Bangalore District Court
Sanjayangara Ps By Cid(H And B) Squad vs A1 Tajuddin on 28 March, 2024
KABC010163602021
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 28th day of March 2024
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C. No. 927/2021
Complainant : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By SANJAYANGARA PS BY CID
(H AND B) SQUAD,
THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER
SANJAYNAGAR PS
44 , BENGALURU
BENGALURU SOUTHBENGALURU
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused : 1. A1 TAJUDDIN
S/O. J. MOIHUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO 13 5TH B CROSS,
BHOOPSANDRA,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU
2. A2 KUTUBUDDIN
S/O. J. MOIHUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT NO 13 5TH B CROSS,
2
SC No.927/2021
BHOOPSANDRA,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU
3. A3 SHABUDDIN
S/O. J. MOIHUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO 13 5TH B CROSS,
BHOOPSANDRA, SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU.
4:A4 YASMIN SULTAN
W/O. J. MOIHUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO 13 5TH B CROS,
BHOOPSANDRA SANJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU
5:A5 G MOIDDIN
S/O. ABDUL KARIM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO 13 5TH B CROSS,
BHOOPSANDRA SANJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU 560094
6:A6 MUBARAQ
S/O. NAYAZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO 17 7TH CROSS,
GANGANAGAR,
C.B.I MAIN ROAD R T NAGAR
BENGALURU
7:A7 FARHAN SHERIFF
S/O. IMRAN SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT NO 64 IDAG 1ST CROSS
BHOOPSANDRA BENGALURU
8:A8 SALEEM PASHA @ SALEEM
S/O.SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO 14 EDAG 5TH A CROSS
3
SC No.927/2021
BHOOPSANDRA BENGALURU
9:A9 SHAHARAN SHERIFF
S/O. IMRAN SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT NO 64 EDAG 1ST CROSS
BHOOPSANDRA BENGALURU
10:A10 SYED AMEED
S/O. SYED JABI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT NO 30/5 2ND C MAIN,
KALPANA CHAWLA ROAD,
BHOOPSANDRA BENGALU.
( A-1 to A-5 by Sri TA Adv.)
( A-6 by Sri BSR, Adv)
( A-7 to A-9 by Sri CGS Adv.)
( A-10 by Sri SK/MAA, Adv)
1 Date of commission of offence 25.3.2020
2 Date of report of offence 25.3.2020
3 Date of arrest of the accused 25.3.2020- A-1 to A-10,
4 Date of release of accused on bail A-1, A-2,A-3, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9
& A-10 all on 7/7/2020
A-6 on 4/6/2020
A-4 on 8/5/2020
5 Date of commencement of 21.6.2022
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 01.08.2023
7 Name of the complainant Sri. Basavaraja PC 17672
8 Offences complained of Sections 143, 147, 148, 332,
353, 395, 397, 307, 504, 506
R/w. 149 of I.P.C
4
SC No.927/2021
9 Date of pronouncement of 28.03.2024
judgment
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of accused No. 1
to 10 are not proved.
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
JUDGMENT
The CID Police, Bengaluru have filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 395, 397, 307, 504, 506 R/w. 149 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
On 20.5.2020 at 8.30 p.m., PSI of Sanjaynagar P.S. had deputed Cw-1 Basavaraja PC 17672 and Cw-2 Manjunatha G., P.C. 17679 to the duty to control unnecessary movement of vehicles of public in view of the lock down imposed due to Covid-2019 pandemic. Accordingly, Cw-1 and 2 were checking the vehicles at Bhoopasandra check point. At about 12.30 p.m., accused No.1 being the rider and accused No.2 as pillion rider came in a Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No. KA-04-HF-9551 by wheeling. When Cw-1 and 2 asked them to stop their vehicle, they raised the speed of the vehicle and tried to drive th vehicle on Cw-1 and 2 with an intention to kill them. Thereafter, they kicked the barricade, made 5 SC No.927/2021 those barricades to fell down and abused Cw-1 and 2 in filthy language and threatened them and went towards Boopasandra. Cw-1 informed the same to the police station through mobile phone, thereafter went to the police station and lodged complaint in respect of the said incident. When they were returning to Boopasandra point at 1.15 p.m., in front of the fruit shop situated opposite to Srinivasa Bar of Boopasandra main road, the accused No.1 and 2 were standing, when Cw-1 and 2 went near them to catch them, accused No.2 told accused No.1. " ತತಜಜದದದನ ನನನದಡಜ ಆ ಬನನದಳ ಮಕಕಳಳ ಪದಲಸರಜ ನಮಮನಜನ ಹಜಡಜಕಕನನಕಡಜ ಇಲಲಗನನ ಸಹತ ಬಕದದತದರನ ". At that time accused No.1 asked accused No.3 to bring their people to the said place and assaulted Cw-1 with hands by holding the shirt collar of his uniform. Accused No.2 snatched the helmet which was in the hand of Cw-2 and assaulted with the said Helmet when Cw- 2 tried to call the police station with is mobile phone, accused No.1 snatched the said mobile phone. At that time accused No.3 bought accused No.4 to 10 to the said place. All the accused persons rounded of Cw-1 and 2, snatched the lathi and assaulted them by pulling their uniform. Accused No.5 Smt. Yasmin Sulthana assaulted Cw-2 with her hands and fulled him by holding his uniform. Accused No.1 pulled Cw-1 by holding his cloths and snatched the gold chain which was in the neck of Cw-1 by saying 6 SC No.927/2021 that "ಸಕಜಯನಗರ ಪದಲಸನವರದಜದ ಜತಸಸ ಆಗದನ." The other accused persons were instigating the above accused persons not to leave and kill Cw-1 and 2. Being instigated by the same, accused No.1 took a stone which was lying on the road side and trying to hit Cw-1 on his head with an intention to kill him and when Cw-1 tried to escape from the blow, it fell on the right side of his neck. At that time on seeking Hoysala-160 vehicle coming towards the said place, the accused persons ran away from the said place.
