Bangalore District Court
State By Basaveshwaranagar P. S vs Mythria D/O Puttaswamy Gowda on 13 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 13th day of May 2016
Present:
Sri A. SOMASHEKARA, B.A.L., LL.M.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CC No.30705/2011
Complainant State by Basaveshwaranagar P. S.,
(By Sr. APP B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.Mythria D/o Puttaswamy Gowda,
24 Yrs.,
2.Rekha C/o Lohit, 25 Yrs.,
3.Supriya D/o Puttaswamy, 22 Yrs.,
4.Roopa C/o Venkatesh, 34 Yrs.,
All are r/a No.218, 5th Cross,
Vyyalikaval Layout,
Chandra Layout,
Bangalore-560 010.
Rep. by Sri ASK., Adv.,)
2 CC No.30705/2011
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.30705/2011
2. Date of the commission of the : 20.05.2011
offence
3.The name of the complainant : Sri Shivakumar
4.Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5.The offence complained off: U/s.353 332 & 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
and proved
6.The plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : As per the final Order.
8.The date of such order : 13.05.2016.
###
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., Bengaluru, has submitted the present charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.353, 332 and 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Judge sign 3 CC No.30705/2011
2.The brief facts leading to the case of prosecution are as under:
It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 20.05.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. at Near National School Junction, situated at West of Chord Road, that lies within the limits of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., Bengaluru, CW.1 Shivakumar, PC No.7902 of Vijayanagar Traffic P.S., Bangalore, was assisting CW.6 Raju, PSI of Vijayanagar P.S., Bangalore, in registering case with regard to violation of traffic rules and discharging his public duty. At that time accused No.1 drove her Santro Car bearing registration No. KA-02-MC-443 and jumped the signal, by that time CW.6 directed the complainant/CW.1 to stop the car of accused No.1, as per the order of CW.6, CW.1 tried to stop the car of accused No.1, by that time the accused No.1 intentionally drove her car over the right leg of complainant and tried to escape from the spot, CW.1/complainant stopped the car of accused No.1, told her that officer is calling, accused No.1 got down from the car, came near the complainant, abused in filthy language as ±ÀAqÀ, Judge sign 4 CC No.30705/2011 ¤Ã£ÀÄ UÀAqÀ¸Á, ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àsgï, §Á¸ÀÖqïð, further the accused No.1 attempted to drove her car, by that time the complainant stopped the car of the accused, attempted to take the photograph of the number plate of the said car through his mobile phone, by that time the accused No.1 got down from the car, thrown the mobile phone of the complainant on the road, all of a sudden slapped over the cheek of complainant.
Further the accused No.2 to 4 who were in the said car, got down from t he said car, dragged the complainant by holding his uniform, assaulted over his cheek, caused injuries, deterring the complainant to do his duty as a Traffic Police Constable. Then the complainant went to the Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, and lodged his written complaint. On receipt of such complaint, The PSI has registered a case in Crime No.228/11. Then the complainant went to KC General Hospital, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru and took treatment therein. On the same day, the PSI has visited the spot and drew the mahazar therein. He recorded statements of witnesses and collected wound certificate of the Judge sign 5 CC No.30705/2011 injured/complainant. After due completion of the investigation, he has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences.
3. During crime stage, the accused No.1 to 4 got enlarged on bail. Prosecution papers were furnished to all the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Heard Learned APP and Learned Counsel appearing for accused on charge. As there were sufficient material to frame charge, charge under Sections 353 332 and 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to all the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
5. In order to bring home the charges leveled against the accused persons, prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and closed its side.
Judge sign 6 CC No.30705/2011
6. The accused No.1 to 4 have been examined U/s.313(1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Incriminating material appearing in prosecution evidence have been brought to the notice of all the accused, who denied the same. The Accused No.1 entered the witness box as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D3 to disporve the case of the prosecution.
7. Heard the arguments of learned SPP and learned counsel for the accused at length.
8. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of material placed on record, following points arises for my consideration.
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 20.05.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. at Near National School Junction, situated at West of Chord Road, that lies within the limits of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., Bengaluru, the accused persons in prosecution of their common intention, used criminal force and deterring to the CW.1/Police Constable caused voluntarily hurt by assaulting and dragging him and thereby committed an offence punishable Judge sign 7 CC No.30705/2011 under Section 332 and 353 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date time and place, the accused persons in prosecution of their common intention abused to the complainant in filthy language so as to insult him intending to provoke him to commit breach of public peace and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 504 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
3) What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
10. Point Nos.1 and 2:- To avoid the repetition of
appreciation of evidence, I have taken up these two points in common for my discussion.
