Bangalore District Court
State By vs A2. R. Madhusudan on 3 September, 2022
KABC010041742016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2022.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.Case.No.88/2016
COMPLAINANT: STATE BY
Indiranagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : A2. R. Madhusudan,
S/o R.Suryanarayana,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a Beerakuppam Grama & post,
III AKG, Kavadigal, Thiruttani Taluk,
Thiruvellur District, Tamilnadu.
A3. Balaraju .M
S/o Motappa,
Aged about 36 years,
R/a Hittarahalli Village, Boodigere
Post,Channarayanapatna Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
A4. Srinath Gowda
S/o Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
R/a Hittarahalli Village, Boodigere
2
Spl.Case.No.88/2016
Post, Channarayanapatna Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(Rep.by Sri.G.S., Advocate).
1. Date of commission of offence : 04.05.2015
2. Date of report of Offence : 15.05.2015
3. Name of the Complainant : Sri.M.Suresh Kumar
4. Date of commencement of : 15.03.2019
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 16.11.2019
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.506 r/w 34 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(X) of
SC/ST(POA) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
JUDGMENT
ACP, Halsuru Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused No.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 04.05.2015 when CW1, 3 and 4 were discussing with regard to settlement of land dispute in the Adigas Hotel situated within the jurisdiction of 3 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 Indiranagar Police Station, the accused No.2 to 4 came to the said spot and picked up quarrel with the CW1 directing him to withdraw the civil suit and threatened to take away the life if failed to withdraw the suit and also insulted with intent to humiliate the CW1 by taking the name of his caste. Accordingly, CW1 has lodged complaint before the Vidhanasoudha Police Station. On the basis of said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.280/2015. Subsequently, the case has been transferred to the Indiranagara Police Station on the basis of jurisdiction and case in Crime No.169/2015 was registered. The Investigating officer has visited the place of incident, prepared the spot Mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet against accused No.2 to 4 after completing investigation. The accused No.1 was dropped by IO on the ground that there is no material against him.
3. During the course of investigation, the accused No.2 to 4 were approached 2nd Additional City Civil and 4 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 Session court and got enlarged on anticipatory bail. After filing of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the offence and summons is ordered to be issued to accused No.2 to 4. On service of the same they appeared before this court and got enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the above said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused got examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9, got exhibited 20 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The statement of the accused u/sec 313 was recorded, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused have denied all the incriminating evidence and 5 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 they did not choose to lead defence evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the documents and other materials available on record.
6. The accused No.2 to 4 have also filed application u/sec.357 r/w sec.195 and 340 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to take action against CW2 and award compensation.
7. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04.05.2015 at about 1.00 pm., the accused No.2 to 4 with common intention have picked up quarrel with CW1 and committed criminal intimidation by threatening the CW1 with intent to cause alarm to him and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
6
Spl.Case.No.88/2016
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST, intentionally insulted/intimidated with intent to humiliate the CW1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste in a place within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
3) Whether the application filed by the accused u/sec.357 r/w sec.195 and 340 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed?
4) What order?
8. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 to 3 : These points are inter-linked with one another, hence, I took up these points 7 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence. It is the definite case of prosecution that on 04.05.2015 when CW1, 3 and 4 were discussing with regard to settlement of land dispute in the Adigas Hotel situated within the jurisdiction of Indiranagar Police Station, the accused No.2 to 4 came to the said spot and picked up quarrel with the CW1 directing to withdraw the civil suit and threatened to take away the life if failed to withdraw the suit and also insulted with intent to humiliate the CW1 by taking the name of his caste.
10. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. CW1-M.Suresh Kumar is said to be the complainant and victim. The summons issued to CW1 is returned to this Court with an endorsement stating that he is no more. CW2-K.Srinivasan is said to be the owner of land, who sent the CW1 to Adigas Hotel to participate in the settlement talks on his behalf. The presence of this witness could not be secured 8 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 before this Court inspite of issuance of repeated process including issuance of proclamation warrant. Hence, evidence of this witness dropped by this Court. CW3-B.Ramesh is said to be the eye witness and summons issued to this witness returned to this Court stating that he is no more. PW1-Muniswamy is said to be the eye witness, PW2-Shantharam and PW4-Poomagan are said to attesting witnesses to the Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar. PW5-M.Rajanna, PW7- Keshav Murthy, PW-9.C.Ganeshan are Tahasildars of Bengaluru East Taluk, Devanahalli Taluk, Tirutani of Thiruvallur District, Tamilnadu are said to be issued report regarding the caste of complainant and accused No.2 to 4. PW3-C.Murlidhar Murthy, the then ASI of Vidhanasoudha Police Station, PW6- Chandrashekar the then H.C. of Indiranagar Police Station and PW8-B.L.Venugopal are said to be the investigating officers.
