Bangalore District Court
State By Srirampura Police Station vs Person In Compliance Of 207 Of Cr.P.C And ... on 27 July, 2018
THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 27th day of July 2018
Present: Sri. Laxman R. Kurane., B.Com., LL.B (Spl),
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 17514/2009
2. Date of offence : 2.7.2009
3. Complainant : State by Srirampura Police Station
4. Accused : 1. Siddegowda - SPLIT UP
2. Balachandra,
Rajhans Enterprises, No. 50/11,
2nd Main Road, Industrial Town,
2nd Unit, Rajajinagara,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained of : Sec. 292 IPC and Secs. 4 & 6
of Indecent Representation of
Women Prohibition Act 1986
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused are acquitted
The PSI of Srirampura Police Station has filed the final report as
against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 292 IPC
2
and Secs. 4 and 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act,
1986.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the accused
was printing indecent pictures of women with indecent writing and sending
the same to C.W.1 to 3 Srinivas, M. Shekarappa and Shivakumar from his
Godown at No. 56, 5th cross, within the jurisdiction of Srirampura Police
Station and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.2 appeared through his counsel and was enlarged
on bail. As accused No.1 remained absconding, case against him is split up
and registered separate case. Prosecution papers are furnished to the
accused person in compliance of 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing before
charge, since no grounds were made out for their discharge, charges were
framed, read over to the accused person in the language known to him.
The accused person having understood the same, denied it to be false and
claimed to be tried. As such, the matter was set down for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons
had cited C.W.1 to 11 as its charge sheet witnesses, among whom C.W.10,
1 and 3 are examined as P.W.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3 and M.O.1
3
to 4. The accused was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the
incriminating material available in the case of the prosecution. The
accused person denied the same and not chosen to adduce evidence on his
behalf. As such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the learned Sr. APP for the prosecution and the learned
counsel for the accused persons. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Following point arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused persons have committed the offences punishable
under Sec. Sec. 292 IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of Indecent
Representation of Women Prohibition Act, 1986 ?
(2) What order ?
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1:
8. P.W.1 is the witness to the mahazar has turend out hostile to the
case of the prosecution. P.W.2 is P.I. has stated in his evidence that on
2.7.2009 he along with C.W.2 and 3 at 11.30 a.m. based on credible
information went to No. 56, 5th cross, 7th Main Road, where accused No.1
4
printed indecent books and was distributing to the public and he went there
and seized the indecent books from Sl. No. 1 to 13 by drawing mahazar
Ex.P.2 and along with the properties he has lodged complaint to Srirampura
Police as per Ex.P.3 and the sample books are marked as M.O.1 to 14.
9. P.W.3 is Head Constable and his evidence is in line with the
evidence of P.W.2.
10. Except the evidence of these three witnesses, the prosecution has
not examined any other witnesses. P.W.1 has turned out hostile. It is
difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 who are police officials
without corroborating evidence from any other witnesses. Inspite of
issuance of summons to other witnesses, they have not turned up before the
Court to tender their evidence. Hence, the prayer of Sr. APP for issuance
of summons to other witnesses is rejected as sufficient opportunity has
already been given and also in view of the fact that the case is of the year
2009. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer the above point
in the negative.
Point No. 2 :
5
11. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. Sec. 292 IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act, 1986.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.2 and his surety shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
Case papers and properties shall be preserved for trial against split up accused No.1.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 27 th day of July 2018) (LAXMAN R. KURANE), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Shankara
P.W.2 : Srinivasa
P.W.3 : Shivakumara
6
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Statement Ex.P.2 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.3 : Complaint
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
M.O.1 to 4 : Indecent books
For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
7
Judgment is pronounced in open court.
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. Sec. 292 IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act, 1986.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.2 and his surety shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
Case papers and properties shall be preserved for trial against split up accused No.1.
VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
8 9