Judge sign 8 CC No.30705/2011 The learned Sr. APP vehemently argued that the injured, PW.1 being a Police Constable and Government Servant corroboratively deposed about real facts happed on 20.05.2011, while he was on duty, and his evidence is corroborated by PW.5, and independent witnesses like PW.6. Further he submitted that, the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 6 are corroborated with medical evidence. Further, the Lrd., Sr. APP forcefully submitted that, the prosecution has proved its case without any doubt and accordingly, prayed for conviction to all the accused persons for the offences charged against them.
11. On the other hand, the Lrd., counsel for the accused noticed some contradictions arising out of the evidence of PW.1 and submitted that the said contradictions thrown doubt and revealing to accept the defence of accused that, the prosecution has malafide intention out of vengnece. Particularly, he forcefully submitted that, there is no recovery and no corroboration to the further statement of PW.1, further the medical evidence just to support his false case. In toto, Judge sign 9 CC No.30705/2011 according to him, the accused No.1 being a actress, and because of this reason, PW.1 hostile attitude towards the accused persons and out of the police powers, he was falsely implicated the accused persons. Therefore, he prayed for acquittal of all the he accuseds in the ends of justice. In the light of arguments urged by both sides, it is incumbent upon the court scrutinize each and every evidence of the prosecution.
12. PW.1/Shivakumar .M has deposed that he is the complainant of this case, he is working as Police Constable at Vijayanagar Traffic P.S., since 2009 and he knows all the accused, who were present before this Court, and on 20.05.211 at about 12.30 p.m. at National School Junction WOC Road, Bangalore City, he was discharging his duty by controlling the traffic, at that time his subordinate police officials were also present on the said spot. He has further deposed that at that time a car bearing registration KA-02- MC-443 came from the side of Basaveshwaranagar and by Judge sign 10 CC No.30705/2011 violating the signal rules moved towards West of Chord Road, and as per the instruction of CW.6/Raju, he tried to stop the said car, but the said car moved without stopping, and the right side wheel of the said car moved on his right feet, and then stopped by moving aside, caused simple injuries to his right feet. He has further deposed that on that day accused No.1, 3 and 4 were present in the said car, accused No.1 by driving the said car came to the said spot, he told to accused No.1 by stating that CW.6 Raju is calling, but she refused to come over, attempted to move her car, at that time attempted to take photo of the number of the said car through his mobile, by that time accused No.1 stopped the car and snatched his mobile phone and thrown the same on the road, and further accused No.1 get down from the car and slapped on his right cheek, by that time accused No.2 also came to the said spot. He has further deposed that accused No.2 to 4 came near him, dragged him by holding his uniforms, assaulted him with hands, and further all the accused abused him ±ÀAqÀ ¤£ÀƧâ UÀAqÀ¸Á bastard, CW.6 and the publics Judge sign 11 CC No.30705/2011 gathered on the spot have pacified the said quarrel, due to the said act of all accused persons, on that day caused obstruction to discharge his official duty as public servant. He has further deposed that, therefore, on that day he went to the Basaveshwaranagar P.S., and lodged Ex.P1 written complaint to the Police, The Basaveshwaranagar Police have taken him to the hospital and get treated him, further on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. the Basaveshwaranagar Police have took him to the said spot, drawn Ex.P2 mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Ex.P1a and 2a are his signatures, if seen the car he will identify the said car. Thus, most of the facts narrated in the FIR is corroborated from his mouth.
The defence counsel cross-examined PW.1 at length. However, nothing has been shaken about the presence of all the accused in the place of occurrence in manner stated by PW.1 in his examination-in-chief on 12.11.2013. Further it is also prime important to consider that it is suggested to PW.1 Judge sign 12 CC No.30705/2011 by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 in his cross- examination as under:
D ¢£À D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀ£ÁVzÉä JA§ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÀZÀjAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉ. ¹UÀ߯ï dA¥ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÁºÀ£À ZÁ®PÀjU ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §¢AiÀÄ°è ¤°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà ¸ÀÆa¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸À«ðøï gÀ¸ÉÛ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ §gÀ®Ä ¦üæà ¯É¥sïÖ l£ïð EgÀÄvÉÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
D ªÁºÀ£À ¤°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ D ªÁºÀ£À £À¤ßAzÀ 3-4 Cr zÀÆgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ¤AwvÀÄÛ. D ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀwÛgÀ°®è. D WÀl£É §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-6 gÁdÄgÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÉÝ. £Á£ÀÄ CgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ D ªÀĺÀdgï §gÉ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄÃgÉUÉ UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è C£ÀªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV ¤°è¹PÉÆAqÀÄ gÉÆïïPÁ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÅà JAzÀÄ 1£Éà CgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. D ¢£À £Á£Éà 1£Éà CgÉÆæAiÀÄ PÀ¥Á¼ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¥Éǰøï CzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß vÀ¥Àà£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaѺÁQPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆmÉÖ JAzÀgÉ Judge sign 13 CC No.30705/2011 ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀȶÖzÉÝ MAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
These suggestions clearly signify that accused No.1 has admitted her presence at the spot on the date of incident.
