Bangalore District Court
State By Kodigehalli Police vs Rajendra S/O Dorairaj on 25 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Smt. Vineetha P.Shetty B.Sc., M.A., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 25th day of January 2016
C.C. No.9912/2012
Complainant : State by Kodigehalli Police,
Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : 1. Rajendra s/o Dorairaj, 43 yrs,
No.332, 1st Main Road, 4th Cross,
Maruthinagara, Bhadrappa Layout,
Bengaluru-94.
2. Teekaram @ Ramanna s/o
Rangaswamy, 57 yrs, R/at No.332,
1st Main, 4th Cross, Maruthinagara,
Bhadrappa Layout, Nagashettyhalli
Post, Bengaluru-94.
Date of offence : 25-01-2012 (As per FIR)
Offence : U/S 324, 504, 506(B)
R/W 34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused No-1 and 2 pleaded not
guilty
Final order : Accused No-1 and 2 Acquitted
Date of Order : 25-01-2016
2 CC No.9912/2012
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The P.S.I. attached to Kodigehalli Police Station has
filed this charge sheet against accused No-1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Section 324, 504, 506(B) R/W 34
IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 25-12-2011 at 8.30 p.m. in front of house No.332,
situated behind Big Bazaar, Hebbal Ring Road,
Maruthinagar, Bhadrappa Layout, Bengaluru, the accused
persons picked up quarrel with CW1 Theertha Karumbaiah,
in the matter of parking the Car No.KA 04 MD 543 by CW1,
abused him in filthy language, and also threatened him of
damaging his car. Among the accused, the accused No-2
assaulted CW1 with hands and accused No-1 assaulted him
with a club, and threatened him of dire consequences.
3. The accused No-1 and 2 are on bail. They engaged
advocate for their defence. The copies of the charge sheet
3 CC No.9912/2012
were furnished to accused No-1 and 2. After hearing both
sides, charge for the above offences was framed, read over
and explained by my learned predecessor in office. Accused
No-1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 are
examined. Ex.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 are marked. Accused No-
1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They
denied the incriminating evidence which appeared against
them. Heard the arguments addressed by the learned Sr. APP
and the learned counsel for accused No-1 and 2.
5. The following points arise for determination-
1) Whether the prosecution proves that
on 25-12-2011 at 8.30 p.m. in front
of house No.332, situated behind
Big Bazaar, Hebbal Ring Road,
Maruthinagar, Bhadrappa Layout,
Bengaluru, the accused persons, in
furtherance of their common
intention, picked up quarrel with
4 CC No.9912/2012
CW1 Theertha Karumbaiah, in the
matter of parking the Car No.KA 04
MD 543, and assaulted him with a
club on the head, shoulder and
hands, causing bleeding injuries?
2) Whether the prosecution further
proves that on the above said date,
time and place, and in furtherance
of their common intention, the
accused persons abused CW1 in
filthy language?
3) Whether the prosecution further
proves that on the above said date,
time and place, and in furtherance
of their common intention, accused
persons threatened CW1 of dire
consequences?
4) What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under-
Point No-1: In the Negative
Point No-2: In the Negative
Point No-3: In the Negative
Point No-4: As per final order
5 CC No.9912/2012
REASONS
Point No-1 to 3:
7. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid the
repetition of discussion, I have taken up Point No-1 to 3
together.
8. PW1 Theertha Karumbaiah is the complainant. He
deposed that on 25-01-2012, he along with his cousin
Dhamya, had been to Hebbal Big Bazaar, and as the parking
was not available, he parked his vehicle on the road situated
behind the Big Bazaar. At that time, accused No-1 picked up
quarrel with him and abused in filthy language, and also
assaulted him with a club on his head and hand. As a result,
he sustained bleeding injuries on the head. The accused No-1
also threatened CW1 of damaging his car. The accused No-2
pushed him away.
9. PW1 lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and the police
conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seized a club from
the spot. It is in the evidence of PW1 that the club produced
6 CC No.9912/2012
before the court was not the one seized by the police. Hence
he was treated hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution,
but the prosecution could not elicit that the same club was
used in the incident.
10. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused,
PW1 admitted that his vehicle number was not mentioned in
the Ex.P1 complaint. It is brought out in his evidence that
Police Superintendent P.M.Kalappa is his relative, who
accompanied him to police station. It is also elicited that
CW3 and CW4 are his friends. The relevant portion in his
evidence reads-"£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ M§âgÀÄ ¦.JA.PÁ¼À¥Àà CªÀgÀÄ ¥Éǰøï
¸ÀÆ¥ÀjmÉAqÉAmï EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj CªÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ C°èUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ.
ZÁ¸ÁB3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 £À£Àß UɼÉAiÀÄgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¤d".
11. PW1 admitted that there were number of persons
gathered at the place of incident. According to PW1, Ex.P2
spot mahazar was prepared on the next day, but on careful
7 CC No.9912/2012
perusal of Ex.P2, it is seen that the same was conducted on
25/26-1-2012.
12. PW2 Santosh.S. is the friend of PW1 and alleged
eye witness. He deposed that on 25-01-2012, himself and
others had been to Big Bazaar of Hebbal, and as the parking
was not available, they were waiting behind the Big Bazaar.
At that time, accused No-1 was assaulting PW1 with a stick,
and accused No-2 was pushing and threatening him of dire
consequences. He has categorically stated that, he cannot say
as to whether the accused No-1 had assaulted PW1 with the
club produced before the court. The relevant portion in his
evidence reads-"£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ zÉÆuÉÚ EvÀÄÛ CzÉà CAvÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä
DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è". As he has not supported the case of prosecution in
its entirety, he was treated hostile to elicit that accused might
have assaulted PW1 with the club before the court.