11. As I have already stated above, the victim and complainant by name M.Suresh Kumar and CW2/K.Srinivasan is said to be the owner of land, 9 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 who sent CW1 to settlement talks in Adigas Hotel are not examined before this Court. The eye witness by name B.Ramesh also not examined. PW1- Muniswamy is said to be the eye witness to the incident is examined before this Court, who in his chief-examination deposed that he know the accused. He do not know the CW1, facts of this case and also not witnessed the incident. The police have not enquired him and not recorded his statement. After treating this prime witness as hostile, the learned Special Public Prosecutor accord the permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross-examination of learned Special Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited from his mouth to prove the allegation made against the accused No.2 to 4.
12. PW2-Shantharam is said to one of the attesting witness to the Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar and eye witness to the incident. During the course of chief- examination, he deposed that the police have visited the place of incident and prepared 10 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar and further deposed that he has not witnessed the incident and not given statement before the police. After treating this prime witness as partly hostile, the learned Special Public Prosecutor accord the permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross- examination of learned Special Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that he had given statement before the police regarding the incident.
13. PW4-Poomagan is said to be another attesting witness to the Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar, who in his chief- examination deposed that the police have obtained his signature in Adigas Hotel and not prepared Mahazar in his presence. After treating this prime witness as hostile, the learned Special Public Prosecutor accord the permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross-examination of learned Special Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion the police have prepared the Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar in the place of incident in his presence. 11
Spl.Case.No.88/2016
14. PW5-M.Rajanna, PW7-Keshav Murthy, PW9- C.Ganeshan are the respective Tahasildars of Bengaluru East Taluk, Devanahalli Taluk, Tirutani of Thiruvallur District, Tamilnadu, who in their chief examination deposed before this Court about issuance report regarding the caste of complainant and accused No.2 to 4.
15. PW3-C.Murlidhar Murthy, the then ASI of Vidhanasoudha Police station who in his chief- examination deposed about registration of case on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant/Suresh Kumar and transfer of said FIR to the jurisdictional Indiranagar Police Station.
16. PW6-Chandrashekar, the then Head Constable of Indiranagar Police station who in his chief- examination deposed before this Court about registration of case on the basis of complaint received from Vidhanasoudha Police station and dispatched FIR to the Court.
12
Spl.Case.No.88/2016
17. PW8-B.L.Venugopal, the then ACP of Halsur Sub-
Division who in his chief-examination deposed that he had visited the place of incident and prepared spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses, issued notice to the complainant, collected report regarding the caste of complainant and accused No.2 to 4 and filing of charge sheet after completing the investigation.
18. Upon careful perusal of materials available on records it is clearly discloses that the evidence of PW3, 5 to 9 are available before this Court and their evidence is not sufficient to consider the allegation of prosecution regarding criminal intimidation and intentional insult with intent to humiliate CW1 by taking the name of his caste in the absence of evidence from CW1, CW3 and 4. In the absence of independent corroboration from the victim and eye witnesses to the incident, the evidence of Tahasildars and Investigating Officers are not in any way come to the aid of prosecution to connect the accused for the alleged offence. The oral as well as 13 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances the benefit of doubt should go infavour of accused.
19. It is important to note that the accused have filed application before this Court under Section 357 r/w sec 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to award damages and to take action against CW2 u/sec.195 r/w 340 of Cr.P.C. The application filed by the accused persons cannot be considered under law for a simple reason that the question of awarding compensation arises only in the event of passing of order of conviction against accused and the act of filing complaint by the CW2 through CW1 before the police will not amounts to offences affecting the administration of justice as mentioned under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., so as to take the cognizance of the offence. The application filed by the accused is merit less and same needs rejection. 14
Spl.Case.No.88/2016 Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the 'Negative'.
20. POINT No.4 : In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
The application filed by the accused u/sec.357 r/w sec.195 and 340 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.
The accused are set at liberty and bail bonds of accused and their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcripted by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 03rd day of September).
(PRAKASH.V) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore. 15
Spl.Case.No.88/2016 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 : Muniswamy
PW2 : Shantharam
PW3 : C.Murlidhar Murthy
PW4 : Poomagan
PW5 : Rajanna
PW6 : Chandrashekar
PW7 : Keshav Murthy
PW8 : B.L.Venugopal
PW9 : C.Ganeshan
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Statement of PW1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) to (c) : Signatures of PW2, 4 & 8 Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW2 Ex.P.4 : Complaint Ex.P.4(a) to (f) : Signatures of PW3 & CW1 Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P.6 : Report regarding caste of CW1 Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.7 : Transferred complaint Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P.8 : FIR 16 Spl.Case.No.88/2016 Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P.9 & P.10 : Reports regarding the caste of Accused No.3 & 4.
Ex.P.9(a) & 10(a): Signatures of PW7 Ex.P.11 : Requisition letter Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW8 Ex.P.12 : DCP Order Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW8 Ex.P.13 to 19 : Requisition letters to Tahasildars Ex.P.13(a) to 19(a) : Signatures of PW8 Ex.P.20 : Report regarding the caste of A2 Ex.P.20(a) & (b) : Signatures of PW8 & 9.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (PRAKASH.V) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.