Under such circumstances, it is for the accused No.1 to explain the reasons for her presence at the spot. Accused No.1 either during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or at the subsequent state or in his examination under Section 313 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not explained the circumstances under which she was present at the spot. When the accused No.1 has admitted her presence at the spot which itself very clearly presume that some incident was taken place between the complainant and thus this moot question remained unexplained/unanswered by the accused No.1. In other words absolutely there is no cross-examination about the presence of all the accused in the spot as spoken by PW.1 in his chief-examination. Therefore, unshaken evidence of PW.1 to that effect is worthy of evidence.
Judge sign 14 CC No.30705/2011
13. PW.2/ Vijay has deposed that on 20.05.2011 at about 4.00 he was going in his two wheeler, to go to Rajajinagar from Basaveshwaranagar, at National School Junction, WOC Road, complainant and police were present, with regard to quarrel took place with the accused person about jumping of signal police have conducted the mahazar on the said spot and obtained his signature on Ex.P2, Ex.P2b is his signature.
In the cross-examination of the defence, of course, he deposed that the police have not read over the contents of Ex.P2, but the presence of the police on the spot of the alleged incident, at the time of he putting the signature is not shaken. He also denied the suggestion that, the police was not present to the spot and he put the signature in the police station.
14. PW.3/Chittyprasad has deposed that on 20.05.2011 at about 12.00 noon to got to Bashyam Circle through WOC Road, he was going in his two wheeler at National School Junction, at that time he found stopping of car bearing registration No.KA-02-MC-433, the police have taken custody Judge sign 15 CC No.30705/2011 of the said car, and obtained his signature on Ex.P3, Ex.P3a is his signature, if he seen the said car, he will identify the same.
In the cross-examination of the defence, of course, he deposed that the police have not read over the contents of Ex.P3, but the presence of the police, at the time of he putting the signature is not shaken.
15. PW.5/GP Raju has deposed that from October 2009 to November 2012 he was working as PSI at Vijayanagar Traffic P.S., he knows the complainant of this case and all the accused persons present before the Court and on 20.05.2011 from 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. he himself and complainant- Shivamakumar were on duty near National School Junction, West of Chord Road, within the limits of their Police Station, on that day at about 12.30 p.m. when they were discharging their official duty, a red color Santro car from the side of Basaveshwaranagar, by violating the traffic rules(Signal Jump) moving towards Peenya, he directed the complainant to stop the said car, bring the driver of the said car near him. He has Judge sign 16 CC No.30705/2011 further deposed that complainant-Shivakumar went near the said car and directed the driver of the said car to stop, but the driver of the said car moved the said car, and the right side wheel of the said car touched to the right leg of the complainant-Shivakumara, by that time Shivakumar through his mobile phone taking the photograph of the number of the said car, by that time accused No.1 Mytrhiya driving the said car, by stopping the said car accused No.1 got down from the car, abused shivakumar, slapped over his cheek, snatched the mobile phone and thrown the same, further the remaining accused persons got down from the car, dragged the Shivakumar by holding his uniform, abused in filthy language, he intimated the number of car KA-02-MC-443 to the Basaveshwaranagar P.S., Police came to the spot, took all the accused persons to the Police Station, Shivakumar has lodged complaint to the police about the incident, Basaveshwaranagar Police have recorded his statement.
Judge sign 17 CC No.30705/2011 In the cross-examination of the defence, it is simply suggested to support the version of PW.1, he deposed evidence, but the same was flatly denied by PW.5.
The defence counsel cross-examined PW.5 at length. However, nothing has been shaken about the presence of all the accused in the manner stated by PW.5 in his examination- in-chief. In other words absolutely there is no cross- examination about the presence of all the accused in the spot as spoken by PW.5 in his chief-examination. Therefore, unshaken evidence of PW.5 to that effect is worthy of evidence.
16. PW.6/Venkataram has deposed that he know the complainant-Shivakumar and CW.6 Raju and all the accused persons present before this Court, and on 20.05.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. to go to Sriramapura from Basaveshwaranagar he came in his scooter and stopped his scooter near West of Chord Road Junction, at that time in the said junction complainant-Shivakumar and Inspector Raju were discharging their duty by controlling the vehicles, by that time a red color Judge sign 18 CC No.30705/2011 Santro car came from the side of Basaveshwaranagar, and by violating the signal rules moving towards Yeshwanathapur, to stop the said car, complainant-Shivakumar went near the said car, by that time driver of the said car without stopping the car, moved the car, at that time Shivakumar taking photograph of the number plate of the said car through his mobile phone, at that time a lady was driving the said car, she got down from the said car, abused the complainant- Shivakumar, tried to assault the complainant, Basaveshwaranagar Police have obtained his statement with regard car bearing No. KA-02-MC-443.
In the cross-examination of the defence, it is simply suggested on the say of police, he deposed evidence, but the same was denied by PW.6.