Thereafter Cw-1 and 2 went to the police station. Cw-1 lodged a complaint, on the basis of the same, case was registered in their Cr. No. 44/2020. Cw-1 and 2 were taken to K.C. General Hospital for treatment. On the same day in between 4.30 to 5.20 p.m., spot mahazar were prepared in the place of incident and recovered lathi, Helmet, two stones, two shirt buttons. On the same day between 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., recovery mahazar was prepared and recovered the uniforms of Cw-1 and 2. Thereafter the accused persons were arrested. On 4.4.2020 the two wheeler used by the accused persons and the mobile phone of accused No.1 were recovered. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to CID, Bengaluru. During their investigation, they have also prepared spot panchanama, recovered the documents pertaining to the case, 7 SC No.927/2021 obtained FSL report, and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 10.
3. After committal proceedings, the case committed to this court and accused No.1 to 10 were on bail. They have offered bail for their appearance before this court.
4. Heard the accused persons before charge. Charge framed for the offences punishable U/sec.s 353, 307, 504, 506, 332, 143, 147, 149, 397 R/w. 149 IPC. The charge is read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 10. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, case posted for prosecution evidence.
5. To prove its case the prosecution is examined PW-1 to PW- 20 witnesses and Ex.P-1 to P47 documents and also got marked material objects M.O.1 to 9. The accused persons have not led their evidence. However, they have got marked Ex. D-1 and 2 documents during the prosecution evidence.
6. Accused No.1 to 10 have been examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, read over and explained to the accused persons, they have denied the same. They have not led their evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned public prosecutor for state and the arguments of the learned counsel for accused No.1 8 SC No.927/2021 to 10. The counsel for accused No.1 to 6 has filed written arguments.
8. The following points arise for my consideration:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.3.2020 at about 1.15 p.m., in front of the fruit shop opposite to Srinivasa Bar of Boopasandra main road, the accused No.1 caused simple hurt to Cw-1 with hands and caused simple hurt to accused No.2 with helmet, thereafter they by securing accused No. 4 to 10 through accused No.3 to the said place, formed unlawful assembly committed rioting, in furtherance of their common object, accused No.1 snatched the mobile phone of Cw-2 and accused No.1 snatched the gold chain weighing 15 grams of Cw-1 Basavaraja and thereby committed robbery, accused No.4 caused simple hurt to Cw-2 with hands and accused No.2 caused simple hurt to Cw-2 with helmet and accused No.1 caused simple hurt with a stone on his neck and thereby committed the offences punishable U/sec.s. 143, 147, 332, 395, 397 R/w. 149 of IPC?
(2) What order?
9. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative
Point No.2 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- This case is in respect of a incident that has 9 SC No.927/2021 taken place on 25.3.2020 at about 1.15.p.m., in front of fruit shop opposite to Srinivasa bar of Boopasandra main road, within the limits of Sanjay nagara police station, it is the case of prosecution that in respect of the incident that has taken place on the same day at 12.30 p.m. near Boopasandra vehicle check point Cw-1 lodged a complaint in Sanjay nagara police station and a case was registered in respect of the said incident in Cr. No. 43/2020. While returning to the Boopasandra vehicle check point, after registration of the case in Cr. No. 43/2020, Cw-1 and 2 found accused No.1 and 2 standing in front of the fruit shop opposite to Srinivasa Bar and restaurant of Boopasandra main road and went near them to catch them, at that time the present incident took place and in respect of the same Cw-1 has lodged another complaint which has been registered in Cr. No. 44/2020. Therefore this case is only in respect of the incident that has taken place on 25.3.2020 at 1.15 p.m. and registered in Cr. No. 44/2020. But this court has framed charge in respect of the incident that has taken place on 25.3.2020 at 12.30 p.m. also. The charge No.1 to 4 are in respect of the incident in respect of case in crime No. 43/2020 has been registered. Therefore for the charges of this case charge No.1 to 4 framed by this court is not necessary and accordingly, charge No.1 to 4 are deleted and it will not be taken into consideration for 10 SC No.927/2021 determination of this case.
11. Ex.P-1 is the complaint of Cw-1/Pw-1 Basavaraja. It shows that after lodging of complaint in respect of the incident that took place on 25.3.2020 at 12.30 noon at Boopasandra vehicle check point, he and Cw-2/Pw2 were returning from the police station to the Boopasandra check point. They found accused No.1 and 2 who were accused in Cr. No. 43/2020 in front of the fruit shop opposite to Srinivasa Bar of Boopasandra main road, they went near accused No.1 and 2 to catch them. At that time accused No.2 told accused No.1 that "ಬನನದಳ ಮಕಕಳಳ ಇಲಲಗನ ಹಜಡಜಕಕನನಕಡಜ ಬಕದದತದರನ" and accused No.1 asked accused No.3 to get their people to the said place. Accused No.1 pulled the uniform shirt collar of Pw-1 and hit him with hands and accused No.2 snatched the helmet of accused No.2 and assaulted Pw-2 with helmet. Again accused No.1 snatched the mobile phone of Pw-2, when Pw-2 tried to inform the police through phone. At that time accused No.3 came to the spot with accused No.4 to 10. Accused No.3 to 10 snatched the lathi from Pw- 1 and 2, assaulted Pw-1 and 2 and pulled their uniform. Accused No.4 Yasmin Sulthana, who is a lady pulled the uniform of Pw-1, beat him with stones. Accused No.1 pulled the cloth of Pw-1 and snatched the gold chain weighing 15 grams from his neck. Other accused persons instigated accused No.1 and 2 saying not to leave 11 SC No.927/2021 Pw-1 and 2 and asked them to hit and kill them. Accused No.1 having instigated, took a stone from the road side and tried to assault Pw-1 on his head, when Pw-1 tried to escape the blow, it fell on right side of his neck. Thereafter, on seeking the police Hoysala vehicle coming towards them, accused persons ran way from the said place.
12. Pw-1 has stated in his evidence that on seeing Pw-1 and 2, accused No.2 told accused No.1 that " ಪದಲದಸರಜ ಬನನದಳಮಕಕಳಳ ನಮಮನಜನ ಹಜಡಜಕ ಕನನಕಡಜ ಬಕದದತದರನ. ನಮಮವರನನನಲತಲ ಕರ". Thereafter accused No. 3 to 10 gathered in the said place, they snatched the lathi, helmet and mobile phone of Pw-2 and a gold chain weighing 15 grams from the neck of Pw-1. Further accused No.1 assaulted Pw-1 with stone and caused bleeding injury on the right side of neck. Pw-2 sustaining bleeding injury on the head and Pw-2 was assaulted with helmet.
13. Pw-2 has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 and 2 were standing in front of the SAS fruit shop. Accused No.2 told that "ಪದಲದಸರಜ ಬನನದಳಮಕಕಳಳ ನಮಮನಜನ ಹಜಡಜಕ ಕನನಕಡಜ ಬಕದದತದರನ." Accused No.1 told accused No.3 to bring their people. Thereafter accused No.1 started beating Pw-2 by holding his shirt. Accused No.2 snatched the helmet of Pw-2 and assaulted on his neck and hit him on his neck with helmet. Accused No.1 snatched the mobile phone of Pw- 12
SC No.927/2021 2, when he tried to call the police station. Thereafter accused No.3 came with 7 to 8 persons. They were shouting that "ಸಕಜಯನಗರ ಪದಲಸರ ಜತಸಸ ಆಗದ ಅವರನಜನ ಸತಯಸರ." Among the 7-8 persons one person snatched the lathi of of Pw-2. Another person assaulted Pw-2 by holding his shift. Accused No.1 hit Pw-1 with a stone. Accused No.2 hit Pw-2 with a stone. When Pw-2 tried to escape the blow, it fell on his right side of the neck. Accused No.2 assaulted Pw-2 and accused No.1 snatched the gold chain of Pw-1.
14. PW-4 is an eye witness to the incident according to prosecution. In his chief examination, he has stated that he saw two persons came to buy fruits in his shop. The police were assaulting them. He closed his shop and went away. In his chief examination Pw-4 has not identified those two persons. But in his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, he has admitted that accused No.1 and 2 came in a red colored Honda Activa two wheeler and they were standing in front of his shop. During his cross-examination by accused persons, he has admitted the suggestion put by the accused counsel that police were beating two persons who had come in a red Honda Activa two wheeler and one of those two persons is accused No.1 before the court. However, he does not remember the face of another person, he does not know the name of the policemen who were 13 SC No.927/2021 beating them. When a video clipping was shown to him, he has stated that footages shown in the video clipping in respect of the incident took place in front of his shop. The said pen-drive which contains the video clipping marked as Ex.P-8 and the accused produced Sec. 65 B certificate of Evidence Act as per Ex.P-8(a) in respect of the said pen-drive. The video clipping shown that two police men assaulting two civilians. According to Pw-4 one among those two civilians was accused No.1 and said incident has taken place in front of his shop.
15. Later with the permission of this court, the learned public prosecutor has cross-examined Pw-4 in respect of the said video clipping. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had seen said video clipping in his whatsapp prior to interrogation by the CID police. But he has not shown the said video clipping to the CID police and he has not stated before the CID police that the police have assaulted accused No.1 and 2. He has further stated that in the video clipping only one civilians and two police are seen. He (Pw-1) is not seen. It cannot be made-out to whom the said fruit shop belongs.
16. However, the learned public prosecutor has not denied the video clippings and the incident in it. There is no suggestion that it is a doctored or morphed video clipping.
