Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1: Sri.Harsha on 14 March, 2017
1 C.C.No.7468/2009
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 14th March 2017
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc., LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No:7468/2009
Complainant : The State represented by
Sub Inspector of Police,
Magadi Road Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1: Sri.Harsha,
S/o Sri.Balachandra (abated),
A2: Sri.Rajarajan @ Raja @ Setu,
S/o Sri.Selvaraj,
2 C.C.No.7468/2009
Aged about 19 yrs,
R/at:Counsel Ramadas House,
4th Cross, 3rd Main,
KP Agrahara, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.VR Adv., Bengaluru)
---
JUDGEMENT U/Sec.355 of Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.7468/2009
Complainant : Sri.Naveen Kumar
Accused : As detailed above
Offence : U/Sec.341, 504, 323 and
326 R/w Sec.34 of IPC
Charge : Accused claimed to be tried
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 14/3/2017
3 C.C.No.7468/2009
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
- --
JUDGEMENT
The PSI of Magadi Road Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences U/Sec.341, 504, 323 and 326 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution the accused of a murder case of the year 2006 being their friends and the friend of CW1 by name Sri.Menon had assisted the Police and enquired his whereabouts on 22/1/2009 at about 5-30 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution the CW1 answered that he was not knowing, hence, he was wrongfully restrained, abused in filthy language and the accused No.1 assaulted CW1 by making use of a Cricket Wicket, the 4 C.C.No.7468/2009 accused No.2 assaulted by making use of a Hockey Stick resulting in grievous bleeding injuries and the same has been witnessed by CWs.5, 7 and 8. On the complaint of CW.1 by name Sri.Naveen Kumar @ Naveena the Magadi Road Police have registered a case in Crime No.30/2009 and after completion of investigation filed the chargesheet.
3. The accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged the services of a counsel. The charges framed by the learned Predecessor and the accused persons claimed to be tried. During the pendency of the proceedings the accused No.1 expired and the case against him was abated. The prosecution has examined PW1 and relied upon the document as per Ex.P1. The 313 Cr.P.C., statement is dispensed. No defence evidence adduced by the accused.
4. Heard, perused the entire case records.
5. The only point that arises for my consideration is:
1.Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence 5 C.C.No.7468/2009 punishable U/Sec.341, 504, 323 and 326 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
::REASONS::
7. Point No.1: In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined Sri.Rakesh as PW1. It is his contradictory evidence he do not know the accused, CW1 and the incident and that he has not given any statement before the Police. In view of the nature of evidence the witness has been treated as hostile and inspite of suggesting the case of the prosecution as well as the contents of the statement as per Ex.P1 the same has been denied. 6 C.C.No.7468/2009
8. By referring to the available oral and documentary evidence it was the submission of the learned Sr.APP to convict the accused. As against the said submission it was the submission of the learned defence counsel the available evidence is not sufficient, hence, prayed to acquit the accused.
9. The evidence of PW.1 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Inspite of repeated issuance of summons, bailable warrant and NBW through the DCP., Benglauru the concerned Investigating Officer failed to secure any of the witnesses before the Court. It has been mentioned the CW1 is reported to be dead.
10. Finally, the prayer of the learned Sr.APP to issue summons to other witnesses rejected as no purpose will be served. There is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Under the said 7 C.C.No.7468/2009 circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the accused. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
11. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is hereby ACQUITTED for the offences
punishable U/Sec.341, 504, 323 and 326 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused No.2 stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 14/3/2017).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
8 C.C.No.7468/2009::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.Rakesh
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Statement
3. Material objects
marked : NIL
4. Defence Evidence : NIL
---
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
9 C.C.No.7468/2009