Bangalore District Court
State By High Grounds Police vs Sridhar S/O Murthy on 13 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-69)
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2015
:PRESENT:
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE No.860/2014
COMPLAINANT : State by High Grounds Police,
Bengaluru City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED: 1. Sridhar S/o Murthy,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.14, 2nd cross,
Veerannanapalya,
Arebic College Post, Bengaluru.
2. Indrakumar S/o Murthy,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.14, 2nd Cross,
Veerannanapalya,
Arebic College Post
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. M.M., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 28-08-2012
2. Date of report of occurrence 29-08-2012
3. Date of arrest of A-1 and 2 31-10-2012
Date of release on bail of A-1 and 2 13-11-2012
Period undergone in custody by A-1 14 Days
4. Date of commencement of evidence 09-02-2015
2 S.C. No.860/2012
5. Date of closing of evidence 27-04-2015
6. Name of the complainant Vijay K.R.
9. Offences complained of Sec.307,504,326
r/w Sec. 34 IPC
10. Opinion of the Judge As per the final
order
11. Order of sentence Offence not
proved
JUDGMENT
This case is committed by the VIII ACMM Court, Bangalore City, to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, on the ground that offences punishable U/s 307, 504, 326 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
2. The Police Sub-Inspector, High Grounds Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec.307,504,326 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC arising out of High Grounds Police Station in Crime No.242/2012.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of Prosecution that, on 28-08-2012 at about 6.00 p.m., some one called in the cell-phone to CW.1 Vijay K.R. and told him that within the limits of High-grounds 3 S.C. No.860/2012 Police Station, Vasantha Nagara, 1st main in Diplomat bar and restaurant his elder brother has been catch hold. Thereafter CW.1 came there at 9.30 p.m. and came inside the bar, his elder brother was not there. CW.1 came out of the bar at that time accused No.1 and 2 with common intention by holding iron rod and knife in their hands in order to kill CW.1 picked up quarrel with him and abused CW.1 in filthy language so as to insult him and such insult may likely to cause him to brake public peace or to commit any other offences. Accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 with iron rod on his head two times and also assaulted on his hand and caused bleeding injury to him, accused No.2 stabbed CW.1 with knife on his stomach and attempted to kill CW.1 and thereby committed the offences under Sec.307, 504, 326 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
3(a) CW.14 who is the Police Sub-Inspector of High grounds Police Station on 28-08-2012 at 10.30 p.m. received phone call stating that CW.1 has sustained injury in assault and admitted to Bowring hospital, CW.14 visited to the hospital at 11 p.m. there CW.1 was taking treatment. On enquiry CW.1 has given oral complaint to CW.14. CW.14 has 4 S.C. No.860/2012 reduced into writing and returned back to his police station and registered the case in Crime No.242/2012 and submitted FIR to the court thereafter CW.14 tried to catch hold accused they were not found. CW.14 has recorded the statements of CW.4, thereafter CW.14 has handed-over the further investigation to CW.13.
3(b) CW.13 on 01-09-2012 at 11.30 went to the spot called CW.2 and 3 panchas and in the presence of panchas drawn spot mahazar of place shown by CW.1. CW.1 has produced his T-shirt and shirt before CW.13 at the time of drawing mahazar and CW.13 has seized the blood stained T- shirt and shirt belongs to CW.1. CW.13 subjected the said property in P.F.No.111/12. CW.13 orally directed to CW.14 to record statement of CW.7 and 8. CW.14 has recorded statements of CW.7 and 8 and produced before CW.13. CW.13 has included the same in file. Thereafter CW.13 has been transferred so he has handed further investigation to Police Inspector Ramesh. On 03-09-2012 Police Inspector Ramesh has handed over further investigation to CW.14. On 31-10-2012 CW.11 and 12 catch hold accused and produced before CW.14. On the same day CW.14 has arrested the 5 S.C. No.860/2012 accused No.1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statements. Thereafter CW.14 has recorded statements of CW.11 and 12. Accused No.1 and 2 in their voluntary statements stated that if they are taken to the place shown by them they will show the place where they have thrown the weapons used for committing the offence and produced the same as per Ex.P.11 and 12 respectively. CW.14 has called CW.5 and 6 panchas accused No.1 and 2 have taken CW.14, CW.5 and 6 near Jayamahal railway bridge, there accused No.1 has produced iron rod and accused No.2 has produced knife used for committing the offences. CW.14 has seized the same by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.2. Thereafter CW.14 has subjected the property seized under P.F.No.127/2012. Thereafter CW.14 has entrusted accused No.1 and 2 to judicial custody. On 29-12-2012 CW.14 has obtained wound certificate of CW.1. On 05-01-20913 CW.14 has obtained documents regarding blood group of CW.1 from Balaji Diagnostics. On 21-01-2013 CW.14 has sent the property seized in this case to FSL for examination and submitting the report. After examination CW.14 has collected FSL report and articles sent for examination. On 15-02-2013 CW.14 has sent 6 S.C. No.860/2012 M.O.1 and 2 weapons to the medical officer for examination and submitting the opinion whether the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate could be sustained if assaulted with M.O.1 and 2 weapons. Thereafter CW.14 has obtained the weapon examination report from medical officer, thereafter as investigation is completed CW.14 has filed charge sheet.
