Bangalore District Court
By Peenya Police vs Is Acquitted on 29 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 29th day of April 2022 .
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.11451-2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 11451/2018
2. The date of commission 23/08/2017
of the offence
3. Name of the complainantState by Peenya Police
Station .
4. Name of the accused Praveen ,
S/o.Glasam, 39 years, R/at
No.18, 7th Cross, I D Main,
Gruhalakshmi Layout,
Nelagadaranahalli, Bengaluru -
73. .
5. The offence complained U/sec.338 of IPC .
of or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri. KARS Advocate,
by: Bengaluru.
9. Final Order Acting U/sec.255(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 29/04/2022
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Peenya Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.338 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 23. 08. 2017 a t ab o u t 8. 00 p. m. w h en th e co mp l a i n a nt a l o ng w i th th e C W. 4 w ere w or ki n g at Ten o v a In d i a Pv t . Lt d ., N o. 32-A, si tu a ted a t II Pa se, wi t h i n th e j u r is d i c t i on o f Pe en ya Po l i ce Sta ti on , a t t ha t ti me due to h ea v y ra i n th e co mp o u n d wa l l of th e ad j a c en t fa c t o ry wa s co l l a p sed o n th e w al l o f th e Ten o v a Fa c t or y . So , th e wa l l o f th e Ten o v a Fa ctor y fel l on th e co mp l a i n a nt an d on C W. 4 an d as a resu l t th ey su sta in ed gr i ev o us in j u r i es, i t is du e to n eg l i g ent a ct o f a ccu sed for no t ta ki n g a n y p reca u ti on a r y mea su res, thereby he committed the alleged offence.
3.Accused is on bail. The copy of the charge sheet and other material documents have been supplied to the accused as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
4.Plea of accused is recorded for the offence punishable U/sec.338 of IPC and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and said he has defense to make.
5.In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P4. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused has placed no evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
7. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt on
23. 08. 2017 at a bo u t 8. 00
p. m. w h en th e co mp l a i na n t
al o n g wi th th e C W. 4 w ere
wo r kin g at Ten o va In d ia
Pv t. Ltd. , N o. 32-A , si tu a ted
at II Pa se, w i thi n th e
ju r i s d i cti o n o f Peen y a Po l i ce
S ta t i o n , at th a t ti me du e to
h ea v y ra i n th e co mp ou n d
wa l l o f th e ad j a cen t fa ctor y
by na m e Ca re Ta ke C o mpa n y
wa s c o ll a p sed on th e w al l o f
th e Ten ov a Fa ctor y . So , th e
wa l l of th e Ten o v a Fa ctor y
fel l o n th e co mp l a i na n t an d
on C W. 4 an d as a resu l t
th ey su sta i n ed gr i ev o u s
in j u r i es, it is du e to
n egl i g en t act o f a ccu sed fo r
no t t a ki ng a n y p reca u tio n ar y
mea s u res, th ereb y th e
a c cu s ed co mmi tted th e
o ff en c e p u n i sh a b l e
U/s ec . 338 o f IPC . ?
2) What order?
8.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9.Point No.1 :-
It i s t h e c a s e o f t h e p ro secuti o n th a t o n 23. 08. 2017 wh en t h e co mp l a i n a nt a lo n g w i th th e C W. 4 w ere bu sy in wo r k a t Ten ov a Fa c tor y in Peen y a In d u str i a l Est a te du r i ng n i g h t ho ur s at th a t ti me du e to h ea vy r a in th e co mp o u n d wa l l o f th e Ca re ta ke ad j a cen t fa cto r y wa s co l l a p s ed o n t h e wa l l o f th e Ten o v a Fa cto r y . S o, th e w al l o f th e Ten ov a Fa c to r y fel l o n th e co mp l a i na n t an d o n an o t h er w i tn es s t h ereb y th ey su stai n ed g r i evo u s in j u r i es. T h erefo re c a s e ha s b een reg i stered a ga i n st th e a c cu s ed for hi s n egl i g en ce.
10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and got marked the 4 documents . PW.1 and 4 are the alleged victims, PW.2 is the wife of PW.1, PW.6 is the wife of PW.5 and PW.3 and 4 are alleged eye witnesses.