17. PW.8/Lakshmidevi has deposed that on 20.05.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. she was discharging her duty at Kamakshipalya P.S., SHO of their P.S., directed her and WPC Mangala to go to WOC Road Junction, as there was some Judge sign 19 CC No.30705/2011 galata, they went to the said spot, and found stopping of a red color Santro near the signal, and found sitting of accused persons Supriya, Rekha and Roopa, at that time the accused- Mythriya quarreling with the Shivakumar, Traffic Police Constable, the said Shivakumar intimated her that he questioned the accused about violating of signal rules, accused Mythriya drove her car on his leg, abused him, and assaulted him, the Basaveshwaranagar Police were also present on the spot, further she and Mangala as per the directions of PSI of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., took all the accused persons and the said car to the Basaveshwaranagar P.S., PSI has recorded her statement about this case.
In the cross-examination of the defence, it is simply suggested to support the version of PW.1, she deposed evidence, but the same was denied by PW.8.
18. PW.4/Mangala has deposed that on 20.05.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. she was discharging her duty at Kamakshipalya P.S., SHO-Ramachandraiah of their P.S., directed her and her subordinate Lakshmidevi to go to WOC Road Junction, as Judge sign 20 CC No.30705/2011 there was some galata, they reached to the said spot at about 12.30 p.m., she found quarreling of all the accused persons with the complainant-Shivakumar, the said Shivakumar intimated her that accused persons came to the said spot in the car, violated the traffic rules, when he questioned, accused drove her car on his leg, abused him, and assaulted him, the Basaveshwaranagar Police were also came to the spot, further she and Lakshmidevi apprehended all the accused persons and took them to Basaveshwaranagar P.S., She made her statement to the Basaveshwaranagar P.S., In the cross-examination of the defence, it is simply suggested to support the version of PW.1, he deposed evidence, but the same was denied by PW.4.
19. PW.9/Dr. Ramesh Babu has deposed that on 20.05.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. he was discharging his duty at Accident Division, KC General Hospital, at that time PC 10100 brought PC 7902 Shivakumar of Vijayanagar Traffic P.S., for treatment due to the assault, he examined the said Shivakumar, found Judge sign 21 CC No.30705/2011 swelling injuries below the left side of the lower lip, and further found swelling over the fingers of right leg, and new simple injuries, opined that if some one assaulted with the rough article or pressed the fingers, there is a chance of causing the said injuries and he gave the treatment to the said Shivakumar and issued Ex.P4 wound certificate to the police, Ex.P4a is his signature. Of Course, in the cross-examination, the bare suggestion does not thrown any doubt about his testimony, it is suggested and admitted that, the wounds mentioned in Ex.P4 might have been caused if some one assaulted with the rough article or pressed the fingers, there is a chance of causing the said injuries. As Ex.P4 is a MLC, the same was not thrown any doubt about the veracity of the testimony of this Medical officer.
20. PW.10/ KM Jayaram has deposed on 20.5.2011 at about 1.45 p.m. complainant Shivakumar appeared before him and lodged Ex.P1 written complaint, on the basis of the said Ex.P1 written complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.228/2011, Judge sign 22 CC No.30705/2011 and submitted Ex.P5 FIR to the Court, and handed over further investigation to PI Hanumanthappa.
In the cross-examination of the defence, it is simply suggested to support the version of PW.1, he registered a false case, but the same was denied by PW.10.
21. PW.7/Hanumanthappa H has deposed that on 20.05.2011 he took up further investigation of this case from PSI Jayaram, and on the same PSI Jayaram has produced all the accused persons and the car bearing registration No. KA- 02-MC-443 before him, he called the Mohan and Chittiprasad as panchas, further as per Ex.P3 he conducted mahazar till 3.30 p.m. and took the custody of the said car, arrested all accused persons, further produced all the accused persons with the help of his subordinate police officials before the Court. if seen the said car, he can identify. He has further deposed that on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. he visited the spot situated at Kabadi Kalyana Mantapa Road, WOC Road, Bangalore, he called Vijay and Manjunatha as panchas Judge sign 23 CC No.30705/2011 to the said spot, further as per Ex.P2 from 4.00 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. he conducted the mahazar, Ex.P2c and 3b are his signatures, further recorded statements of Cws.4 to 10, and on 21.05.2011 he recorded further statement of the complainant of this case, he enquired Cws.11 to 14 and recorded their statements, and handed over the case files for further investigation to PI Geetha Kulkarni.
In the cross-examination of the defence, it is simply suggested to support the version of PW.1, he deposed evidence, but the same was denied by PW.7.