4. After filing the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, 8th ACMM Court, Bengaluru has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.8230/2013; thereafter the 8th ACMM Court has secured the presence of the accused and furnished charge sheet copy to them U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. thereafter 8th Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru Court has committed the case before Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Court, Bangalore and the same was numbered as S.C.860/2014 and made over to this court for disposal according to law as the offences alleged under Sec.307,504,326 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
5. After the receipt of the papers, this court has secured the presence of accused No.1 and 2. Thereafter heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned Public 7 S.C. No.860/2012 Prosecutor for state on framing the charge. The charge under Sec.240 of Cr.P.C. framed against accused for the offences under Sec.307,504,326 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and read-over the same to the accused in the open court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Thereafter, Prosecution has called upon to prove the guilt of the accused by examining the Prosecution witnesses. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined six witnesses as PW.1 to 6, got marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to 16 and got marked four material objects as MO.1 to 4 and closed their side.
6. Thereafter accused are examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the Prosecution evidence. Accused denied the statement in toto and further stated that they have no defence evidence. Thereafter, case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in length.
8. The following points arise for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt prove that on 28-08-2012 8 S.C. No.860/2012 at 6.00 p.m., some one has called CW.1 in cell-phone and stated that within the limits of High ground Police Station at Vasanthanagara 1 main, in Diplomat bar st and restaurant his elder brother has been catch hold thereafter CW.1 came there at
9.30 p.m. and came inside the bar his elder brother was not there CW.1 came out of the bar at that time accused No.1 and 2 with common intention by holding deadly weapons like iron rod and knife in order to kill the CW.1 picked up quarrel with him and abused in filthy language, accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 with iron rod on his head two times and also assaulted on his hand, and caused bleeding injury to him, accused No.2 stabbed CW.1 with knife on his stomach and thereby attempted to kill CW,.1 and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.307 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. Further the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 on the above said date, time and place with common intention picked up quarrel with CW.1 and abused him in filthy language so as to insult him and such insult may likely to cause or brake public peace or to commit any other offences and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 504 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C.?
3. Further the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 on the above said date, time and place with common intention picked up quarrel with CW.1 accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 with iron rod on his head two times and also assaulted on his hand, caused bleeding injury to him, accused No.2 stabbed CW.1 with knife on his stomach and caused 9 S.C. No.860/2012 grievous injuries to him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 326 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C.?
4. What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
POINT No.1 : In the Negative;
PONT NO.2 : In the Negative;
POINT No.3 : In the Negative;
POINT No.4 : As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 to 3: The above points are inter-
connected to each other hence they are taken up for discussion together in order to avoid repetition of facts.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that accused have committed the offence under Sec.307, 504, 326 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt Prosecution in all examined six witnesses and they are PW.1-Dastagir son of late Shaik Khadar-spot mahazar pancha, PW.2-Laxmesha son of Lingaraju-seizure mahazar pancha, PW.3-Dr. Keshavamurthy son of Muniellappa- Medical Officer, PW.4-Savithri Wife of K.R.Rajappa-circumstantial witness, PW.5-Lingaraju son of 10 S.C. No.860/2012 Ambanna-eye witness, PW.6-Raghavendra son of Bheemaraya-Police Sub-Inspector (I.O.).
12. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused got marked 16 documents and they are Ex.P1-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P2-Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P3-wound certificate, Ex.P4-Complaint, Ex.P5-Weapon examination report, Ex.P6- Sample seal, Ex.P7-Portion of statement of PW.4, Ex.P8- Portion of statement of PW.5, Ex.P9-FIR, Ex.P10-Report submitted by P.C.8562 to Police Sub-Inspector, Ex.P11- Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.1, Ex.P12- Portion of voluntary statement of accused No.2, Ex.P13- P.F.127/12, Ex.P14-Anotomy report given by Balaji Diagnostics, Ex.P15-FSL report and Ex.P16-Sample seal. Prosecution got marked four material objects and i.e., M.O.1- Iron rod, MO.2-Knife, MO.3-Shirt and M.O.4-T-shirt.
13. Perusal of the complaint which is at Ex.P4 discloses that, incident took place on 28-08-2012 at 09-30 p.m. and complainant has lodged the compliant before the Police on 29-08-2012 at 12.00 hours i.e., within 4 hours from the alleged incident. It is the case of the prosecution that after the incident complainant has been shifted to the hospital and 11 S.C. No.860/2012 CW.14 came to know regarding shifting the complainant to the hospital and CW.14 has visited the hospital and there CW.1 was taken treatment and CW.14 on enquiry has given oral complaint before the I.O. So, looking to the facts and circumstances delay caused in lodging the complaint is not abnormal one.
14. Perusal of the FIR which is at Ex.P9 discloses that Police have submitted FIR to the court on 29-08-2012 at 11.00 a.m. i.e., within 12 hours from the registration of the case. So, there is no abnormal delay on the part of the police in submitting the FIR to the court.
15. Prosecution examined PW.1 and PW1 is pancha on spot mahazar and he in his evidence stated that the police have not called him to the spot, police have not drawn any spot mahazar in his presence, police have not seized M.O.3 and 4 articles in his presence. Prosecution treated this witness as hostile and cross examined him and nothing has been made out in his cross examination so as to help the prosecution to prove the drawing of Ex.P.1 spot mahazar and seizure of M.O.3 and 4 articles.
12 S.C. No.860/2012
16. Prosecution has examined PW.2 and he is a pancha on Ex.P.2 Seizure Mahazar and PW.2 in his evidence stated that High-Grounds police have not called him for drawing seizure mahazar. Police have not seized any articles in his presence. Prosecution treated this witness as hostile and cross examined him and nothing has been made out in his cross examination so as to help the prosecution to prove the drawing of Ex.P.2 seizure mahazar and seizure of M.O.1 and 2 articles.
17. Prosecution examined PW.4 and PW.4 in her evidence stated that CW.1 is her elder brother's son. Two years earlier to her evidence at 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. she was in her house and at that time CW.1 came to the house and he was sustained injuries to his head and stomach and she has taken CW.1 to Bowring hospital. CW.1 has not told her how he has sustained injury. She does not know who has assaulted CW.1, she has not given statement before the police. Prosecution treated this witness as hostile and cross examined her and nothing has been made out in her cross examination so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
13 S.C. No.860/2012
18. Prosecution examined PW.5 and he in his evidence stated that he is working as Manager in Diplomat bar and restaurant at Vasanthanagara, CW.7 is cashier of his bar, CW.7 is dead. He has not seen the accused persons earlier to his evidence. He does not know CW.1. He has not witnessed any incident. He has not given any statement before police. Prosecution treated this witness as hostile and cross examined him and nothing has been made out in his cross examination so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
19. Prosecution has examined PW.3. PW.3 in his evidence stated that since 5 and half years to his evidence he is working as casualty medical officer at Bowring hospital, Bangalore. On 28-08-2012 at 10 p.m. when he was on duty patient by name Vijay K.R. brought by one Joseph who is relative of the injured with a history of assault by Sridhar and Indrajith with iron rod and knife around 9.30 p.m. he examined the injured and stated the injuries sustained to the injured on his body. For examining the injured he has issued wound certificate and identified the same on Ex.P3. Further this witness has stated that injury No.1 mentioned in Ex.P.3 14 S.C. No.860/2012 are simple in nature and they were fresh in nature at the time of his examination. Further this witness stated that 28-09- 2012 at 12.30 a.m. Police Sub-Inspector High Ground Police Station came to his hospital for recording statement of CW.1 and he asked him whether CW.1 is in a position to give the statement and he stated that CW.1 is competent to give statement CW.14 has recorded statement before him and identified the statement recorded by I.O. belongs to CW.1 as Ex.P.4. Further this witness has stated that on 05-02-2013 he received requisition from High Grounds Police Station for examine the weapons used for committing the offence and submitted report whether if a person is assaulted with the said weapons injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are likely to be caused or not. He received the articles and on opening the said articles, article No.1 was an iron metallic knife with handle, article No.2 was iron metallic rod and he examined the weapons and also examined the wound certificate and he is of the opinion that injuries mentioned in Ex.P.3 wound certificate are likely to be caused if a person is assaulted with M.O.1 and 2 weapons and for examining the weapons he has submitted the report and identified the same 15 S.C. No.860/2012 as Ex.P5. He returned the articles with report to the I.O. and identified the weapons examined him as M.O.1 and 2.