11.T h e v i c t i m b y n a me S ri . S. Ra g h av a n i s ex a mi n ed as PW. 1. In th e c h i ef- exa mi n a ti on h e d ep o sed th a t o n
23. 08. 2017 h e wa s at wo r k i n seco n d sh ift fro m 1. 30 p. m. t o 9. 30 p . m. an d a t ab o u t 8. 15 p . m. th e w a ll o f th e ad j o i n in g co mp a n y ha s b een co l l a p sed o n h i m. S o, hi s in t e- s t a in an d b a c k b o n e h a s b een a mpu ted a n d C W. 4 ha s al s o s u s t a in ed fra ctu re of ri g h t l eg . T h erea fter wo r ker s o f t h e sa i d c o mp a n y sh i fted th em to th e ho s p i t al i n A mb u l an c e. On tha t d a y th ere w as h ea v y ra i n an d th e wa l l wa s c o l la p sed b eca u se th e re wa s n o p i l l ar fou n d a t io n to th e s a id wa l l. He wa s un aw a re a bo u t th e ow n er o f t h e sa i d co mp a n y a n d h e sa w th e ow n er o f th e sa i d c o mp a ny fi r s t t i me i n th e cou r t i tsel f. Fur th er h e sa i d h e w as un c o n s c io u s for on e w eek i n th e ho sp i ta l an d a ft er one w eek he go t co n sci o u s th en g i v en s ta t em en t to t h e p o li ce as p er Ex . P1. In th e cro ss- ex a mi n a t io n h e ad mi t ted th a t o n th e a l l eg ed d a te o f in c i d en t due to c o l l ap se of wall on him he b eco me un c o n s c io u s, bu t h e s a i d w h en th e w al l co l l a p sed o n h i m an d C W. 4 an d hi s co l l ea g u es re mo v ed th em fro m th e d ebr i es wi t h in 15 da y s. Th e fi re fi g h ter ca me fi r st a nd th en a mb u l a n c e ca m e to th e sp o t, th en h e an d a no th er in j u red has b een s h ifted to th e h o sp i ta l in th e a mb ul a n c e wi t h in 15 mi nu tes. Wh en he rea ch ed th e ho s p i t al , h e wa s sh i ft ed to th e emerg en cy an d at ab o u t 9 p. m. D o c to r s ta r t ed h is trea tmen t an d he a l so ad mi t t ed th a t he hi msel f has di scl o sed ab o u t th e co l l a p s e o f wa l l on h i m to th e Do cto r. He d en i ed th e su g g es t i on t h a t h e ma d e ph o n e ca ll to h i s wi fe a n d in fo rm ed about the incident. He also denied the suggestion that on 24.08.2017 in the early morning when he was go i n g al o n g wi t h t h e C W. 4 i n a mo to rcy cl e h e met wi th a ccid en t n ea r Go r ag u n t ep al y a si gn a l th ereb y su stai n ed th e in j u r i es. He al s o d en i ed th e su g g esti on th a t th e v eh i cl e in w h i ch h e w as t r a v el ed di d n o t po ssess th e va l i d in s u ra n c e po l i c y. S o, in o rd er to g et co mp en sa ti o n h e ha s c rea t ed fa l s e s t or y a nd fi l ed a fa l se co mp l a in t a g a in st th e a c c u s ed.
12. C W. 5 i s ex a mi n ed a s PW. 2. S h e is th e w i fe of PW. 1, sh e d ep o s ed t ha t o n 23. 08. 2017 sh e w ai ted fo r h er h u s ba n d up t o l a t e ni g h t, b u t h e wa s n ot retu rn ed. So , sh e ca l l ed t h e fa c t or y a nd en q u i red th em, th en on l y sh e ca me t o kn o w ab o ut th e i n ci d en t. T hen sh e d i rectl y wen t t o th e Peo p l e Tree Ho sp i ta l an d saw h er hu sb an d i n IC U, b u t t h e Do c t or ha s no t al l ow ed h er to meet h er hu s b a nd i mmed i a t el y.