22. By reading the entire cross examination of PW.1 to PW.10 the Learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that in the present case except PW.1, 4, 5, and 8 nobody has supported the case of the prosecution. Other cited eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Learned counsels for the accused has also submitted that the evidence of police and official witnesses are not at all believable, because they are interested in getting conviction of Judge sign 24 CC No.30705/2011 the accused. Therefore, he terms PW.1, 4, 5 and 8 as interested witnesses and submitted that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW.1, 4, 5, and 8. No doubt the said witnesses are police officials. As far as appreciation of evidence of police official witnesses is concerned, the said question is no longer a res integra. It has been settled by catena of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2001) 1 SCC 652 (State, Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and Another), has held as under:
"21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We were aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable Judge sign 25 CC No.30705/2011 or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent person in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
The same view is again reiterated in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1311 (Karamjit Singh V. State (Delhi Administration), wherein it has been held as under:
"The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds."
Even as long back in 1978 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1571 (State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew and another etc.), has held as under:
"The courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities. The evidence of the investigating officers cannot be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused are convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case."
Judge sign 26 CC No.30705/2011
23. Further it is also equally important to consider that PW.1, 4, 5 and 8 are public servants. As per Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act, acts performed by the public servants are presumed to be correct, unless contrary is proved. Therefore, considering the testimonies of police and official witnesses with initial suspicion runs counter to the legislative scheme and spirit of Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act. Under such circumstance, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of police officials and official witnesses is sans merit.
24. The next bone of contention raised by learned counsels for the accused is that there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses different covers.
25. According to the learned counsel for the accused, these are the major contradictions and inconsistencies which corrode the veracity of the testimony of PW.1, 8 and 9.
Judge sign 27 CC No.30705/2011
26. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made at the Bar. In my considered opinion these are the only minor discrepancies and inconsistencies which will not destroy the veracity of the testimonies of PW.1, 8 and
9.
27. It is true that PW.1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 have narrated the incident in a similar manner. There are some discrepancies and inconsistencies in their evidence. These discrepancies and inconsistencies are bound to occur. There are several reasons for these discrepancies. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 753 "Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat" has summarized the reasons for discrepancies. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:-
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed in the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events, the witness could not have anticipated the occurrence Judge sign 28 CC No.30705/2011 which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person.
What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross- examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him - perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
28. Discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore cannot Judge sign 29 CC No.30705/2011 be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
29. Even if there are minor discrepancies between the narrations of the witnesses, when they speak on details, unless such contradictions are of material dimensions, the same should not be used to discard the evidence in its entirety. The trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate the otherwise acceptable evidence. True, there are discrepancies between the evidence of those three witnesses, but I have not come across any discrepancy worth quoting for consideration as they are immaterial. Such discrepancies are common features in the testimony of any two witnesses. It was too much of a strain for the judicial mind to ferret out some minor discrepancies as between the testimony of those three witnesses. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2011) 9 SCC 698 (Rakesh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), has held as under:
Judge sign 30 CC No.30705/2011 "29. In Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana this Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 533-34, para 11) "11. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a mater of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern of uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise."
30. In the light of principles emerging form the above referred decisions and in view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that these contradictions are not of material dimensions and the same should not be used to discard the evidence of PW.1, 8 and 9 in its entirety and thus, the contention raised by the accused counsel does not hold any water.
31. While scanning the evidence of the various witnesses the Court has to inform itself that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony, provided there is the Judge sign 31 CC No.30705/2011 impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered. The sluggish chronometric sense of the country-side community in India is notorious since time is hardly of the essence of their slow life;
and even urban folk make mistakes about time when no particular reason to observe and remember the hour of minor event like taking a morning meal existed. Too much play on such slippery facts goes against realism so essential in a testimonial appraisal.
32. It is also equally settled principle that truth suffers some infirmity when it is projected through human agency, due to several reasons as stated in the decision referred infra. In this connection I am persuaded to refer immortal words of Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer in Indersingh V/S State of Delhi - AIR 1978 SC 1091, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"(2) Credibility of testimony, oral circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is urged that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued Judge sign 32 CC No.30705/2011 that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why fake up?
Because the court asks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic".
(Underlined for emphasis)
33. It has been argued with force by the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution has cited PW.1, 4, 6 and 8 and 5 as eyewitnesses, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, non-supporting of the case of the prosecution by PW.4, 5 and 7 destroys the veracity of the evidence of PW.1, 8 and 9. When three witnesses have not at all supported the case of the prosecution, the residual evidence of PW.1, 8 and 9 does not fetch credence. I have also meticulously considered this submission made by the learned counsels for the accused. It is also equally true that the witnesses are to be weighed and not counted. I would like to mention that in order to convict an accused, the number is not sole factor i.e. quality prevails over the quantity. Even on the Judge sign 33 CC No.30705/2011 evidence of single eyewitness which inspires the confidence of the court, conviction can be based. In old English law, the rule unus nullus (one is equal to none) was followed. Evidence usually was counted not weighed; this rule is no longer being followed in England as well as in India. Section 134 of Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses shall in any cases be required for proof of any fact. Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it is weight of the evidence and not number of witnesses, which the court ought to consider. It is the quality not quantity that matters.
34. It is also well-settled legal principle that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. Courts are entrusted with the duty to sift the grain from the chaff. This can be found in plethora of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts. Further in the celebrated Work "Underhill's Criminal Evidence "(Page 1379) it is stated:
"The jurors determine the weight to be given to the testimony of witnesses by the demeanour in the stand, their Judge sign 34 CC No.30705/2011 interest in the case the probability and improbability of their testimony, its corroboration, the facts bearing on their credibility, their intelligence and knowledge and not be the mere number of witnesses. Conflicting evidence should be reconciled by the jury, if possible, and, if they cannot reconcile it, they may base their verdict on that part of the testimony which they consider worthy of credit and reject that which they deem to be unworthy of belief. Inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of a witness do not make it inherently improbable. The jury cannot arbitrarily reject the evidence but the testimony of a witness which is willfully and corruptly false may be totally disregarded by the jury. The jury may believe the testimony of one witness or any part of his testimony as against a great number of witnesses. They may regard the testimony of an un- impeached witness and they are not bound to believe un- contradicted evidence which is incredible. We must weigh the evidence carefully in each case not adopt any arbitrary formula or yardstick in measuring its worth or worthlessness."(AIR 2004 SC 1169: 2477)
35. In the light of these authorities, merely the fact that PW.4, 5 and 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution, which does not make the evidence of PW.1, 8 and 9 unbelievable. After removing the chaff (Evidence of PW.4, 5 and 7), the residual evidence of PW.1, 8 and 9 (grain) can be considered by the Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not at all sustainable.
Judge sign 35 CC No.30705/2011
36. Coming to the next submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution had not examined the Investigating officer who filed final report. his non examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution case. On the other hand the learned Sr.APP vehemently submitted that in criminal cases, the evidence of the investigating officer has its own importance, but non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal in all cases. It all depends on facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Sr. A.P.P further argued that in this case on hand there are no any omissions and contradictions or omissions and as such the examination of the investigating officer is not necessary therefore the non examination of I.O is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
37. In this regard I would like to say that the investigating officer is a material witness because he investigates the matters, records the statement of the witnesses, goes to the spot for the objective findings, prepares the case diary, receives the papers during investigation and after collecting the relevant material in support of the prosecution or against Judge sign 36 CC No.30705/2011 the prosecution he submits report in the form of charge sheet or in the form of final form then it is for the court to consider the same and pas orders as provided under law. But in this case on hand the prosecution examined PW.7 and PW.10 Investigating Officers, who have registered the case, conducted the investigation, and PW.7 has handed over further investigation to CW.17 Geetha Kulkarni, Police Inspector. Non-examination of CW.17 is not fatal to the case of prosecution, as CW.17 has only submitted the Charge sheet after duly conducting the investigation by PW.7.
38. Error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought out. To this effect, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held in Abu Thakir and other V/s State of Tamilnadu (2010) 5 SCC 91 that when the prosecution case is established by evidence, any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the prosecution's case doubtful or unworthy of belief. If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect of negligence Judge sign 37 CC No.30705/2011 cannot affect the prosecution's case. The Court should be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others (1998) 4 SCC 517, if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view was again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others (2003 (2) SCC 518). If ocular evidence is reliable, defect in investigation such as not collecting call details will not be adverse to the prosecution case. It is also important to note that, nothing has been culled out from the mouth of the investigation officers by the learned counsel for the accused Judge sign 38 CC No.30705/2011 that to suggest he has purposely avoided the collecting of call details.
39. It is also trite that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence. Further section 134 of the Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness, if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration is necessary only when witness is partially reliable and partially not reliable. This proposition has been pithily elaborated in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had gone into this controversy and divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither, wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of the first two categories the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that they pose little difficulty but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. The relevant portion is quoted as under:
Judge sign 39 CC No.30705/2011 "Hence, in our opinion, it is sound and well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely;
1) Wholly reliable
2) Wholly unreliable
3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty incoming to its conclusion. It is in the third category, the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses." (Paras 11-12)
40. We cannot, however, ignore the sad but basic truth that so-called independent witnesses tend to stay far away and are not willing to come forth as they often face grave consequences. The prosecution has therefore, perforce, to fall back on the testimonies of official witnesses. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted Judge sign 40 CC No.30705/2011 for some animus or for some other reason. Even apart, as rightly contended by the learned APP that there is/was no enmity between the informant and the accused so as to falsely implicate the accused. It is also not at all suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses that they are inimically disposed towards accused. When the enmity between the PW.1, 8 and 9 and the accused has been ruled out, absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1, 8 and 9.
