked the accused persons to proceed towards PS. In the auto PW.5 was also went, then the accused No.3 assaulted with MO.1 due to it PW.5 sustained injuries and after the assault PW.5 pushed from the auto he fell down 48 SC No.1274/2016 and he was taken to the hospital where he has taken treatment he was sustained injuries. PW.1 and 5 are the public servants while they are discharging their duties accused no.3 has assaulted and pushed him from the said auto he fell down. On perusal of the entire evidence of PW.1 and 5 that the accused persons have not at all brought from this witness that they are deposing falsely they have not came on the said road, they have not came in the said auto and they have not obstructed to discharge the work. On the other hand, on going through the evidence of this witness the accused has put mere suggestion that there is no independent witnesses and PW5 has not make scream, he was not caught hold the collar of accused no.3 independent witnesses is not examined. Apart from this the accused have not at all brought that PW.1 has lodged a false complaint in order to support the complaint PW.1 and 5 deposing falsely. They have taken contention that nearby there is CC cameras, but CC footages were not produced and no independent witnesses have been examined. Admittedly, the incident was taken at about 12.30 a.m. then no more number of persons moving here and there on the said road as already explained 49 SC No.1274/2016 above. They have said that no more number of persons moving on the said road. When auto was proceeding on the said road that accused No.3 assaulted, on PW.5 saying cannot corroborated by the CC footage. Mere to non- production of CC footage, the prosecution case cannot be suspected. PW.16 who is the independent person who discharging his duty in the hospital he deposed at about 1.35 a.m. the PW.5 brought with the history of assault on examining him he was sustained injuries as mentioned in the Ex.P.16. After the incident PW.1 and CW.16 and 17 came to the said place immediately PW.5 shifted to the hospital then the home guard PW.15 and CW.17 tried to stop the said auto by raising their hands. But the said auto was not stopped went in high speed due to capsized then the accused no.1 was got injuries, accused No.2 and 3 flew away from the said place. From the evidence of PW.15 the said auto were brought to the PS. PW.15 is also independent witness he clearly deposed that said auto was brought to the station. PW.16 who gave treatment he has also not interested to support the prosecution case. He gave treatment to the PW.5 in this regard he deposed. Regarding seizure of the MO.1 the PW.18 and independent 50 SC No.1274/2016 witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, from the above said evidence the prosecution has proved that the accused No.3 has committed the alleged offences.
45. Counsel for the learned Public Prosecutor argued that 3 persons have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, she prays to convict the accused persons. On careful perusal of entire records that accused No.1 & 2 have went in the said auto along with PW.5 as per the instructions of PW.5 they are taken the auto towards Police station, in the way the accused No.3 have assaulted on PW.5 with MO.1, due to it PW.5 sustained injuries. Accused No.3 pushed the PW.5 from the auto. Due to it, PW.5 fell down from the auto. On going through the entire records that accused No.1 and 2 have not assaulted on PW.5 nor pushed the PW.5. PW.1 and PW.5 have not at all stated in their evidence that accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted nor obstructed to discharge the duty. Even PW.5 has not stated the accused No.2 is having long in his hands and tried to assault on him. Even he has not stated that the accused No.1 and 2 have assaulted and pushed from the auto. Even he has not stated accused No.1 and 2 obstructed to discharge his duty. PW.1 and 5 have not 51 SC No.1274/2016 stated in their evidence while PW.5 proceeding in the said auto, accused No.2 is having long and accused No.2 tried to assault on PW.5. PW.1 and 5 are the material witnesses that they have not at all stated at the time of incident accused No.2 is having long and tried to assault with long. At the same time, long mahazar witness are not supported the prosecution case that they have not at all stated in their presence MO.4 was seized as it was shown by the accused No.2. The mahazar witness have not stated that as per the information of accused No.2, police and they went to the said place and seized the MO.4. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The police in the city they are discharging their duties around the clock. If they discharge their duty around the clock then normal public will live in peace and harmony. If the police have not discharged their duties properly, then the public will not live peacefully as the criminal may rise in the society. In the present case, PW.1 and PW.5 while discharging their duty at 12 a.m. without any investigation the accused No.3 assaulted. Such being the case, accused No.3 assaulted the PW.5 and he has obstructed by discharging duty. In the present case may 52 SC No.1274/2016 be some minor contractions in the evidence produced by the prosecution, based on the minor contractions the accused No.3 will not get any benefit.
46. In this case the prosecution has not filed the Charge Sheet against the accused persons that the accused persons have violated the traffic rules and at the time of incident the accused No.1 is not having driving license and said vehicle is not having permit or Insurance or other documents. On the other hand, owner of the vehicle deposed that he has given the said auto to the accused No.1 and from the prosecution witnesses, prosecution has proved that the said vehicle is not having above said documents. On the other hand, the said auto went in the high speed. Apart from this, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 and 2 have committed the alleged offences. On the other hand, from the above said offences prosecution has proved its case accused No.3 has committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, I have answered Points Nos.1 & 2 in the Affirmative for accused No.3 and Points Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative for accused Nos.1 and 2.
