Bangalore District Court
Arjun vs Mamatha on 26 September, 2024
KABC030318402022
Presented on : 21.04.2022
Registered on : 21.04.2022
Decided on : 26.09.2024
Duration : 02y/05m/05days
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 26th day of September 2024
C.C.No.12192/2022
COMPLAINANT : The State
by Amruthahalli Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Smt.Mamatha
W/o.Manju Kumar,
Aged 38 years,
2. Anil Kumar
S/o. Muniraju,
Aged 43 years,
3. Manju Kumar
S/o. Chikkappaiah,
Aged 40 years.
All are residing at
No.117, Govt. School Road,
Jakkur Village, Bengaluru.
2 C.C.No.12192/2022
Date of Commission of 06.02.2022
offence
Date of report 06.02.2022
Date of arrest On 06.04.2023 the accused No.2
and 10.04.2023 accused No.1 and
3 appeared before the Court and
got enlarged themselves on bail.
Name of the complainant Arjun
Date of commencement of 21.09.2024
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 21.09.2024
Offences complained of U/Sec.448, 427, 354, 355, 504
r/w.Sec.34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.M.Srirama and Kumar.K,
Advocates.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 26.09.2024] The P.S.I of Amruthahalli Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 427, 354, 355, 504 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
The complainant and accused No.3 were the partners of a firm by name Golden Rocket. That partnership came to an end and they got settled their amount. Inspite of it, the accused No.3 3 C.C.No.12192/2022 used to visit the house of the complainant asking money. On 06.02.2022 at 9.30a.m., the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention trespassed into the house of CW.1 and 2, which is situated at # 224, 4th cross, Jakkur, abused CW.1 and 2 in a filthy language, broken window glasses of their house, caused loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- , the accused No.1 and 2 dragged CW.2 by holding her hair and saree, outraged her modesty, beaten her with chappal and insulted her. On the basis of written information given by the CW.1, the Amruthahalli Police have registered this case in Cr.No.46/2022.
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. This Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec. 448, 427, 354, 355, 504 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
4. On 06.04.2023 the accused No.2 and 10.04.2023 the accused No.1 and 3 appeared before the Court and got enlarged themselves on bail. This Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and furnished charge sheet copies to the accused. 4 C.C.No.12192/2022
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 427, 354, 355, 504 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. They claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined two witnesses as PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3 documents. As the complainant and victim have turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution, there was no incriminating evidence to record the statements of the accused. Hence, statements of the accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was not recorded.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri.MSM Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed into the house of CW.1 and 2 on 5 C.C.No.12192/2022 06.02.2022 at 9.30a.m., which is situated at # 224, 4th cross, Jakkur and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.448 r/w.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused in furtherance of common intention abused CW.1 in a filthy language and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.504 r/w.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention broken the window glasses of the house of CW.1 and 2, caused loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.427 r/w.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention dragged CW.2 by holding her hair and saree, outraged her 6 C.C.No.12192/2022 modesty and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 354 r/w.34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of common intention beaten CW.2 with chappal, insulted her and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 355 r/w.34 of IPC?
6. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative Point No.2 : In Negative Point No.3 : In Negative Point No.4 : In Negative Point No.5 : In Negative Point No.6 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS Point No.1 to 5: As all these points are interrelated, I take all the five points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention illegally 7 C.C.No.12192/2022 trespassed into the house of CW.1 and 2 on 06.02.2022 at 9.30a.m., which is situated at # 224, 4th cross, Jakkur, abused CW.1 in a filthy language, broken the window glasses of their house, caused loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, the accused No.1 and 2 dragged CW.2 by holding her hair and saree, outraged her modesty, beaten her with chappal and insulted her.
11. CW.1/PW.1 -Arjun in his evidence has stated that, the CW.2 is his mother and he is acquainted with the accused. He does not know anything about this case. The accused neither trespassed into their house nor quarreled with them nor abused them in a filthy language nor outraged the modesty of his mother nor they have insulted her. He has not lodged any complaint against the accused. Ex.P.1 complaint bears his signature. He is not aware of the contents of that document. About 3-4 years ago, he signed Ex.P.1 in the police station, when he had been with his relatives. Ex.P.2 mahazer bears his signature. He has signed Ex.P.2, while signing Ex.P.1 at the police station. The police neither taken him to any place nor taken any action nor seized 8 C.C.No.12192/2022 any articles in his presence. He is not aware of the contents of the same.
12. CW.2/PW.2 -Lalitha in her evidence has stated that, the PW.1 is her son and he is acquainted with the accused. She does not know anything about this case. The accused neither trespassed into their house nor quarreled with them nor abused them in a filthy language nor outraged her modesty nor insulted her. She has not given any statement to the police.
13. On the basis of Ex.P.1 written information given by PW.1, the Amruthahalli Police have registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. In Ex.P.1 the PW.1 had named the accused and described the manner in which they trespassed into their house, how they abused them, broken their window glasses, how they outraged the modesty of his mother by assaulting her with chappal.
14. But, in the Court, the PW.1 being the complainant deposed contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1. The PW.2 being the victim did not depose in corroboration with the contents of Ex.P.1 and her 9 C.C.No.12192/2022 statement. They did not support the case of the prosecution. In this case, the main witnesses i.e., the complainant cum victim have turned hostile. Though, the prosecution treated PW.1 and 2 as hostile witnesses and cross examined by the Senior APP, they did not depose in support of the case of the prosecution.
15. The PW.1 and 2 deposed contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1. The PW.1 has gone to the extent of saying that, he has not given any complaint against the accused. After the receipt of Ex.P.1 from PW.1, the police registered the case, visited the spot, drawn Ex.P.2 mahazer and seized chappal/slipper in the presence of PW.1, which was said to be used for the commission of the offence. But, the PW.1 denied that aspect also.
16. The PW.1 and 2 in their cross examination admit that, they have compromised the matter with the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the PW.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution as, they have already compromised the case with the accused. Hence, this Court rejected the prayer of 10 C.C.No.12192/2022 senior APP in summoning other witnesses as, the purpose of the prosecution would not be served by examining them.
17. The evidence led by PW.1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. From their evidence, the charges leveled against the accused are not proved. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime. From the evidence of PW.1 and 2, the charges leveled against the accused are not proved.
18. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed into the house of PW.1 and 2 on 06.02.2022 at 9.30a.m., which is situated at # 224, 4th cross, Jakkur, abused PW.1 in a filthy language, broken the window glasses of their house, caused loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, the accused No.1 and 2 dragged PW.2 by holding her hair and saree, outraged her modesty, beaten her with chappal/slipper and insulted her. In such circumstances, I answer Point No.1 to 5 in Negative.
11 C.C.No.12192/2022Point No.6: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted from the charges of Sec.448, 427, 354, 355, 504 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled.
The property seized under P.F. No.33[B]/2022 i.e., Chappal/Slipper being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
TATTANDA Digitally signed by TATTANDA
DAMAYANTI SOMAIAH
DAMAYANTI Date: 2024.09.26 17:56:08
SOMAIAH +0530
26.09.2024 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU
12 C.C.No.12192/2022
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Arjun PW.2 : Lalitha
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Written Information/Complaint Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Spot cum seizure mahazer Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : Portion of the statement of PW.2 LIST OF M.O's MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 26.09.2024
Transcribed on : 26.09.2024
checked on : 26.09.2024
Signed on : 26.09.2024
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M, BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS