Bangalore District Court
State By Police Sub-Inspector vs 3. Chethen @ Mental S/O on 21 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BANGALORE CITY
CCH.NO 66
PRESENT
SRI.N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA B.A.,LL.B.,
LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Bengaluru
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY, September, 2016
S C No. 1226/2015
COMPLAINANT: State By Police Sub-Inspector,
Rajagopalanagara Police
Station, Bengaluru:
(Reptd by Public Prosecutor.)
/ Vs /
ACCUSED:
3. Chethen @ Mental S/o
Jagadish, aged about 22 years,
R/at No.89, 18th Cross, Kempe
Gowda Layout, Kurubarahalli,
J.C.Nagara, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.C.K.N.Adv)
Date of 28.4.2012
Commencement of
offences
Date of report of 28.4.2012
offences
Name of complainant Sri.Raju
Date of recording of 4.2.2016
evidence
2 S.C.1226/2015
Date of closing of 08.09.2016
evidence
Offence complained of U/s. 143, 147, 148, 326,
307, 448 and 427 r/w
Sec.149 of IPC
Opinion of the judge Acquittal
****
JUDGMENT
Police Sub-Inspector, Rajagopalanagara Police Station, Bengaluru, has filed this spit up charge sheet against A3, of the offences U/s.143, 147, 148, 326, 307, 448 and 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are as follows:
On 28/04/2012 at about 6.00pm, A1 to A5 along with juveniles conflict with law, with their common object, have formed an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit murder CW-9 Udaykumar, since CW9 had involved in murdering one Naveen and in connection with the said incident, after trial, CW9 was acquitted and hence, these accused and their associates who are juveniles conflict with 3 S.C.1226/2015 law, have hatched a plan to murder CW9 and therefore in this connection, A1 to A5 tried to trespass the house bearing No.260, Arch End road, Kempe Gowda Layout, Bengaluru. At the material point of time CW1 Raju; father of CW9, being the owner of the said house was present there and he restrained them from proceeding inside his house. At that point of time A1 assaulted the left shoulder of CW1, by means of chopper and that apart he chopped off the left thumb of CW1 and Thereby A1 to A5 made an attempt to murder CW1 and more so the accused persons by trespassing the house, have destructed the household articles and caused loss to CW1 to a tune of Rs.20,000/-
and thereby A1 to A5 have committed the offences alleged.
3. After filing split up charge sheet, case is registered in S.C.No.1226/2015 on the file of this court. A3 secured. He engage services of a counsel to defend him in this case. After hearing both side, this Court has framed charges against A3, of the offences p/u/Sec.143, 147, 148, 326, 307, 448 and 427 r/w Sec.149. A3 pleaded not guilty of 4 S.C.1226/2015 the charges leveled against him and he claim to be tried. Then the case has been set down for trial. Prosecution in all examined 03 witnesses as PW1 to PW3, got exhibited 3 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and closed its side and then A3 is examined as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C However, he denied the incriminating evidence on record and he has not chosen to lead defense evidence.
4. Heard argument from both side.
5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on 28.4.2012 at about 6.00pm, within the limits of Rajagopala Nagara P.S. at D.No.260, Kempe Gowda Layout, Arch End road, Bengaluru, A3 along with other accused persons, with their common object have formed an unlawful assembly and thereby A3 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.143 of IPC.
2) Secondly, whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, A3 along with other accused persons, being the members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common object, holding with deadly weapons like long choppers, have 5 S.C.1226/2015 committed rioting and thereby A3 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.148 of IPC.
3) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, A3 along with other accused persons being the members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common object, caused grievous hurt to CW1 Raju by assaulting him from the chopper on his hands, shoulder and chopped off his left thumb, when he obstructed them from entering his house and thereby A3 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.326 r/w 149 of IPC.
4) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, A3 along with other accused persons being the members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common object, have attempted to murder CW1 Raju, by assaulting his shoulder, hands and chopped off his left thumb by means of chopper and thereby A3 committed an offence p/u/Sec. 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, A3 along with other accused persons being the members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common object, have committed criminal trespass by entering the house of CW1 Raju, with an 6 S.C.1226/2015 intention to commit mischief and thereby A3 has committed an offence punishable under Section 448 r/w section 149 of IPC.
6. Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the above said date, time and place, A3 along with other accused persons being the members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common object, have committed mischief by breaking open the door, windows glasses and ceiling fan fittings, have caused loss to a tune of Rs.20,000/- to CW1 Raju and thereby A3 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.427 r/w section 149 of IPC.
7. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are :
POINT NO.1 : In the Negative POINT NO.2 : In the Negative POINT NO.3 : In the Negative POINT NO.4 : In the Negative POINT NO.5 : In the Negative POINT NO.6 : In the Negative POINT NO.7 : As per final order for the Following:7 S.C.1226/2015
REASONS
7. POINT NOs.1 to 6 : Since these points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take down these points together for discussion and answer.
8. In order to connect the guilt of A1, prosecution in all examined 3 witnesses as PW1 and PW3. According to prosecution, PW1 Raju is the victim as well as first informant. PW2 Mahadevaiah, PSI, Kamakshipalya PS, deposes about registering of case and submission of FIR to the court and PW3 Udaya Kumar is the son of victim and he is the direct witness to the alleged incident.
9. On going through prosecution case, it discloses that PW1 Raju is the victim and first informant. However, PW1 has not whispered any incriminating evidence as against A3. PW1 in his examination chief categorically deposes that on a day at about 6.30pm, while he was 8 S.C.1226/2015 working at his welding shop, some unidentified persons approached near his welding shop and assaulted his left hand by means of iron rod and therefore he took treatment at Government hospital. PW1 further deposes that he has not given any statement before police. Since PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW1 also denies the suggestion that he has lodged First Information at Ex.P.1. PW1 denies the suggestion that A3 along with other accused persons have attempted to kill him, assaulting on his left hand by means of iron rod and as a result he suffered grievous injuries and therefore he got admitted to Hospital, for getting treatment and at that point of time he lodged first information at Ex.P.1 before Rajagopalanagara Police. PW1 also denies the suggestion that since he compromised the case with A3, he deposes falsely before the Court.
9 S.C.1226/2015
10. PW3 Mahadevaiah deposes that on 29.4.2012 at about 4.00AM, while he was discharging duty as SHO, ASI Venkatappa appeared before him and submitted the first information at Ex.P.1 given by PW1 Raju. Hence, he registered the case and submitted FIR to the court.
11. PW3 Uday Kumar, who is the son of PW1 and direct witness to the alleged incident, has not supported the case of prosecution. That apart PW3 categorically deposes that he do not know about the accused persons and also lodging of first information by PW1 as against accused. More so PW3 deposes that he has not given statement before the I.O. in connection with this case. Since PW3 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the Court. PW3 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P3, said to have been given by him, before the I.O.
10 S.C.1226/2015
12. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who being prime witnesses in this case. It is relevant to note that PW1 and PW3 have not supported the case of prosecution. Materials available on record, discloses with material discrepancies and contradictions, since PW1 being first informant and victim in this case, disputes the contents of first information at Ex.P.1. Likewise the evidence of PW3 discloses with material contradiction since PW3 disputes its previous statement at Ex.P.3 said to have been given him before the I.O. In my view evidence of PW2 is not of much importance, since PW2 being the PSI, Rajagopal Nagar PS, deposes only with regard to registering of case and submission of FIR to the court. Absolutely prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused, by placing any iota of evidence. In view of evidence of PW1 and PW3, this Court passed an order to the effect that, by examining rest of prosecution witnesses, it would not serve any purpose. Hence, evidence of rest of the prosecution witnesses is taken as closed. In the above circumstances, prosecution by examining PW1 to PW3, has concluded 11 S.C.1226/2015 evidence from its side. In my view, in view of evidence of PW1 and PW3, certainly A3 is entitled to an acquittal, since prosecution has failed to establish its case against A3, by placing convincing and cogent evidence in connection with any of the charges leveled against him. Therefore, I need not discuss much about prosecution case. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the above points in the "Negative".
13. POINT NO.7: For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., A3 is acquitted of the offences p/u/Sec.143, 148, 326, 307, 448 and 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
A3 is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.12 S.C.1226/2015
Note:-Office is hereby directed to preserve entire case file in connection with the split up case registered against A4.
*** (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 21st day of September, 2016) (N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA ) LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW-1 Raju PW-2 Mahadevaiah PW-3 Uday Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 F.I.R Ex.P.3 Statement of PW3 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-13 S.C.1226/2015
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA ) LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE *ic 14 S.C.1226/2015 Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separately, ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., A3 is acquitted of the offences p/u/Sec.143, 148, 326, 307, 448 and 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
A3 is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
Note:-Office is hereby directed to preserve entire case file in connection with the split up case registered against A4.
(N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA ) LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE