Bangalore District Court
Bengaluru City vs Persons Alleging That They Have ... on 8 November, 2022
1 C.C.No.2007/2020
KABC030075112020
Presented on : 30-01-2020
Registered on : 30-01-2020
Decided on : 08-11-2022
Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 8th day of November 2022
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.2007/2020 Date of commission of
2. 06.04.2019 the offence (As per F.I.R.) Konanakunte Police Station,
3. Name of the complainant Bengaluru City
4. Name of the accused 1. Hemavathi K., W/o Late Prakashraju, Aged about 23 years, R/at No.14, Church Road, 3rd Cross, Kothanuru Dinne, J.P.Nagara 8th Phase, Bengaluru - 560078.
2 C.C.No.2007/2020
2. Kumar K., S/o Munikrishnappa, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.22, 4th Cross, Vinayaka Nagar, J.P.Nagara 5th Phase, Bengaluru - 560078.
Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 The offences complained
5. R/w Section 34 of the Indian of Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Accused persons are acquitted
8. Date of order 08.11.2022 The Police Sub-Inspector, Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru has filed Police Report against the above named accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 06.04.2019 at 6.30 p.m., when CW1 to CW4 came near the house of accused No.1 at No.14, Sri.Lakshmi Venkateshwara Nilaya, 3rd Cross, Church Road, Kothanuru Dinne, Bengaluru within the territorial jurisdiction of Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru City to question her why she called accused No.2, 3 C.C.No.2007/2020 the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have abused CW1 to CW4 in filthy languages; accused No.1 gave life threat stating that if they are not gone from there, she will commit suicide by mentioning their names in the death note and she will send them to jail; accused No.2 voluntarily caused simple hurt to CW2 bearing her with his hands; when CW1 entered to pacify the clash, accused No.2 dragged her vale cloth and tried to outrage her modesty and gave life threat stating that if they come again in their matter, he will kill them. Thereby, the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.90/2019 at Konanakunte Police Station. On completion of the investigation, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w 4 C.C.No.2007/2020 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to the accused persons. They have appeared before this Court and enlarged on bail. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that the accused persons have committed offences triable by this Court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to them in Kannada language. They have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused persons, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW4 and the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Since, there were no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses against the accused persons, the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. 5 C.C.No.2007/2020 Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons, out of 12 witnesses cited in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of four witnesses before this Court as PW1 to PW4. PW1 Jayalakshmi @ Jyothi is the first 6 C.C.No.2007/2020 informant, injured and the mahazar witness, PW2 Kantharaju, PW3 Ashok and PW4 Rajesh are the injured witnesses. The prosecution has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Among them, Ex.P1 is the First Information, Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are the Witness Statements.
8. As per the case of the prosecution, based on Ex.P1 given by PW1, the crime has been registered in Crime No.90/2019 and on investigation, since, there are evidences collected by the Investigation Officer to prosecute the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Police Report was filed. In the First Information - Ex.P1, there are statements of PW1 with regard to the alleged incident committed by the accused persons. She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that no quarrel was taken place between her and the accused persons; as there were some petty differences between her and the accused persons, she gave complaint to the Police as per Ex.P1; she does not know the 7 C.C.No.2007/2020 contents of Ex.P1; the police have not conducted any mahazar at the place of incident in her presence as per Ex.P2; she does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and she signed Ex.P2 at Police Station. She has been considered as hostile witness and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. During cross-examination, she has denied the contents of Ex.P1; she gave it and the mahazar conducted at the place of incident as per Ex.P2 in her presence. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination supporting the case of the prosecution.
9. The other injured witnesses PW2 to PW4 have also deposed in their examination-in-chief that no quarrel taken place between them and the accused persons and they have not given any statement in that regard. They have also been considered as hostile witnesses and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. Even during their cross- examination, they have denied the incident as contended by the prosecution. The denied portion of their witness statements recorded by the Investigation Officer are marked 8 C.C.No.2007/2020 as Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 respectively. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination supporting the case of the Prosecution.
10. On perusal of the above evidences of PW1 to PW4, it appears that the First Informant and the injured witnesses have deposed not supporting the case of the prosecution. They have deposed in their cross-examination that they and the accused persons have compromised the matter. Therefore, if the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are recorded, no purpose will be served. For this reason, the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are dropped. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
11. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons 9 C.C.No.2007/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against them. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 08.11.2022) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
10 C.C.No.2007/2020ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Jayalakshmi @ Jyothi, PW2 : Kantharaju, PW3 : Ashok, PW4 : Rajesh.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information, Ex.P1(a) : Signature, Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P2(a) : Signature. Ex.P3 to 5 : Witness Statements.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.11 C.C.No.2007/2020
08.11.2022 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.