13. PW3 Sharath Kumar is yet another friend of PW1
and alleged eye witness. He deposed in similar lines with that
8 CC No.9912/2012
of PW2. PW3 equally was treated hostile by the learned
Sr.APP, as this witness also not supported the case of
prosecution in entirety. During cross-examination on behalf
of the accused, PW3 deposed that the alleged incident
occurred on January 27th. The relevant portion in his
evidence reads-" WÀl£É ¢£ÁAPÀ d£ÀªÀj 27gÀAzÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ" . It is worthy
to mention here itself that as per charge sheet, the alleged
incident occurred on 25-12-2011 and as per FIR and the
complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 25-01-2012.
14. PW4 Shaswath is yet another alleged eye witness.
He has spoken about the assault made by accused in similar
lines with that of PW2 and 3. PW4 was also treated hostile by
the prosecution, as he could not identify the club alleged to
be used in the incident. During cross-examination on behalf
of the accused, PW4 stated that the alleged incident occurred
on 27th of January. The relevant portion in his evidence
reads-"WÀl£É ¢£ÁAPÀ d£ÀªÀj 27gÀAzÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ".
9 CC No.9912/2012
15. PW5 Smt. Gamya is the cousin of PW1, who
accompanied PW1 on the relevant day. She deposed that on
25-01-2012, she along with PW1 had been to Hebbal Big
Bazaar at 8.30 p.m. and as parking was not available, they
had parked their vehicle in front of the house of the accused,
and at that time, the accused picked up quarrel and abused
them in filthy language. Further, the accused No-1 assaulted
PW1 with MO1 club, and when she tried to pacify the
quarrel, sustained injury on her right hand. Accused No-2
pushed PW1 and abused in filthy language, and both of them
had threatened PW1 of dire consequences. During cross-
examination, PW5 stated that the alleged incident occurred
inside the gate of the house of accused. The relevant portion
in her evidence reads-" ¸ÀzÀj UÀ¯ÁmÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É UÉÃmï M¼ÀUÀqÉ
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ". It is elicited during her cross-examination that
P.M.Kalappa, the Police Superintendent, is their relative and
the alleged car belonged to said police officer.
10 CC No.9912/2012
16. PW6 Dr. Kiran is the medical officer who gave
treatment to PW1 and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P3.
It is in the evidence of PW6 that PW1 sustained a cut wound
on the left part of the head and a scratch injury on the left
shoulder which are simple in nature. The other possibilities
of sustaining such type of injuries are elicited during his
cross-examination. PW6 admitted that age of injuries are not
mentioned in Ex.P3.
17. PW7 Ramachandraiah, the HC has deposed about
arrest of the accused and producing them before the SHO.
During cross-examination, PW7 admitted that no arrest
mahazar was conducted at the time of arrest. PW8 Rajanna
is the ASI who conducted part of investigation. He deposed
that on 25-01-2012, he received Ex.P1 complaint and
registered FIR as per Ex.P4, and conducted spot mahazar as
per Ex.P2 at 12.30 night on the same day. CW13 who has
conducted further investigation of the case and filed charge
11 CC No.9912/2012
sheet has not been brought before the court inspite of
sufficient opportunities being given.
18. Thus, on meticulous appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, it is seen that, PW1 to 4 are friends, and
none of the independent witnesses from among the general
public who had gathered at the relevant time are cited as
charge sheet witnesses and examined by the prosecution, in
support of the case of complainant, though admittedly the
incident occurred in a public place. PW1 himself has not
identified MO1 club alleged to be used for assaulting him.
19. As already observed, as per the charge sheet, the
alleged incident occurred on 25-12-2011, as per the FIR and
complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 25-01-2012 and
PW3, PW4 and PW5 have categorically stated in their cross-
examination that the incident took place on January 27th.
There is no conformity in respect of the exact date of alleged
12 CC No.9912/2012
incident. The prosecution has not made any efforts to bring
out the exact date of alleged incident.
20. PW1 has categorically admitted in his cross-
examination that, after visiting the police station, he came to
know about the names of accused, but PW2 stated that, he
came to know the names of accused as Rajanna and
Ramanna, soon after the incident. These divergent versions
touching the date and particulars of accused, as found in the
evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 takes me to view
their presence together at the relevant time doubtful.
21. When all these aspects are considered cumulatively,
the evidence put forth by the prosecution gathers no
credibility. In view of the divergent versions of PW1, PW2,
PW3 and PW4 and in view of the interestedness of the
witnesses, credence cannot be attached to their evidence.
13 CC No.9912/2012
22. Admittedly the car involved in the incident does not
belong to PW1 and as per the evidence of PW5, alleged
incident took place inside the compound gate of the accused.
Hence false implication of the accused in the circumstance of
the case also cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, I am
of the considered view that it is not safe to rely on the
prosecution evidence and convict accused. In the
circumstances, therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not
established the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No-1 to 3 in the
Negative.
Point No-4:
23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No-1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/S 324, 504, 506(B) R/W 34 IPC.
Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
14 CC No.9912/2012MO1 - club being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of January 2016) (Vineetha P.Shetty), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : Theertha Karumbaiah PW2 : Santosh.S. PW3 : Sharath Kumar PW4 : Shaswath PW5 : Gamya PW6 : Dr. Kiran PW7 : Ramachandraiah PW8 : Rajanna List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P4 : F.I.R.
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Club List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.15 CC No.9912/2012
25-01-2016 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No-1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/S 324, 504, 506(B) R/W 34 IPC.
Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 - club being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.