20. Prosecution has examined PW.6. PW.6 is the I.O. who has conducted earlier part and later part of investigation and he in his evidence clearly stated regarding the investigation done by him.
21. It is the specific case of the accused during the cross examined of prosecution witnesses that they have not committed any offence as alleged against them, they have been falsely implicated in this case in order to harass them. In the present case prosecution has examined one eye witness as PW.5 and he turned hostile. Further prosecution has examined PW.4 who is the circumstantial witness, she also turned hostile. In the present case complainant reported to be dead. So he has not been examined in this case. PW.1 is the spot mahazar pancha he turned hostile. PW.2 is the seizure mahazar pancha he also turned hostile. In the present case there is no material on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Eye witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, circumstantial witness examined by the prosecution turned hostile. Mahazar 16 S.C. No.860/2012 witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. So only the evidence of I.O. and medical officer will not corroborate the case of the prosecution. As per the well settled principle of criminal law, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused and in the present case accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Evidence of PW.1 to 6, Ex.P.1 to 16 and M.O.1 to 4 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the above discussion, I answer points No.1 to 3 in the NEGATIVE.
22. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1-Sridhar and accused No.2-Indrakumar are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.307,504,326 r/w sec. 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
MO.1 and 2 are confiscated to the state after the appeal period is over. M.O.3 and 4 are worthless 17 S.C. No.860/2012 articles, hence ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcript thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of May, 2015).
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Dastagir CW.2 09-02-2015 PW.2 Laxmesha CW.5 09-02-2015 PW.3 Dr. Keshavamurthy CW.9 03-03-2015 PW.4 Savithri CW.4 03-03-2015 PW.5 Lingaraju CW.8 03-03-2015 PW.6 Raghavendra CW.14 27-02-2015
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Spot Mahazar PW.1 09-02-2015
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 " "
Ex.P2 Seizure Mahazar PW.2 09-02-2015
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.2 " "
Ex.P3 Wound certificate PW.3 03-03-2015
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.3 " "
Ex.P4 & Portion of statement of PW.1 " "
and signature of PW.1
4(a)
18 S.C. No.860/2012
Ex.P5 Weapon examination report PW.3 03-03-2015
Ex.P5 (a) Signature of PW.3 " "
Ex.P6 Sample seal PW.3 03-03-2015
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW.3 PW.3 03-03-2015
Ex.P7 Portion of statement of PW.4 PW.4 03-03-2015
Ex.P9 FIR PW.6 27-04-2015
Ex.P9(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P10 Report submitted by P.C.8562
to Police Sub-Inspector.
Ex.P11 Portion of voluntary statement
of accused No.1
Ex.P12 Portion of voluntary statement
of accused No.2.
Ex.P13 P.F.No.127/12
Ex.P14 Anatomy report given by Balaji
Diagnostics
Ex.P15 FSL report.
Ex.P16 Sample seal
Material objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Iron rod P.W.3 03-03-2015 MO.2 One knife " " M.O.3 Shirt PW.6 27-04-2015 M.O.4 T-shirt " "
Witness examined, documents and material objects marked for the accused:
- Nil -
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.19 S.C. No.860/2012
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide detailed order;
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1-Sridhar and accused No.2-Indrakumar are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.307,504,326 r/w sec. 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
MO.1 and 2 are confiscated to the state after the appeal period is over. M.O.3 and 4 are worthless articles, hence ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.