Bangalore District Court
State By Marathahalli Police vs Krishna S/O. Keshava on 20 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
Dated: The 20th Day of February 2021
PRESENT: Sri. G.R.KULKARNI,
B.A.(LAW)., LL.B.,
XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.54704/2017
COMPLAINANT :- State by Marathahalli Police
(By Sr.APP)
ACCUSED 1. Krishna S/o. Keshava,
Aged 48 Years
2. Rathna W/o. Krishnan.K,
Aged 38 years,
Both are R/at.No.722/18,
Akshaya Layout,
Near Shaneshwara Temple,
Rayasandra, Huskur,
Bengaluru.
3. Savitha W/o. Late. Shivashankar,
Aged 32 years,
R/at.No.37, 6th Cross,
Munireddy Layout,
Outer Ring Road,
Mahadevapura, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.Prabhu., Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF
EVIDENCE 19.04.2018
DATE OF CLOSING OF EVIDENCE 22.01.2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT 20.02.2021
2 C.C.No.54704/2017
JUDGMENT
This is a final report filed by the PSI of Marathahalli Police Station against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 504 and 506 R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. BRIEF FACTS:-
The case of prosecution is that on 19.02.2017 to 21.02.2017 at about 6.00 P.M at House No.373, Bannappa Colony, Yamaluru Village within the jurisdictional limits of Marathahalli police station the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have wrongfully restrained CW.1 and CW.2, among them accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW.1 with hands causing injury, accused No.1 to 3 have intentionally insulted CW.1 causing breach of peace and criminally intimidated CW.1 and CW.2.
3. Based on the first information given by CW.1 the police have registered the case, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation final report is filed against the accused No.1 to 3.
4. The accused No.1 to 3 have entered appearance in response to the summons and have been enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused No.1 to 3. The substance of accusation is read over to the accused No.1 to 3 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The statement of the accused No.1 to 3 U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein they deny the 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 incriminating circumstances as false. The accused No.1 to 3 submit no defence.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 19.02.2017 to 21.02.2017 at about 6.00 P.M at House No.373, Bannappa Colony, Yamaluru Village within the jurisdictional limits of Marathahalli police station the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have wrongfully restrained CW.1 and CW.2 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 341 R/w.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention among them accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW.1 with hands causing simple injury and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have intentionally insulted CW.1 causing breach of peace thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 504 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have criminally intimidated CW.1 and CW.2 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 506 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order?2 C.C.No.54704/2017
8. My answer to the aforesaid points is as under:-
Point No.1 to 4 - In the Negative
Point No.5 - As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4 :- As the facts pertaining to these points are related to each other, all these points are taken together for common discussion for brevity.
10. In the instant case PW.1 who is the complainant in this case has testified that she knows the accused and they are her relatives. On 19.02.2015 all the three accused alongwith three others came to her house and picked quarrel with her in respect of residential house, intentionally insulted and assaulted her with hands. The accused No.1 threatened PW.1 that if he was not given any share in the house he would pour kerosene and put her on fire. All the accused abused her in filthy language and assaulted her. She has given the complaint as per Ex.P1 in respect of this incident. Thereafter the police have come to the spot and have drawn panchanama as per Ex.P2. She has given the further statement before the police. PW.1 has identified the accused.
11. During her cross-examination PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P1 is not the complaint given by her to the police. She has also admitted that she is unaware of the contents of Ex.P2. PW.1 denies her signature appearing on her further statement given to the police. PW.1 has stated that she is unable to recollect whether she has signed Ex.P2 at the police station or not. At the time of incident her son was with her and also there are 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 other eye witnesses to the incident. After the incident she has taken treatment at a private hospital but no documents have been given to the police to show that she has taken the treatment at any of the hospital. One Vijayendra has witnessed the incident. Her relation with the accused is not cordial.
12. PW.2 is the son of complainant. He has testified that from 19.02.2017 up to 21.02.2017 all the three accused claiming that the house in which they reside belongs to them and he also has share in the said house, came there at about 6.00 P.M abusing PW.1 in filthy language. The accused threatened to evict them from the house if there were not given any share in the house. The accused intentionally insulted PW.1 accused No.2 and 3 assaulted PW.1 with hands. Accused No.1 threatened to pour kerosene on PW.1 and lit her on fire. When PW.1 and PW.2 told that they were going to give the complaint to the police all three accused unlawfully restrained them from going to the police station and threatened them that if at all they gave the complaint to the police they would not spare their lives. He has given the statement before the police. During the cross-examination PW.2 has admitted that on 19.02.2017 there was another person along with the three accused who was present at the time of incident.
13. PW.3 is the neighbour and eye witness to the incident. She has testified that she knows CW.1 and CW.2 and the accused. Two years back on 21st day in the evening she was at her house. At the time two women and one male came to house of CW.1 and CW.2 picked up quarrel with them and assaulted them with stone. All the three accused caught hold of the head of CW.1 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 and dragged her. They abused her in kannada and Hindi language. The quarrel took place in respect of the house property she has given the statements before the police. She can identify the stone used to assault CW.1. PW.3 has identified the accused. PW.3 is treated partly hostile and cross-examined by Ld.Sr.APP wherein it is admitted that on 21.02.2017 at about 6.00 P.M the accused have intentionally insulted CW.1 in Kannada language. Accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW.1 with hands caused injury. When CW.1 was going to gave the complaint before the police accused No.1 to 3 have unlawfully restrained her and again insulted her in filthy language in Kannada. During her cross-examination on behalf of the accused, PW.3 has admitted that she does not know kannada language and that she is unable to elicit the conversation at took place between CW.1 and the accused.