14
SC No.927/2021
17. Pw-13 Vijay A is another eye witness. He has stated in his evidence that in the month of March 2020 one day at about 1.30 p.m., he has seen a quarrel in front of Srinivas Bar. But, it is his evidence that he has not seen the accused persons at that time and he does not know Pw-1 and 2. In his cross-examination by learned public prosecutor, he has denied the entire prosecution version.
18. Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-4 and Pw-13 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Pw-6 and Pw-13 completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove his case. Pw-4 partially supported the defence of the accused persons. He has stated that the police themselves assaulting two civilians one among them was accused No.1. Therefore, the evidence of Pw-4 also not helpful to the prosecution to prove its case.
19. Now the remaining evidence is of Pw-1 and Pw-2. They are the police constables. They are the victims according to the prosecution. It is to be noted that the first incident has taken place on the same day at 12.30 p.m., in respect of the same a case in Crime No. 43/2000 was registered in Sanjaynagar Police station against the accused No.1 and 2, in which it was alleged that accused No.1 and 2 during Covid-19 lock down, they came in a two wheeler by wheeling means by riding the two wheeler only on the 15 SC No.927/2021 back wheel of two wheeler. When Pw-1 and 2 asked them to stop the two wheeler, they did not stop, on the other hand, they abused and threatened, they kicked the barricades and went away. The second incident is the present case, in respect which Cr.No. 44/2020 was registered against this accused No.1 and 2 with accused No.3 to 10. The third incident took place on 26.3.2020 in the early morning and in connection with the same Cr. No. 45/2020 was registered against accused No.1 for an offence punishable U/sec. 307 of IPC among other offences. The said case is also committed and it is pending before this court. It is also posted for judgment today. It is registered in S.C. No. 823/2021. It is alleged in the said case that accused No.1, when he was taken for the purpose of recovery of a two wheeler and mobile phone, assaulted the policemen in a bid to escape from custody and to prevent the same, the Police Inspector, Balaji V who is examined as Pw-18 in this case has opened fire from his service Pistol and caused injury to his left leg. First case is pending before the learned 1st ACMM, Bengaluru City. In three cases accused No.1 herein is common accused.
20. Such being the case, the evidence of Pw-1 and 2 who are police constables is to be appreciated with more care and caution as these witnesses will be more careful in giving evidence before 16 SC No.927/2021 court in order to avoid any incrimination against them.
21. The complaint as per Ex.P-1, the evidence of Pw-1 and evidence of Pw-2 shows that till accused No.3 to 10 came to the place of incident, police lathi were with them. It is stated that before accused No.3 to 10 came to the spot, accused No.1 and 2 already started assaulting Pw-1 and 2. The evidence shows that accused No.1 and 2 were bare handed and they were not holding any weapon in their hand. On the other hand the evidence shows that till accused No.1 to 3 came to the spot, the lathi's were with Pw-1 and 2 themselves. If really Pw-1 and 2 had assaulted with hands and with helmet, Pw-1 and 2 would not have kept quiet without using their lathi, atleast for their self defence they would have used their lathi.
22. The complaint shows that initially accused No.1 to 3 were present in front of the fruit shop. It is stated in the complaint that it was accused No.1 who sent accused No. 3 to fetch their men for the purpose of assaulting Pw-1 and 2. But in his evidence Pw-1 has stated that only accused No.1 and 2 were present in the spot. He has reiterated the same in his cross-examination also.
23. However, the evidence of Pw-2 discloses that, accused No.3 was also with accused No.1 and 2 near the fruit shop and accused No.1 sent accused No.3 to bring their people to the spot. 17
SC No.927/2021 Therefore, the evidence of Pw-1 is inconsistent with the complaint and evidence of Pw-2 in respect of these aspects are concerned.
24. Pw-1 has stated in his evidence that when they came near the Srinivasa Bar, accused No.1 and 2 were in the said place. Accused No.2 told accused No.1 " ಪದಲದಸರಜ ಬನನದಳಮಕಕಳಳ ನಮಮನಜನ ಹಜಡಜಕ ಕನನಕಡಜ ಬಕದದತದರನ. ನಮಮವರನನನಲತಲ ಕರ". At that time 7-8 persons came there, they snatched the lathi, helmet and mobile phone of Pw-2, they snatched the gold chain of Pw-1. They assaulted Pw-1 with stone and Pw-1 sustained bleeding injury on the right side neck. Pw-2 sustained bleeding injury on his head, as he was assaulted with a helmet. But according to complaint, accused No. 2 told accused No.1 that "ಪದಲದಸರಜ ಬನನದಳಮಕಕಳಳ ಇಲಲಗನ ಹಜಡಜಕ ಕನನಕಡಜ ಬಕದದತದರನ." At that time accused No.1 told accused No.3 to get their people to the spot. Accused No.1 pulled the uniform shirt collar of Pw-1 and assaulted with hands. Accused No.2 snatched the helmet of Pw-2 and assaulted Pw-2 with helmet. Accused No.1 snatched the mobile phone of Pw-2, when he tried to inform the police station with his phone. Thereafter accused No.3 came with accused No.4 to 10 to the spot. Accused No. 3 to 10 snatched the lathi of Pw-1 and 2 and assaulted Pw-1 and 2, pulled their uniform. Accused No. 4 a lady, pulled the uniform of Pw-2 and hit him with hands. Accused No.1 pulled the cloths of Pw-1 and snatched the 18 SC No.927/2021 gold chain of 15 grams from Pw-1 from his neck. When other accused persons instigated accused No.1, 2 and 4, accused No.1 took a stone from the road side and tried to assault Pw-1 on his head with an intention to kill him. When he tried to escape the blow, it fell on his right side of the neck.