41. Now let us appreciate the defence taken by the Accused. At the outset it is pertinent to note here that to disprove the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 entered the witness box as DW.1 and deposed that on 20.05.2011 after attending the marriage, she waiting for her sister and sisters' husband near National College Junction on the left side of the road, and on the main road she found complainant Shivakumar collecting money from the drivers by stopping their vehicles, being citizen she questioned the same with the complainant, by that time the complainant abused her and slapped over her left cheek, she and her sister went to the Basaveshwaranagara Judge sign 41 CC No.30705/2011 P.S., she informed the same to the police officer, and called CW.1 to the Police Station, CW.1 prayed her to excuse, she urged to file complaint against him. She asked the Inspector to get treatment to her, but the said Inspector failed to get treatment to her, and to safe guard their department, they filed a false complaint against her and her sister, police have produced her before Judge, further she released on bail and obtained treatment at Victoria hospital and she produced Ex.D1 to D3 documents.
In the cross-examination, DW.1 has simply denied all the suggestions made by the prosecution. DW.1 has given some evasive and smart answers in the cross-examination, that itself shows that DW.1 is trying to direct the case of the prosecution to escape from the clutches of law.
42. On careful perusal of the evidence of DW.1, the same is not reliable and trustworthy. Further the evidence of DW.1 discloses that she attended the marriage on the alleged date along with her sisters at Channakeshava Kalyanamantapa, Judge sign 42 CC No.30705/2011 that situated at Service Road of West of Chord Road, Opposite to Power House, but for what reason she was waiting for her sister and sisters' husband on a public road at National School Junction, even though they all attended the same marriage is not explained and the same creates doubt in the mind of the Court. Further the evidence of DW.1 doesn't disclose the vengeance between her and the complainant to file a false complaint against her by the complainant. If we assume that if at all the complainant has assaulted the Accused No.1 certainly she could have lodge a complaint against the complainant but she was done so. If really the CW.1 assaulted the accused No.1, certainly the doors will be kept open for the accused No.1 to file a private complaint, as the police have failed to register her complaint. Apart from this, it is worth to mention here that the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution clearly shows that there were many traffic violation cases are registered against car bearing registration No.KA-02-MC-443, which is owned by the accused No.1/DW.1, and the same shows that the accused Judge sign 43 CC No.30705/2011 No.1/DW.1 is not a law abiding citizen and she is a habitual offender of violating the traffic rules and regulations.
43. Further, it is worth to mention here that as per the say of DW.1, the complainant/CW.1 assaulted her and slapped on her cheek. She has taken treatment in the Victoria Hospital as out patient. She has produced the out patient book for having taken treatment. But for the reason best known to her the DW.1 has not examined the Doctor, who treated her. Under these circumstances the Ex.D1 to D3 produced by accused No.1 are appears to be concocted, and they are not much helpful to the case of the accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the defence set up by the accused No.1 is not helpful one, on the contrary it shows the presence of accused No.1 on the aforesaid date time and place is directly admitted by the Accused No.1.
44. Accused No.1 to 4 have been charged for the above- referred Sections Read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability Judge sign 44 CC No.30705/2011 in doing a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under S.34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. The true concept of section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. The existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. As a result of the application of the principles enunciated in Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, when the accused are tried and convicted Judge sign 45 CC No.30705/2011 for the principal Sections, both the accused are liable for the act of any one of the accused, as the principle of this Section lays down the joint liability. Act of the one accused binds other accused also.
45. Considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances, inescapable and irresistible conclusion that, prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubts that the presence of accused persons at the time of the incident is clearly corroborated from the mouth of PWs.1, 6 and 5.
46. Admittedly, the PW.1/injured was traffic police constable, it is established that, he was on such duty on the said date of incident, it is no need to say from the act of the accused No.1 was deterring to act as a Traffic Police Constable, in the alleged spot. Therefore, in my opinion, the ingredients of Sec.353 and 332 of IPC is attracted to the present facts and circumstances revealing from the evidence of the prosecution.
Judge sign 46 CC No.30705/2011 Hence, I am of the view that, the prosecution established the ingredients of Sec.353 and 332 of IPC against accused No.1 only.
47. The filthy words uttered by the accused persons in their evidence is clearly and corroborately deposed by PWs.1, 5 and 6, which appears to be demoralized a Traffic Police Constable and also to insult him from such words while he was on duty. Therefore, the ingredients of Sec.504 of IPC are clearly established from the evidence of injured coupled with the other evidence on record. On over all discussion, it is my considered opinion that the common intention of the accused No.1 to 4 is made by the prosecution and established the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable U/s.332 and 353 of IPC and accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/s.504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative and point No.2 in the Affirmative.
Judge sign 47 CC No.30705/2011
48. Point No.3:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under section 248(1) of Criminal procedure code, Accused Nos.2 to 4 are Acquitted of the offences punishable Under Section 332 and 353 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused is Nos.1 to 4 are convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code To hear on sentence call later.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, printout taken by him is verified and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court on this, the 13th Day of May 2016) (SOMASHEKARA. A) V ADDL. C.M.M. BENGALURE Judge sign 48 CC No.30705/2011 ORDER ON SENTENCE Case called out later. Accused No.1 to 4 are present. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for accused on sentence. Learned APP submits that Accused have committed heinous offences. Hence, Maximum sentence may be imposed.
