Bangalore District Court
State By Rajagopalanagara Police vs Persons Beyond All Reasonable Doubt. ... on 23 March, 2020
THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 23rd day of March 2020
Present: Sri. Laxman R. Kurane., B.Com., LL.M,
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 10937/2008
2. Date of offence : 26.1.2008
3. Complainant : State by Rajagopalanagara Police
Station
4. Accused : 1. B.N.Ravi s/o Narayanagowda,
No. 21, 1st cross, Nagarabhavi,
2nd Stage, Bangalore.
2. Manjegowda s/o Ramegowda,
45 years, No. 30, 3rd cross,
1st Main Road, Dollars Colony,
Nagashettihalli, Bangalore-560 094.
5. Offences complained of : Sec. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused are acquitted
The PSI of Rajagopalanagara Police Station has filed the final report
as against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec. 447,
427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 25.1.2008
at 10.30 a.m. accused persons trespassed into the house of C.W.1
Umashankar at No. 248, broken the cement sheets and caused loss of Rs
25,000/- and when C.W.3 questioned the accused as to why they are
damaging the sheets, accused persons criminally intimidated him and
thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused persons appeared through their counsel and released
on bail. Prosecution papers are furnished to the accused persons in
compliance of 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing before charge, since no
grounds were made out for their discharge, charges were framed, read over
to the accused persons in the language known to them. The accused
persons having understood the same, denied it to be false and claimed to be
tried. As such, the matter was set down for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons
had cited C.W.1 to 6 as its charge sheet witnesses, among whom C.W.1, 6,
4 and 2 have been examined as P.W.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3 and
M.O.1. The accused persons were questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.
for the incriminating material available in the case of the prosecution.
3
They denied the same and not chosen to adduce evidence on their behalf.
As such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the learned Sr. APP for the prosecution and the learned
counsel for the accused persons. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Following point arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused persons have committed the offences punishable
under Sec. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC ?
(2) What order ?
7. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1:
8. P.W.1 is the complainant and he has stated in his evidence that on
25.1.2008 at 10.30 p.m. accused persons have broken the shed put up by
him in the site at Laggere. At that time when I was not there, C.W.3
informed me over phone. When C.W.3 asked the accused as to why they
are damaging, accused abused him in filthy language. On the next day he
found that the shed was broken and he has lodged complaint to Police as
4
per Ex.P.1 and the police came to spot and drew mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and
seized hallow blocks pieces and sheet pieces.
9. P.W.2 is the P.I. and he has stated in his evidence that on
26.1.20008 he received case file from C.W.15 and conducted further
investigation and on the same day recorded statement of C.W.3 and 4 and
statement of complainant and filed the charge sheet.
10. P.W.3 has turned out hostile to the case of the prosecution as he
has not seen the quarrel and he has not given statement before the Police.
11. PW.4 Anitha has stated in her evidence that police drew mahazar
as per Ex.P.2 and seized cement pieces and hollow block pieces marked as
M.O.1 and M.O.2.
12. Except the evidence of these four witnesses, the prosecution has
not examined any other witnesses. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
stated that there is civil suits pending between him and the accused with
regard to the property he purchased. In his further-cross examination P.W.1
has stated that he received message that on 25.1.2008 at 10.30 p.m. accused
persons have broken the shed, but he is not an eye witness. In his
examination-in-chief P.W.1 has stated that C.W.3 has informed him over
5
phone that the accused persons have broken the shed. But the prosecution
has not examined C.W.3. P.W.2 is the P.I. has stated about investigation of
the case. P.W.3 is witness to mahazar has turned out hostile to the case of
the prosecution. PW.4 is witness to mahazar Ex.P.2 has stated about
seizure of cement and hallow block pieces by the police. Hence there is no
evidence that the accused that they have committed the offences alleged
against them. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer the
above point in the negative.
Point No. 2 :
13. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and their sureties shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
6Properties seized in P.F. No. 16/2008 shall be destroyed after Appeal period is over as they are valueless.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on-line, typed and computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 23rd day of March 2020) (LAXMAN R. KURANE), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Umashankara P.W.2 : Narasimhaiah P.W.3 : Mallesha P.W.4 : Anitha
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 : Statement
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
M.O.1 : Sheet pieces
For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
7
Judgment is pronounced in open court. Invoking the jurisdiction vested to this Court under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and their sureties shall be in force for the period of 6 months.
Properties seized in P.F. No. 16/2008 shall be destroyed after Appeal period is over as they are valueless.
VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
8 9