25. There is lot of discrepancies in the evidence of Pw-1 when compared with the complaint as per Ex.P-1. The evidence of Pw-2 recorded on another date. Therefore, he has rectified some of the errors in the evidence of Pw-1. In spite of it in the evidence of Pw-2 also, there are some contradictions. It is not stated in the complaint that accused No.3 to 10 came to the spot by shouting "ಪದಲಸರದಜದ ಜತಸಸ ಅಗದನ. ಅವರನಜನ ಸತಯಸರ." In the complaint as well as in the evidence of Pw-1 only accused No.1 assaulted Pw-1 with a stone. But in the evidence of Pw-2, he has stated that accused No.1 assaulted Pw-1 with a stone and accused No.2 assaulted Pw-2 with a stone. It is his evidence that when he tried to escape from the assault with stone by accused No.2, the blow fell on the right side of his neck. But according to the complaint and evidence of Pw-1, it was accused No.1 who assaulted Pw-1 with stone and when Pw-1 tried to escape the blow, it fell on the right side of his neck. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the evidence of Pw- 2 also.
19
SC No.927/2021
26. According to the complaint, accused No.1 snatched the gold chain of 15 grams of Pw-1 from his neck. Pw-1 and 2 have stated the same in their evidence. But interestingly the gold chain has not been recovered. Further, there is nothing to show as to what happened to the gold chain. Non-recovery of gold chain is a major lapse in the case of the prosecution. There is nothing in the evidence of investigating officers as to what happened to the said gold chain.
27. In the chief examination of Pw-18 i.e, Balaji V., he has stated that on 25.3.2020 itself after 10.30 p.m., he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and accused No.1 has stated that if he has taken to the places told by him, he would show the mobile phone, gold chain and two wheeler to them as per his voluntary statement at Ex.P-33. Interestingly, there is further voluntary statement of accused No.1, wherein he states that if he has taken along with them, he would show the places where he has kept the mobile phone and Honda active vehicle. Both statements are recorded by Pw-18 Balaji V., the investigating officer. There is nothing to show that gold chain was recovered as on 3.4.2020 when further voluntary statement of him was recorded. In fact the further voluntary statement of accused No.1 shows that he had given the gold chain to Shabuddin i.e., accused No.3. But there is 20 SC No.927/2021 nothing to show that the said gold chain was recovered from accused No.3 Shabuddin. Therefore, it clearly appears that snatching of gold chain by accused No.1 is not an acceptable story of prosecution.
28. Pw-2 has stated in his cross-examination that the fruit shop was open and there were 10-15 persons gathered at the time of incident. As already stated the fruit vendor has been examined as Pw-4 and his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove its case. Among the eye witnesses, Pw-13 has been examined and he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The 10-15 persons who were gathered at the time of incident as stated by Pw-2 have not been cited as witnesses and nor examined before court. Therefore, the only available evidence before the court is the evidence of Pw-1 and 2.
29. Pw-2 in his cross-examination has stated that the distance between the fruit shop where the incident taken place and the vehicle check point where earlier incident took place is only 300 meters. He has stated that there were CCTV cameras near the fruit shop. It is difficult to accept that the CCTV footage were not available in respect of the incident. Pw-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that in a video clipping shown to him by the accused, it is seen two police men beating a person. But he does not know 21 SC No.927/2021 who are those police men and who is the person being beaten. In the cross-examination of Pw-1 also, the accused confronted the video clipping of Pw-1. He has admitted that the police were assaulting two persons, who came in a red colour Honda Activa vehicle and one of those two persons was accused No.1. The said video clipping has been marked as Ex.P-8 and Sec. 65-B certificate in respect of the same has been marked as per Ex.P-8(a). It is clear that the same clipping was shown to Pw-1 also. From the evidence of Pw-1 and 4 along with video clipping as per Ex.P-8 pen-drive, the case of the defence cannot be completely disbelieved.
30. Pw-1 during his evidence has identified only accused No.1 to 4 before court, he has not identified the other accused persons. In his cross-examination by accused No.7 to 9, he has stated that he knows the name of five accused persons. He has stated that at the time of incident, he has identified 8-9 persons among the accused. But he has not given their identification description to the investigating officer. From the evidence of Pw-1, it shows that he identified only 4 accused persons before the court i.e., accused No.1 to 4.
31. Pw-2 has stated in his evidence that he has identified accused No.1 to 3 and remaining accused are the persons who are present before the court. In his cross-examination by accused No.7 22 SC No.927/2021 to 9, he has stated that he cannot identify accused No.6 to 10 before the court. Therefore, accused No.2 could not identify the accused persons except accused No. 1 to 3.
