Bangalore District Court
Kum. Meghana vs Narayanaswami on 2 May, 2024
KABC030376042020
Presented on : 27-08-2020
Registered on : 27-08-2020
Decided on : 02-05-2024
Duration : 3 years, 8 months, 6 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL., CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT:
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 02nd day of May 2024
C.C.No.8434/2020
Complainant: The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
MahalakshmiLayout PS, Bengaluru.
By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused : 1). Narayanswamy,
S/o.Shivaram,
Aged about 35 years,
2). Gopi,
S/o.Shivaram,
Aged about 34 years,
A1 and 2 are R/at.No.73A, 1st B Main,
J.C.Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Bengaluru.
.
2 C.C.8434/2020
(By Sri.S.B.Madhu.. Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 12.08.2019
offence
Date of report of offence : 13.08.2019
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : Meghana
Date of commencement of : 12.10.2021
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 29.02.2024
Offences complained of : U/S. 341, 323, 355, 354
and 506 R/w 34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 and 2 are
found not guilty.
Date of Judgment : 02.05.2024
XXXII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of MahalakshmiLayout P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 355, 354 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
3 C.C.8434/2020
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That the C.W.4 had lent a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused No.1 for the purchase of T.T.vehicle about three years back and since the accused No.1 had not repaid the loan, the C.W.1 and 4 on 12.08.2019 went to the house of accused No.1 at No.73/A, 1st B main, J.C.Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained C.W.4 and the accused No.1 assaulted C.W.1 with hands on her face and caused hurt.
Further the accused No.2 pulled the clothes of C.W.4 and the accused No.1 assaulted C.W.4 with a slipper and threatened C.W.1 and 4 to throw acid on them and kill them if they went to their house asking for money. Thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 354, 355 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW1, the Mahalakshmipuram Police have registered a case under Crime No.198/2019 for the offences punishable u/s.341, 323, 355, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 and two others and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter the investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on 4 C.C.8434/2020 completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 354, 355 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, the accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail. The copies of prosecution papers was furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 354, 355 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and read over to them. Accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution has got examined 04 witnesses as PW1 to PW4, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW1 to 7 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 and 2 and M.O.-1 as one Slipper.
Learned Sr.APP prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. Since PW-1, 3 and 4 who are the material witnesses, 5 C.C.8434/2020 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the presence of rest of the material witnesses could not be secured and since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 and 2 from the material witnesses, no purpose would be served by issuing summons to rest of the witnesses. Hence, the evidence of rest of the witnesses is dropped by rejecting the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The statement of the accused No.1 and 2 as required Under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there were no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12.08.2019 at about 10.00 P.M when the C.W.1 and 4 came to the house of accused No.1 at No.73/a, 1st B main road, J.C.Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 6 C.C.8434/2020 and 2 wrongfully restrained C.W.1 and 4 and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence of "wrongful restraint" punishable u/s 341 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
2.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.2 manhandled C.W.4 and pulled her clothes with an intention to outrage her modesty and thereby the accused No.2 has committed an offence of " Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty" punishable u/s 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
3.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.2 assaulted C.W.1 with hands on her face and caused hurt to her and thereby the accused No.2 has committed the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" punishable U/Sec. 323 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, 7 C.C.8434/2020 time and place the accused No.1 and 2 threatened CW-1 and 4 to pour acid and kill them if they went to their house asking for money and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence of "criminal intimidation" punishable U/s 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 assaulted C.W.4 with a slipper and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence of "Assault or use of criminal force with intent to dishonor the person" punishable u/s 355 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
6. What Order?
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Points No.1 to 5 : In the Negative.
Point No.6 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 5 :- As these points are interlinked with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.8 C.C.8434/2020
10. It is the allegation that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable u/s. 341, 323, 354, 355 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined CW.1/Meghana as PW.1, C.W.3/Mahesh as P.W.2, C.W.4/Rajamma as P.W.3, C.W.5/Roopa as P.W.4.
Out of the documents marked for the prosecution Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the Mahazar.
12. C.W.1/P.W.1-Meghana in her chief examination deposed that on 12.08.2020 at about 8.30P.M, she took CW4 to the accused house. She took him to the accused house because he told him to take him to the accused house. When they went to the accused house the wives of the accused No.1 and 2 were present in the house and she was sitting in her vehicle in front of the house. When the wives of both the accused were screaming loudly at that time she went inside the house. When she went inside the house the wife of the accused No.1 assaulted CW4 with a broom and when she went to pacify the galata the accused persons abused and assaulted her also and she lodged complaint 9 C.C.8434/2020 as per Ex.P.1.