13. In t h e c ro s s- ex a mi na ti o n PW. 2 admitted th a t sh e met wi t h t h e c o l l eag u es o f h er h u sb a n d i n th e ho sp i tal an d sh e c a me to kno w a b ou t th e i n ci d en t fro m th e sa i d emp l o y ees an d t h e D o cto r ha s a l so i n fo rm ed her about the cause of incident. She denied the suggestion that her husband has called her from the hospital and informed about the incident. She also denied the suggestion that, her husband was met with road traffic accident while going with CW.4 on an uninsured vehicle. So, in order to get compensation her husband has filed a false complaint.
14.CW.2 is examined as PW.3. CW.3 is examined as PW.4, they are alleged to be the pancha witnesses, but they turned hostile and said police called them to the Police Station alleging about collapse of wall of their company and obtained their signatures in the Police Station on Ex.P2. The learned Sr.APP has treated them as hostile and cross-examined by putting suggestion, but they denied the same. They also pleads ignorance about the alleged incident of wall collapse.
15.CW.4 is examined as PW.5. He is alleged to be another injured witness. He also deposed about the incident regarding collapse of wall on him and PW.1 and also shifting both of them to the hospital and taking treatment. He pleads ignorance about the name of the company and owner of the said company . He also failed to identify the accused. In the cross-examination PW.5 deposed that when he admitted to the hospital immediately the Doctor has commenced the treatment. He admitted that the police has collected information from him by making call. He was inpatient for one month and then took treatment as an outdoor patient, but he has not met any police officials and not given any statement.
16. CW.6 is examined as PW.6, she is the wife of PW.5. In the chief-examination she deposed that about 4 years back her husband has sustained fracture injury due to collapse of wall in the company. So, he was shifted to the hospital. At the beginning her husband was unconscious and later got conscious and informed her in the hospital that due to falling of wall of the adjoining factory he sustained the injuries. She has not given any statement to the police. She is considered as partly hostile and cross-examined by the learned Sr.APP by putting suggestion, but she denied the entire suggestion. Therefore, her statement is marked as Ex.P4. In the cross-examination by accused counsel she admitted that she has no hurdles to file the complaint on the date of alleged incident, but she was under shock and she suffering from giddiness on the date of alleged incident.
17.It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused is the owner of adjoining factory in which the complainant and CW.4 have worked and on 23.08.2017 due to heavy rain the wall of the accused company has collapsed on the compound wall of Tenova company, then the Tenova company compound wall collapsed on the complainant and CW.4, thereby they have sustained grievous injuries . At the beginning the complainant has filed the complaint against his own company and alleged that because of the negligence of the officials of his own company he sustained grievous injuries then he changed his version. In the further statement stated that it is not fault on the part of officials of his company , but it is fault of the officials of adjoining company . As per his version he was unconscious in the place of incident, but in the cross-examination he clearly deposed that, immediately after 15 minutes of the incident the workers of the said company have removed from the d ebr i es. T he fire fighter vehicle came first, then the ambulance came to the spot, his colleagues have shifted him to the hospital in the ambulance and which had plied in one way and reached the hospital within 15 minutes. In the hospital himself has disclosed about the cause of incident to the Doctor. If at all the PW.1 was unconscious how he has came to know about these facts, is not explained by the prosecution.
18.PW.5 is also alleged to be another injured. He also partly supported and partly turned hostile, but he has not deposed anything against the accused . He has deposed only regarding the incident and he is unable to say on whose part the incident has been taken place.
19.PW.2 who is the wife of PW.1, she also deposed about the incident. PW.6 is the wife of PW.5 she has also deposed about the incident, but failed to identify the accused. PW.3 and 4 are alleged to be the eye witnesses, but they completely turned hostile. There are so many contradictions, omissions and improvement in the evidence of PW.1, 2, 5 and 6.
20.The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused with support of independent and cogent evidence. PW.1, 2, 5 and 6 are the interested witnesses. So their version is not free from suspicion.
21.Looking to the story of the prosecution from any angle, there is no sufficient materials to convict the accused a serious doubt arises regarding the case. Hence benefit of doubt will goes in favour of accused. Hence, I answer the above point no. 1 accordingly.
22. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.338 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 29th day of April 2022.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: PWs:
1.Raghavan
2.Smt.Vimala
3.Santhosh Patil
4.Santhosh Poojar
5.Ramesh Mandal
6.Smt.Kunkuma Mandal.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar
3. Statement of PW.5
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
NIL
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: NIL XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.304(A) of IPC and Section -135 of Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.