32. Pw-3 Raghavendrachar was the Head constable of Sanjaynagar police station and he was on duty in Hoysala vehicle and it is the case of the prosecution that he went to the place of incident on receiving the information from accused No.1. But he has stated in his evidence that they went to the spot by blowing siren. When they went near the said place, the persons who were assaulting ran away from the said place. He has not seen those persons from a distance. But he has not identified the accused persons. Therefore, there is nothing in the evidence of PW-3 to identify the accused persons.
33. Pw-1 has stated in his evidence that he has sustained bleeding injuries on the right side of his neck and Pw-2 sustained bleeding injury on his head. Pw-11 Dr. N. Gayathri Bai is the casualty medical officer of K.C. General hospital, Bengaluru. She has stated in her evidence that on 25.3.2020 at about 3.35 to 3.45 p.m., she has examined Pw-1 and 2 in her hospital. She found contusion of 4x2 cm below the left eye, Scratch marks on left pine and Tenderness over right index finger of Pw-2 and Multiple scratch marks over right side of neck of Pw-1. There was no 23 SC No.927/2021 bleeding injury on Pw-1 and 2. It has been suggested to Pw-11 that the above injuries can be possible with assault with lathi and helmet. But it is not the case of prosecution that Pw-1 and 2 were assaulted with lathi. It is the case of prosecution that Pw-1 and 2 were assaulted with stone and helmet. Therefore, the medical evidence also does not support the oral evidence of Pw-1.
34. Ex.P-2 is the spot panchanama prepared by Pw-14 P.S.I. Roopa, who is investigating officer of the case. She has stated in her evidence that on 25.3.2020 between 4.30 to 5.00 p.m., she has prepared spot panchanama in the presence of witnesses at the place shown by Pw-1 and recovered M.O.1 Police lathi, M.O.2 police helmet, M.O.3 stone, M.O.4 a blood stained stone, M.O.5 uniform buttons. Pw-1 has stated that the police had came to the spot and prepared spot mahazar and recovered M.O.s No.1 to 5. CW-6 Santhosh S/o. Surendra, Cw-7 Santhosh S/o. Hanumanthappa are witnesses of said panchanama. In spite of issuance of sufficient process to them, they have not appeared before the court. Hence, they have been dropped. Therefore there is no independent witness to prove the spot panchanama as per Ex.P-2.
35. Ex.P-3 is the recovery panchanama, in which the investigating officer has recovered the uniform of Pw-1 and 2 in the police station. Pw-5 Avinash is a witness to the said 24 SC No.927/2021 panchanama. He has stated that he has signed the seizure mahazar in the Sanjaynagar police station. But, he has not seen M.O.6 to 9 uniform pant and shirts at that time. Though in his cross- examination by the learned public prosecutor, he has admitted that M.O.No.6 to 9 cloths were recovered in his presence by preparing panchanama as per Ex.P-3, in the remaining part of his cross- examination, he has stated his unawareness about recovery of those cloths. Again in his cross-examination by the accused persons, he has again stated that the police have not recovered any cloth in his presence. Therefore, the evidence of Pw-5 is not sufficient to prove the seizure mahazar.
36. Cw-8 Narasimha Murthy is another witness for said panchanama. Considering the fact that this is a case about assault on police officials, the case of prosecution cannot be accepted only on the basis of police witnesses. Therefore the evidence of these independent witnesses presumed importance. Though Pw-1 and 2 and the investigating officer Balaji V has stated about the recovery only on the basis of their evidence the recovery cannot be proved.
37. In the evidence of Pw-4 Syed Riyakath, the accused got marked a pen drive as per Ex.P-8 by confronting a video clipping containing in it. Pw-4 has admitted that the footage in the video clipping were the footage of the incident that has taken place in his 25 SC No.927/2021 shop and he has seen those footage in the whatsapp of his mobile phone. Prior to the said evidence he has admitted that the police were beating two persons who came in a red colored Honda Activa two wheeler and out of those persons one person is the accused No.1 before the court. Therefore, the evidence of Pw-1 shows that the video clipping shown in Ex.P-8 pertaining to the assault on accused No.1 and another by the police. I have carefully perused the video clipping in the pen-drive as per Ex.P-8, it shows that two policemen assaulting one person. In his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, Pw-4 has stated that he has seen the said video clipping before going to the CID office for enquiry, but he has not shown the video clipping to the CID police and he has not stated before the police that he had informed the assault on accused No.1 and 2 before the CID Police. In fact, it is his evidence that the CID police have not asked anything when he had been to their office, they only made him to sit in their office for 5 minutes and sent him back. He has stated that he does not know that said video clipping is an incomplete one.
38. The very same video clipping has been confronted to Pw1 also. Pw-1 has stated that he does not know who are the private persons in the video clipping. He has stated that he does not know that one of the private person is accused No.1 and 26 SC No.927/2021 further he has stated that he does not know that road shown in the video is Boopasandra main road and the fruit shop shown in the video is SAS fruit shop. He has admitted that in the said video it is seen that two policemen beating one person. When it has been suggested to Pw-1 that he and Pw-2 Manjunath are seen assaulting accused No.1 in the said video, he has stated that they are not the persons shown in the said video.
39. Same video clipping has been confronted to Pw-2 also. He has stated in his evidence that he cannot say whether the person shown in the video is accused No.1.
