Bangalore District Court
R.T.Nagar Police Station vs Appeared Before Court And on 2 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2019
Serial Number of the C.C.32024/2018
case
Name of the State by Police Sub Inspector,
complainant R.T.Nagar Police station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1) Rohith Pavan,
person S/o.Ramachandra,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at. No.440, 1st cross,
2nd main road, S.S.Block
Hebbal, Bangalore.
2). Nagarjun Nayak,
S/o.Jayaram Nayak,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at. No.432, 12th main, 9th cross,
HIG A Sector, Yelahanka New town,
Bangalore- 64.
3). Karanpathi,
S/o.Narendra Kumar,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at. No.15, Pillanna Ramaswamy
Street, J.C.Nagar, Bangalore.
4). Rahul Rao Ghata ,
S/o.Shivajirao Ghata,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at. 1St cross, Matadahalli,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore.
2 C.C.32024//2018
(Reptd. by Sri.R.L.B and
R.S.S..Adv.),
Date of 20.08.2018
commencement of
offence
Offences complained U/Secs. 341, 323, 504 r/w Sec.
of of the IPC
Charges framed for U/Secs. 341, 323, 504 r/w Sec.
the offences of the IPC
Date of arrest of Accused are not arrested, they
accused appeared before court and
obtained bail on 22.12.2018
Date of release of ---
accused on bail
Date of 12.07.2019
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closure of 12.07.2019
recording evidence
Offences Proved Nil
Plea of the accused Not guilty
and his examination :
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 02.12.2019
3 C.C.32024//2018
JUDGMENT
U/Sec.355 of the Cr.P.C., This criminal case arisen out of the charge sheet submitted by P.S.I, of R.T.Nagar P.S against accused no.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/secs. 341, 323 and 504 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC in Cr.No.247/2018.
2. In brief, case of the prosecution runs thus:-
2(a). On 21.08.2018, the C.W.1 and 2 when going to the Airport by two wheeler, stopped their bike near the Wineshop on CBI road near bus stop. At that time the C.W.1 and 2 were talking with each other. 2(b). When the C.W.1 and 2 were standing, talking with each other, incidentally seen the accused persons, for that the accused persons mistook C.W.1 and 2 and came to C.W.1 and C.W.2 and abused them in filthy language.
2(c). When the accused came and started to abuse them in filthy language.
2(d). When the accused came and started to abuse the C.W.1 and 2 got down from the motorbike 4 C.C.32024//2018 and asked the accused persons as to the reason from them abusing, for that the accused no.1 assaulted the C.W.1 with hands and accused no.2 assaulted C.W.1 on his chest with hands. Accused no.3 and 4 assaulted C.W.1 with hands. At that time C.W.2 came to the rescue of C.W.1. The accused persons assaulted C.W.2 with hands.
Thereby the accused committed the above said offences.
3. After submitting the charge sheet cognizance of the alleged offence is taken and criminal case against the accused no.1 to 4 came to be registered. Pursuant to the summons, the accused no.1 to 4 appeared before court and were enlarged on bail. Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C complied.
4. After hearing before charge since this court finds sufficient reasons to proceed further, charge is framed against accused no.1 to 4 for the offences U/secs. 341, 323, 504 r/w Sec. of the IPC and same is 5 C.C.32024//2018 read over to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution in all evidence of PW.1 and 2 adduced and the documents got marked at Ex.P1 and 2.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 4 are examined U/s.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused no.1 to 4 are separately read over to the accused. The accused denied all such circumstances as false. The accused no.1 to 4 did not choose to adduce defense evidence and no documents are got marked on their behalf.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Now the point that arises for the determination of this court is:
"Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 to 4, for the offences punishable 6 C.C.32024//2018 U/Sec.341, 323 and 504 of the IPC?
After considering the arguments submitted from both side and after careful appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, my finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following.....
REASONS
9. Point No.1: In order to prove the guilt of the accused on behalf of prosecution, the C.W.1 Rohith Kumar and C.W.2 Narendra Kumar examined as P.W.1 and 2.
The complaint and spot mahazar identified by the P.W.1 are marked as Ex.P.1 and 2.
10. The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.
11. In the decision In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 900 (State of Karnataka v/s 7 C.C.32024//2018 Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
12. In this present case on hand, repeatedly NBW was issued against C.W.3 to 6. NBW was issued through DCP. Even then prosecution failed to secure C.W.3 to 6 for one or the other reasons. As per order dated 04.11.2019, by rejecting prayer of Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor the prosecution evidence is taken as closed.
13. Now the evidence of PW..1 and 2 is only available on record on behalf of prosecution.
8 C.C.32024//2018
14. During course of arguments, learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is sufficient to prove the alleged incident and he prayed to convict the accused.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that accused has not committed any offences and evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is contrary to the case of the prosecution as well as with each other. Further he argued that the evidence of P.W1 and 2 is clearly establishing that the accused not committed any offences. Accordingly he prayed for acquittal.
16. This court observed that as per the case of the prosecution on 21.08.2018 at 11.00P.M, when the C.W.1 and 2 stopped their two wheeler in front the wine shop and when they were sitting on the motor cycle, accused came to them and abused them. Contrary to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 deposed that on 20.08.2018 at about 11.00P.M, the accused 9 C.C.32024//2018 no.1 to 3 came to them and wrongfully restrained them, picked up quarrel with them and they fought with them and left the place. Further, P.W.1 explained that again at 11.15 P.M , accused no.1 and 2 came and assaulted him with club and caused bleeding injury on his head. According to P.W.2, the 1st incident took place on 20.08.2018 at 10.30P.M and according to him, the 2nd incident took place at 11.15P.M. This court observed that evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is absolutely contrary to the case of the prosecution as to the date of incident as well as occurrence of incident.
17. P.W.1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that they were going to the Airport and C.W.1 had reservation in the flight and flight timing was at 12.00 P.M in the midnight. P.W.1 and 2 explained that for their own reason they missed the flight. The P.W.2 in the cross examination explained that at the time of incident, their friend by name Aman Singh Rawath was also there along with them. Further P.W.2 explained that at 10 C.C.32024//2018 that time C.W.1 and his friend Aman Singh Rawath had consumed alcohol. It is defence of accused no.1 and 2 that C.W.1 and 2 had consumed alcohol and made galata with other public and thereafter lodged false complaint. Further P.W.2 admitted that at the time of incident they were taking food in the omelette shop near the scene of offence.
18. On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W1 and 2, this court finds sufficient material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 which leads to suspect the case of the prosecution. Further this court noticed that on looking to the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 there are sufficient reasons to believe the defence of the accused persons, looking to the matter from any angle all the circumstances are not pointing out towards guilt of the accused only. Under these circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable 11 C.C.32024//2018 doubt. Accordingly I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following...
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1)) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/secs. 341, 323 and 504 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
Accused no.1 to 4 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of the accused and that of surety stands canceled.
(Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her computerized copy corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of December 2019).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Sri.Rohith Kumar P.W.2: Sri.Narendra Kumar
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1:-Complaint
12 C.C.32024//2018 Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2; Mahazar Ex.P.2(a): Signature
3. List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused Nil
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.