13. C.W.3/P.W.2-Mahesh in his evidence identified his signature on the mahazar. He further deposed that police did not draw mahazar in his presence and has not seized any documents in his presence. He further deposed that he does not know anything in this case.
This witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution and learned Sr.APP treated this witness as hostile and cross examined him at length, even in the cross examination nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to prove the case of the prosecution.
14. C.W.4/Rajamma is examined as P.W.3, this witness in her chief examination deposed that C.W.1 is her granddaughter, she knows the accused persons. The accused had taken a loan of Rs. 1.5 lakh from her to buy a TT vehicle about two and a half years ago. As the accused did not return the loan amount, about two years ago, CW1 and herself went to the house of accused house to ask for it. When she asked the accused No.1 to return the loan amount the accused persons assaulted her. 10 C.C.8434/2020
15. C.W.5/Roopa is examined as P.W.4. This witness deposed that C.W.1 is her daughter and CW4 is her mother. She know the accused persons. About two years ago in the month of August, CW1 and 4 went to the accused house to ask for the loan. Then the accused persons were fighting with the CW4. CW1 who was sitting outside heard the commotion and entered the house of the accused then the accused persons assaulted CW1 and 4 with a slipper and broom.
16. Intially PW1, 3 and 4 supported the case of prosecution and P.W1, 3 and 4 were cross examined by the counsel for accused persons. Later on Advocate for accused filed application U/s 311 Cr.P.C to cross examine P.W1, 3 and 4 and the application was allowed and on 25.01.2024 P.W.1, P.W.3 and 4 were cross examined by the counsel for accused No.1 and 2. During cross examination PW1, 3 and 4 being the prime witnesses turned fully hostile to the case of the prosecution in the lengthy cross-examination made by learned counsel for accused No.1 and
2. PW1, 3 and P.W.4 deposed in cross examination that they are acquainted with the accused persons and now they are in good terms with the accused persons. P.W.1, 3 and 4 deposed that no incident took place as alleged in the complaint. P.W1, 3 and 4 11 C.C.8434/2020 further deposed that due to oversight she deposed the evidence against the accused No.1 and 2 on 12-10-2021, 25-11-2022. Nothing worth has been elicited from their mouth to support the case of the prosecution. During their cross examination by learned APP they deposed that they have compromised the matter with the accused No.1 and 2.
17. Now on over all perusal of the evidence and prosecution witness as complainant, it is evident to note that P.W.1, 3 and 4 being the material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution in cross examination made by the counsel for accused No.1 and 2. The PW-1, 3 and 4 prime witnesses denied the entire case of the prosecution in the cross examination made by Learned Counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The PW1, 3 and 4 denied the involvement of the accused No.1 and 2 with regard to abuse, threat, asasult and at the out set they have denied the entire case of the prosecution, as they have compromised the matter with the accused No.1 and 2. During the course of their evidence they have not at all stated in respect of abuse, criminal intimidation, assault, threat and denied the involvement of the accused No.1 12 C.C.8434/2020 and 2.
18. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to issue summons to other witnesses. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this court was of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined, it would be a futile exercise and no lawful purpose would have been served. As such examination of the prosecution witnesses only for the purpose of completing the procedural aspect and will not serve any judicial purpose and it is sheer waste of the precious time of the court. Therefore, the prayer of the learned APP to issue summons to other witnesses was rejected. At this stage this court relied upon judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 (3) Crimes 84 Sathish Mehra V/s Delhi Administration & another:
wherein at page No.13 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applicable in this case also. 13 C.C.8434/2020 Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Points No.1 to 5 are answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
19 . Point No.6: - In view of the findings of point No.1 to 5, this court proceed to pass the following;-
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/S. 341, 323, 355, 354, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand canceled.
The bail bond executed Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be continued.
M.O.1-one VKC brand slipper is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
(Judgment typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer, typed copy corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 02nd day of May 2024).
(Latha J) XXXII A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
14 C.C.8434/2020ANNEXURE List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Meghana C.W.1 12-10-2021 PW-2 Mahesh C.W.3 25-11-2021 PW-3 Rajamma C.W.4 25-11-2021 PW-4 Roopa C.W.5 25-11-2021
List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution MO-1 -VKC brand Slipper List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
-- Nil--
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil--
Digitally signed by LATHA LATHA Date:
J
J 2024.05.04
11:18:02
+0530
XXXII A.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.