39. In the evidence of Pw-1 and 2, they have not entirely denied the video clipping. But they have shown their unawareness regarding the footage in it. If the evidence of Pw-1, 2 and 4 is considered together, it cannot be said that it is not a video clipping of the incident which has taken place in front of SAS fruit shop on Boopasandra main road where accused No.1 was assaulted by Pw-1 and 2, particularly by Pw-1 as per the defence of the accused persons.
40. The prosecution got marked a C.D. in the evidence of Pw- 15 Nagabhushan, who is the Output editor of T.V.9 Kannada News channel. He has stated in his evidence that Sanjaynagar police asked him to produce clipping in respect of a news item published 27 SC No.927/2021 in TV 9 News channel on 25.3.2020 and 26.3.2020. It was in connection with a quarrel took place within the limits of Sanjaynagar Police station. Accordingly, on 2.9.2020, he provided a CD containing a clip of news item, with a covering letter and the said C.D. has been marked as Ex.P-28. It is the contention of the prosecution that the said video clipping in Ex.P-28 C.D shows the incident that has taken place in this case. The video clipping shows the assault on a police personnel. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons seen assaulting Pw-1 and 2 in the said clipping. I have carefully watched the said clipping, it shows that some civilians assaulting a police men. It is the contention of the prosecution that the said clip shows accused No.1 and 2 assaulting Pw-1.
41. Pw-17 Dr. Chaturmukh V S is a Senior scientific officer in the FSL, Bengaluru, to whom the said C.D. has been sent for examination. He has given his report as per Ex.P-31. It is his evidence that he has examined Ex.P-28 C.D. In his report Ex.P-31, he has stated that the video files in it are continuing, it is not edited or morphed. The learned counsel for the accused is cross- examined Pw-17 in length. But nothing much has been elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence that the video in the said CD is not morphed or edited.
28
SC No.927/2021
42. Pw-15 Nagabhushan has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. He has admitted that the letter as per Ex.P-27 sent along with C.D. as per Ex.P-28 is not the letter head of their company and there is no seal of company in the said letter. Further, he has admitted that he has provided the C.D after 3 months of receiving said letter. He has stated that there is no corresponding Register in their office and there is no reference in Ex.P-27 letter that he has forwarded letter to the investigating officer. He has stated that there is no logo of the TV 9 News channel in Ex.P-28. Further Pw-15 has stated that he do not have any document to show that he is the Output Editor of TV 9. He has admitted that the video containing in Ex.P-28 has not been recorded by their Camera men or any of their employee. Though he has stated that after receiving the CD, their employee visited the Sanjaynagar police station for confirmation of the content of C.D., he does not know whom they contacted in the police station and what was the designation of the police with whom they confirmed about the C.D. He admitted that if any one visits their office, it will be mentioned in the visitor's Register. No evidence he has produced to show that some one has visited their office to give the C.D. to their office.
43. However, from the evidence of Pw-17, it appears that the 29 SC No.927/2021 contents of C.D. is genuine. It clearly shows that the assault on a policeman by some private individual. It appears that it was accused No.1 who was assaulting Pw-1 and accused No.2 was also assaulting Pw-1. But there is no evidence to prove beyond doubt that it was accused No.1 and 2 who were assaulting Pw-1.
44. The video clipping produced by the accused, it appears that Pw-1 was assaulting accused No.1 and from the video clipping produced by the prosecution it appears that accused No.1 and 2 were assaulting Pw-1. The accused are not admitting the video clipping produced by the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses are not admitting the video clipping produced by the defence. However, it appears that the incident shown in the video clipping produced by the accused persons took place first and thereafter the incident shown in the video clipping produced by the prosecution has taken place. It appears that after Pw-1 assaulting accused No.1, the accused No.1 enraged and in retaliation he assaulted Pw-1 along with accused No.2. I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not made sufficient efforts to prove that in the video clipping it was accused No.1 and 2 were assaulting Pw-1. There is no sufficient evidence to identify that persons shown in the video clipping produced by the prosecution were the accused persons and the victim was Pw-1. Therefore, the 30 SC No.927/2021 video clipping produced by the prosecution itself is not sufficient to prove the entire incident. As already discussed the oral evidence produced before this court does not fully support the case of the prosecution.
45. The remaining evidence available on record are of the evidence of D.R. Mamatha Yadav, Sr. scientific officer, FSL, Bengaluru who has examined one blood stained stone, one pant and one shirt and she has given report that the blood stains were of human origin and it was B group blood. But there is no evidence to show what was the blood group of Pw-1 or Pw-2. Therefore, the evidence of Pw-16 does not take the case of prosecution anywhere.
46. The other witnesses are the investigating officers of CID. They have stated about the investigation done by them and regarding preparing spot mahazar. But their evidence is of not much importance to prove the case of prosecution.
47. There is no evidence to prove the case against accused no.3 to 10. Pw-1 and 2 failed to even identify accused no.5 to 10. Accused no.3 is the brother, accused no.4 is the mother and accused no.5 is the father of accused no. 1 and 2. The entire family of accused no.1 and 2 has been implicated without there being sufficient evidence against them. It appears that accused no.6 to 31 SC No.927/2021 10 are the relatives and friends of accused no.1 and 2, they are also implicated in the case without there being any evidence against them. At the most this is a case of some altercation between accused no.1 and Pw-1, may be accused no.2 and Pw-2 were also involved to some extent. But case has been registered against all the family members and relatives to teach a lesson to accused no.1 and 2.
48. Considering the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the evidence of prosecution is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Doubt arises regarding the case put forth by the prosecution. The evidence discloses that the prosecution has put forth only half truth before the court. Therefore, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to accused persons. Under the circumstances, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
49. Point No. 2:- In view of my above discussions, the benefit of doubt will have to go to the accused persons and they are entitled to be acquitted in this case. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 10 are acquitted for the offences punishable under 32 SC No.927/2021 Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 395, 397, 307, 504, 506 R/w. 149 of I.P.C.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 10 shall stand cancelled.
The M.O.s No.1 to 9 being worthless shall be destroyed after completion of the appeal period.
The accused No.1 to 10 shall execute bail bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with a surety each for the likesum as per Sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerised by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2024) (Yashawantha kumar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side:
PW.1 Basavaraju,
PW.2 Manjunath.G.
PW.3 Raghavendr achar,
PW.4 Syed Riyakath,
PW.5 Avinash,
PW.6 Abibulla,
PW.7 Thimmesh.K.
PW.8 Manjanna,
PW.9 Usha sharma,
PW.10 Ravishankar.K.
33
SC No.927/2021
PW.11 Dr.N.Gayathri Bai,
PW.12 N.G.Shivamurthy,
PW.13 Vijay.A.
PW.14 Roopa.K.S.
PW.15 Nagabhushan
PW.16 D.R.Mamatha Yadav,
PW.17 Dr.Chaturmukh.V.S.
PW.18 Balaji.V.
PW.19 Deepak.R.
PW.20 Chyathanya.K.M.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side :
Ex.P.1 Complaint, Ex.P.1(a) (b) Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) (b) Signature of PW.1. Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) (b)(c)(d) Signatures of PW-18 Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of Pw-10 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of PW-19 Ex.P.5 Statement of PW-4 dtd 25.03.2020 Ex.P.6 Statement of PW-4 dated 26.03.2020 Ex.P..7 Statement of PW-4 dated 27.05.2020 Ex.P.8 Pendrive Ex.P.8(a) Certificate U/s.65(B) certificate Ex.P.9 Statement of PW-6 dtd 25.03.2020 Ex.P.10 Statement of PW-6 dtd 27.05.2020 Ex.P.11 Statement of PW-6 Ex.P.12 Statement of Pw-7 Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Pw-18.
Ex.P.13 Statement of Pw-8 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of Pw-18 Ex,.P.14 Statement of Pw-8 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW-8 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW-18 Ex.P.15 Requisition letter Ex.P.16 Copy of B register. Ex.P.16.a. Signature Ex.P.17 Wound certificate Ex.P.17.a. Signature 34 SC No.927/2021 Ex.P.17.b. Signature Ex.P.18 Wound certificate. Ex.P.18.a. Signature Ex.P.18.b. Signature Ex.P.19 Requisition Ex.P.20 Out patient record. Ex.P.20.a. Signature Ex.P.21 Blood group report, Ex.P.22 Report, Ex.P.22.a. Signature Ex.P.22.b. Signature Ex.P.23 Report, Ex.P.23.a. Signature Ex.P.23.b. Signature Ex.P.24 Statement Ex.P.25 FIR Ex.P.26 Report Ex.P.26.a. Signature Ex.P.27 Letter Ex.P.27(a) Signature Ex.P.28 C.D. Ex.P.29 FSL report, Ex.P.29.a. Signature Ex.P.30 Sample seal. Ex.P.30(a) Signature, Ex.P.31 FSL report, Ex.P.31,a,&b. Signatures Ex.P.32 Sample seal Ex.P.32(a) to (d) Signatures Ex.P.33 Statement of A-1, Ex.P.33.a. Signature Ex.P.33.b. Signature Ex.P.34 Court order, Ex.P.34(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.36 Letter(Nor marked) Ex.P.37 Statement Ex.P.37(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.38 Nominal roll Ex.P.38(a) Signatures Ex.P.39 Nominal roll Ex.P.39(a) Signatures 35 SC No.927/2021 Ex.P.40 Station dairy. Ex.P.40(a) Sign on last page. Ex.P.41 Requisition. Ex.P.41(a) Signature Ex.P.42 Covering letter Ex.P.43 Receipt. Ex.P.43(a) Signature Ex.P.44 Requisition. Ex.P.44(a) Signature Ex.P.45 Order of police commissioner. Ex.P.45(a) Signature Ex.P.46 Receipt. Ex.P.47 Mobile bill. Ex.P.47(a) Signature
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side:
MO No.1 lathi. MO No.2 Police Helmet. MO No.3 Blood stained stone, MO No.4 Fist sized stone, MO No.5 Police buttons, MO No.6 Khaki shirt, MO No.7 Khaki pant, MO No.8 Khaki Pant, MO No.9 Khaki Shirt,
List of witnesses examined for the defence-side :
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side :
Ex. D-1. Photo Ex. D-2. Photo LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 36 SC No.927/2021 Judgment pronounced in the open-court, vide separate Judgment 37 SC No.927/2021 ORDER LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 38 SC No.927/2021