53
SC No.1274/2016
47. Point No.3 :- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused No. 3 is hereby convicted in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 333 and 324 of IPC.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by her, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 9th day of January, 2023).
(A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ORDERS ON SENTENCE Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused committed the offence under Sec. 307 and 333 of IPC.
Therefore, she sprays to impose the maximum punishment.
Counsel for accused No.3 argued that Sec. 307 and 333 is not attracted.
Apart from this counsel for the accused No.3 has not submitted anything.
54
SC No.1274/2016
The accused No.3 is hereby
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and also pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand Only) in default of non payment of fine he shall further undergo S.I., for ten days.
The accused No.3 is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable under section 333 of IPC and also pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand Only) in default of non payment of fine he shall further undergo S.I., for twenty days.
The M.O.1 to M.O.4 which are
worthless shall be destroyed after
appeal period over.
Acting under section 363(1) of
Cr.P.C, office is hereby directed to
furnish copy of this judgment to the
convicted accused No.3, at free of cost.
The convict/accused No.3 is informed about his right to prefer appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka U/s.374(2) of Cr.P.C within 60 days as per article 115 of Limitation Act.
55
SC No.1274/2016 The earlier personal bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 in compliance to section 437(A) of Cr.P.C, same shall be continued for a period of 6 months from today in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by her, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 9th day of January, 2023).
(A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Revansiddappa
P.W.2 M.D. Kutbuddin
P.W.3 Harish
P.W.4 Raja
P.W.5 Nagaraj
P.W.6 Muragesh
P.W.7 Ravindra
P.W.8 Honnegowda
P.W.9 Subramanya
P.W.10 Ramu
P.W.11 Uday
P.W.12 J. Suresh
P.W.13 Vijay Mahantesh
P.W.14 Jaganath Patel
P.W.15 Dharanendra
P.W.16 Dr. Basawesh
P.W.17 Halappa
P.W.18 Sridhar Pujar
56
SC No.1274/2016
P.W.19 Jahir Khan
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Statement of PW1
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW17
Ex.P2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW18
Ex.P3 Driver Details
Ex.P4 Complaint
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P5 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW18
Ex.P6 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P6(c) Signature of PW18
Ex.P7 Statement of PW6
Ex.P8 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P8(b) Signature of PW18
Ex.P8(c) Signature of PW19
Ex.P9 Statement of PW7
Ex.P10 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P10(b) Signature of PW9
Ex.P10(c) Signature of PW18
Ex.P11 & 12 Photographs
Ex.P13 Driving License Display
Ex.P14 Statement of PW11
Ex.P15 Statement of PW14
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW14
Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW18
Ex.P16 Wound Certificate
Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW16
Ex.P16(b) Signature of PW18
Ex.P17 FIR
Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW17
Ex.P18 B Registrar Extract
Ex.P19 Permit
57
SC No.1274/2016
Ex.P20 Registration Card bearing KA05-AD7125
Ex.P21 Insurance Copy
Ex.P22 ಸತತಪನನ ಪಪಮನಣಪತಪ
Ex.P23 Voluntary statement of Accused No.1
Ex.P24 Voluntary Statement of Accused No.3
Ex.P25 Voluntary Statement of Accused No.2
Ex.P26 Statement of PW19
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1 - Dragger M.O.2 - Shirt M.O.3 - Pant M.O.4 - Long
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :- NIL List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL (A. EARANNA), LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
58SC No.1274/2016 09.01.2023 Judgment pronounced in open Court, vide separate Judgment.
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, accused No. 3 is hereby convicted in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 333 and 324 of IPC.
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
59
SC No.1274/2016 ORDERS ON SENTENCE Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused committed the offence under Sec. 307 and 333 of IPC.
Therefore, she sprays to impose the maximum punishment.
Counsel for accused No.3 argued that Sec. 307 and 333 is not attracted.
Apart from this counsel for the accused No.3 has not submitted anything.
The accused No.3 is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and also pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand Only) in default of non payment of fine he shall further undergo S.I., for ten days.
The accused No.3 is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable under section 333 of IPC and also pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand Only) in default of non payment of fine he shall further undergo S.I., for twenty days.
The M.O.1 to M.O.4 which are
worthless shall be destroyed after
appeal period over.
60
SC No.1274/2016
Acting under section 363(1) of
Cr.P.C, office is hereby directed to
furnish copy of this judgment to the
convicted accused No.3, at free of cost.
The convict/accused No.3 is informed about his right to prefer appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka U/s.374(2) of Cr.P.C within 60 days as per article 115 of Limitation Act.
The earlier personal bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 in compliance to section 437(A) of Cr.P.C, same shall be continued for a period of 6 months from today in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.