Per Contra, learned counsel for accused submits that accused No.1 is a Celebrity/actress having name and fame in the society, accused No.2 is having a small kid, accused No.3 is a student and accused No.4 is a Government Servant.. Hence, lenient view is to be taken and to be released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made at the bar. Indisputably, this is an alarming incident. Hence, prayer of the learned counsel for accused that provisions of PO Act is to be extended to accused No.1 to 4 does not deserve any consideration.
The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Criminal Law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing punishment for each kind of criminal conduct. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and in spite of errant notions it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentence. Imposition of appropriate sentence is the need of the hour. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the ratio laid down by Judge sign 49 CC No.30705/2011 Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 359-
"Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat", which reads as below:
"12. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. (1994 (2) SCC
220), this Court has observed that shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system's creditability. The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
13. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1996 (2) SCC 175). It has been held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance. In State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003 (8) SCC 13), Surjit Singh v. Nahara Ram and Anr. (2004 (6) SCC 513) and State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey and Anr. (2005 (2) SCC 710) the position was again highlighted.
Now adverting to the factual scenario of the present case, Accused No.1 used criminal force and assaulted the complainant, who is discharging his official duty in a public place This type of Judge sign 50 CC No.30705/2011 attitude on the part of accused creates fear in the mind of efficient officials to discharge their duties effectively. Under such circumstances, by applying the ratio laid down in the above referred case, accused are required to be dealt with stringently so as to deter them and other like minded people from committing such type of offences in future.
In view of the principles enunciated in the above decisions, appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. Hence, I propose to impose sentence as under:
SENTENCE:
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- IDSI for 3 months for the offence punishable Under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- IDSI for 2months for the offence punishable Under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each IDSI for 1 month each for the offence punishable Under Section 504 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently against accused No.1.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 entitled to the benefit of set off as per Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Judge sign 51 CC No.30705/2011 Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this Judgment to accused in compliance of Section 363(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, printout taken by him is verified, and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 13th day of May 2016) (SOMASHEKARA.A) V Addl., CMM., Bengaluru : ANNEXURE :
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
PW.1: Shivakumar M PW.2: Vijay PW.3: Chittyprasad PW.4: Mangala PW.5: GP Raju PW.6: Venkataram PW.7: Hanumanthappa PW.8: Lakshmidevi PW.9 Dr. Ramesh Babu PW.10: KM Jayaram II. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of defence:
DW.1: Mythriya III. List of Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : : Complaint dtd., 20.05.2011
Ex.P2 : Mahazar dtd., 20.05.2011
Complaint.
Ex.P3 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate dtd.,
25.06.2011
Ex.P5 : FIR
Judge sign
52 CC No.30705/2011
IV. List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : Out Patient Medical Records
Ex.D2 : Doctor Prescription
Ex.D3 : Marriage Invitation Card.
V. Material Objects: Nil
(SOMASHEKARA.A)
V Addl., CMM., Bengaluru.
Judge sign
53 CC No.30705/2011
13.05.2016 Case called. A1 to A4 Pt.,/Abt.,
State by Sr. APP Judgement pronounced in the open Court as
A1 to A4 on bail under vide separate Judgement kept
For Judgment in the file.
Acting under Section 248(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under section 248(1) of Criminal procedure code, Accused Nos.2 to 4 are Acquitted of the offences punishable Under Section 332 and 353 r/w sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused is Nos.1 to 4 are convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code To hear on sentence call later.
(A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Judge sign
54 CC No.30705/2011
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 2 years and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- IDSI for 3 months for the offence punishable Under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- IDSI for 2months for the offence punishable Under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each IDSI for 1 month each for the offence punishable Under Section 504 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently against accused No.1.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 entitled to the benefit of set off as per Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this Judgment to accused in compliance of Section 363(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(A. Somashekhara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Judge sign 55 CC No.30705/2011 Advocate for accused No.1 to 4 filed application U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C., and prayed to suspend the sentence.
The Lr., Counsel for accused No.1 to 4offered surety of one Yalagurdappa Hundekar S/o Bhimarava, 61 Yrs., r/a No.90, Almatti Rly., Stn., House No.2 to 211, Basavanabagewadi Tq., Bijapur Dist., today at Bangalore is present. He filed Surety Affidavit along with RTC bearing Sy. No.48/1 Heard and Perused. Surety satisfied and same is accepted for accused No.1 to 4.
The application filed by the counsel for accused No.1 to 4 U/s.389(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed subject production of sentence suspension order by 13.06.2016 (A. Somashekara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Judge sign