14. PW.4 is one of the attesting witnesses to spot panchanama at Ex.P2 has turned hostile. He has stated that the signature appearing over Ex.P2 belongs to him. But he is unable to elicit has to when, where and in respect of what purpose his signature was obtained over Ex.P2. PW.4 has specifically stated that he is unaware of the contents of Ex.P2. Nothing substantial is elicit during his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution.
15. PW.5 is the investigation officer who has testified that on 23.02.2017 when he was the SHO of Marathahalli Police station CW.1 has given the complaint as per Ex.P1 which is registered by him and thereafter he has drawn the FIR as per Ex.P3. On 22.02.2017 he has visited the spot and has drawn the spot panchanama as per Ex.P2 at the place shown by CW.1 in the 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 presence of CW.4 and CW.5 in between 10.00 A.M to 10.45 A.M. On 25.02.2017 he has recorded the further statement of CW.1 and on the same day he has recorded statements of CW.2 and CW.3. On 05.04.2017 he has secured the accused, enquired them and released them on bail. PW.5 has identified the accused before the Court after completing the investigation he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused. The evidence of PW.5 has gone unchallenged he has not been cross-examined by the accused.
16. Instant case CW.5 who is another attesting witness to Ex.P2 has not been secured inspite of sufficient opportunities and therefore CW.5 is dropped after exhausting all effective measures.
17. I have carefully considered the entire evidence on record.
PW.1 and PW.2 have categorically narrated the manner in which the incident was occurred. In the evidence to PW.1 and PW.2 it is evident that PW.1 and PW.2 have stated that the accused being dissatisfied for not have been allotted a share in the residential house of CW.1 have picked up the quarrel with her. The accused No.1 has assaulted CW.1 with hands intentionally insulted and criminally intimidated her. Therefore CW.1 gave a complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. Thereafter the police have visited the spot and have drawn spot panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panchas CW.4 and CW.5. This incident is witnessed by PW.2 who is the son of complainant.
18. During the cross-examination PW.1 has stated that Ex.P1 is not the complaint given by her to the police. She has also 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 admitted that she is unaware of the contents of Ex.P2. PW.1denies her signature appearing on her further statement given to the police. PW.1 has stated that she is unable to recollect whether she has signed Ex.P2 at the police station are not. After the incident she has taken treatment at a private hospital but no documents have been given to the police to show that she has taken the treatment at hospital. One Vijayendra has witnessed to the incident.
19. On considering the evidence of PW.3 who is also one of the eye witnesses who has allegedly witnessed the incident has stated in her evidence that two years back on 21st day in the evening when she was at her house accused No.1 to 3 came to house of CW.1 and CW.2 picked up quarrel with them and have assaulted them with stone. All the three accused caught hold of the head of CW.1 and dragged her they abused her in kannada and Hindi language. The quarrel took place in respect of the house property. She can identified the stone used to assault CW.1. PW.3 has identified the accused. During her cross-examination on behalf of the accused PW.3 has admitted that she does not know kannada language and that she is unable to elicit the conversation at took place between CW.1 and the accused.
20. PW.4 who is the one of the attesting witness has turned hostile. He has stated that he is unaware of the contents of Ex.P2. PW.5 is the Investigation Officer. Another witnesses to the spot panchanama has not been secured inspite of exhausting all effective measures against him. Under circumstances the spot Panchanama at Ex.P2 cannot be said 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 proved. The evidence of PW.5 is corroborative piece of evidence.
21. The evidence of PW.1 when considered in it's totality does appear to be contradictory as she has admitted during her cross-examination that Ex.P1 is not the complaint given by her before the police. She has also admitted that she is unable to recollect whether she has signed spot panchanama Ex.P2 at the police station or not. PW.1 also stated that she has taken treatment at private hospital on account of injury sustained by her. However there is no medical records available on record.
22. It is settled law that the evidence injured witness cannot be discarded outrightly. The evidence of injured witness is required to be believed unless there are glaring discrepancies which makes it untrustworthy. On considering the evidence of PW.1 there does appear glaring discrepancies which makes her evidence untrustworthy. In other words the admissions given by PW.1 during her cross-examination does outweigh her credibility. Further the evidence of the eye witnesses such has PW.2 who is the son of PW.1 has to be scrutinized strictly since he is the relative of the complainant. PW.3 who is the alleged eye witness to the incident has stated that the accused have a stone to assault PW.1. Whereas neither PW.1 nor PW.2 have stated that PW.1 was assaulted by the stone. PW.3 has admitted that she does not know the conversation that took place between the accused and PW.1.
23. On considering the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 the manner in which PW.1 was assaulted and whether PW.1 was intentionally insulted by the accused is not established with cogent 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 evidence. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 cannot be held to be trustworthy as their evidence is contradictory and not inconsonance with each other.
24. Therefore after appreciating the entire evidence on record such as the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 is not sufficient fasten the culpability on the accused. The prosecution has not successfully establish its case by leading cogent evidence. The case of the prosecution fails on account of lack of credible evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence I hold that the accused guilty for the alleged offences. Hence the accused No.1 to 3 deserve to be acquitted. Therefore I answer point No.1 to 3 in the NEGATIVE.
25. Point No.5: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 3 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 504 and 506 R/w.Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 is stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 to 3 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, same is corrected and then pronounced in open Court on this the 20th day of February 2021) (G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 Chandraprabha.B PW.2 Manoj PW.3 Chinthadevi PW.4 Raja PW.5 K.Venkataswamy LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P1 Complaint EX.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P2 Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P2(C) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P3 FIR Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.5 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
NIL (G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 2 C.C.No.54704/2017 (Judgment passed vide separate order in the Open Court) ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 3 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 504 and 506 R/w.Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 is stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 to 3 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
XXIX ACMM 2 C.C.No.54704/2017