Bangalore District Court
State By: J.J.Nagar Police Station vs Komala K. D/O Krishnaiah on 11 January, 2016
1 C.C.52789/2010
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this Monday the 11th day of January 2016
Present: Sri.Mohan Prabhu, B.Com., M.A, LL.B.,
III Addl., CMM.,
Bengaluru.
C.C.No:52789/2010
Complainant : State by: J.J.Nagar Police Station
V/s
Accused : Komala K. D/o Krishnaiah, R/at:No:340,
3rd Cross, Binnipet, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.BOC Adv., Bengaluru)
---
::JUDGEMENT::
Case No. : C.C.No.52789/2010 Date of offence : 15/6/2010 Complainant : K.B.Dayanand Accused : Named above 2 C.C.52789/2010 Offence : U/ss. 341, 504, 323 of IPC Charge : Accused pleaded not guilty Final order : Accused acquitted Date of order : 11/1/2016 The brief statement of the Reasons for the decision : As follows ---
The Police Inspector of J.J.Nagar Police Station has filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/ss.341, 504, 323 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
There was a property at Binnipete Housing Colony which was earlier belongs to Binni Mills the same was given to ETA Company. The ETA Company with an intention to construct a building on the said property therefore for the purpose of Soil testing digging at the said place. That on 15/6/2010 at about 3-30 p.m. when Cw.1 visited the said place at that 3 C.C.52789/2010 time work was in progress and by using JCB there was digging the soil. At that time the accused came to the spot and abused Cw.1 in filthy language and pulled a shirt of Cw.1 and torn the same and pushed Cw.1 and assaulted him with hands and wrongfully restrained him from further movement.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by Cw.1, J.J.Nagar Police Station Police registered the case in Crime No.145/2010 and dispatched FIR to the Court. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has filed chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/ss.341, 504, 323 of IPC.
4. Accused by obtaining anticipatory bail order appeared before this Court and by engaging counsel released on bail 4 C.C.52789/2010 on 4/8/2010. After filing the chargesheet cognizance of the offences taken. The chargesheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s.207 of Cr.P.C., is complied with. Accusation read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. During the course of trial on the side of the prosecution 2 witnesses are examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 and documents Ex.p1 and Ex.p2 are marked. After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence. No defence evidence is led.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/ss.341, 504, 323 of IPC.
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above point:
5 C.C.52789/2010
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order ::REASONS::
9. Point No.1: Pw.1 is the complainant and injured. Pw.2 is the mahazar witness. In this case even though Pw.1 in his examination- in- chief supported the case of the prosecution but in his cross examination by the defence he completely go by the case of the prosecution.
10. Pw.1 in his examination in chief deposed that there was a property at Binnipet Housing Colony which was earlier belonging to Binni Mills. The same was given to ETA Company. He states that the ETA Company was intending to get construct a building on the said property therefore for the purpose of soil testing it was digging at that place. He states that since it was earlier their Companies Property he being the Civil Engineer and as the ETA Company persons were not knowing where exactly underground cable wires were lying therefore in order to assist them on 15/6/2010 at 6 C.C.52789/2010 about 3-30 p.m. h visited the said property. He states that when the JCB functioning then the accused came to the said spot and started making hue and cry, abused him in filthy words, pulled his shirt and torn it and pushed him. He states that the accused managed to pull the gun of the Security Guard and at the Gun point she threatened him that she would take away his life. He states that he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.p1. He states that the J.J.Nagar Police came to the incident spot and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.p2.
11. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused Pw.1 is admitted the fact that when the ETA Company persons were digging at that place by using the JCB number of public gathered in that place. He is admitted the fact that the persons who gathered in that place started shouting and started to pushing one another at that time somebody pushed him. It admitted that the accused was not present in that place. He is admitted the 7 C.C.52789/2010 fact that the accused is not abused him in filthy language and not pulled his shirt and not assaulted him with hands and not given any life threat to him. He states that since there is civil dispute pending between the accused and Binnipet Mill on wrong notion he lodged the complaint against the accused. Since Pw.1 completely go by the case of the prosecution learned Sr.APP cross examined Pw.1 in detail. In his cross examination by the learned Sr.APP he is admitted the fact that he has compromised the case with the accused. He is admitted the suggestion that since he has compromised the case with the accused in order help the accused he is giving false evidence.
12. Pw.2 is the mahazar witness deposed that on 15/6/2010 J.J.Nagar Police Station PSI visited the just near house No.340 of Binnpete in connection with the incident took place between Cw.1 and accused and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.p2. In the cross examination of Pw.2 nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version. The oral evidence of Pw.1 is sufficient to hold that the PSI of 8 C.C.52789/2010 J.J.Nagar Police Station visited near the house No.340 and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.p2.
13. In this case Pw.1 is the important witness. Pw.1 even though supported the case of the prosecution in his examination- in- chief but in his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused he is completely go by the case of the prosecution. Pw.1 deposed that the accused has not wrongfully restrained him from further movement and not abused him in filthy language and not assaulted him with hands. The prosecution has not examined remaining witnesses Cw.2, Cw.4 to Cw.10. The oral evidence of Pw.1 which is entirely different in his examination in chief and in his cross examination creates doubt about his version and about the incident. The oral evidence of Pw.1 is not believable. There is no Medical evidence to support the oral evidence of Pw.1. The oral evidence of Pw.1 is not supported by any independent witnesses as the prosecution could not examined any independent witnesses. The oral evidence of 9 C.C.52789/2010 Pw.1 and Pw.2 not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed offences punishable U/ss.341, 504, 323 of IPC. The prosecution is failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
U/s.255(1) of the Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/ss.341, 504, 323 of IPC.
Her Bail bond stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11/1/2016).
(Mohan Prabhu), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.10 C.C.52789/2010
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1: Dayananad K.V. Pw.2: J.Prakash
2. List of Documents on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.p1: Complaint Ex.p2: Spot Mahazar p1(a):p2(a): Signatures
3. Material objects marked: Nil
4. Defence: Nil
- --
III ACMM., Bengaluru.
11 C.C.52789/2010