Bangalore District Court
R.T.Nagar Police Station vs No.2 To 4) on 7 April, 2022
C.C.31248/2011
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
PRESENT: SRI.PADMAKAR VANAKUDRE
B.A. LL.B,
C/C, 32 ACMM, BENGALRU.
ND
DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF APRIL 2022
Serial Number of the C.C.31248/2011
case
Name of the State by Police Sub Inspector,
complainant R.T.Nagar Police station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 2) Roshan,
person/s S/o.Fayaz,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at. No. 45, 2nd cross, Akbari
Masjid road,Chamundinagar,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-32.
3). Ameen,
S/o.Ibrahim,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o. Karnataka Medical Road,
Chamundinagar,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-32.
4). Siddiq,
S/o.Jabbar,
Aged about 25 years,
R/a.No.34, Kousar Nagar,
3rd cross road, Dinnur,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-32.
C.C.31248/2011
5). Maradkhan,
S/o.Hyderali Khan,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o. 5th cross ,
Chamundinagar,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-32.
(Note case against accused
no.1-Muneer is split up from
this case and registered in
C.C.25820/2019)
(Reptd by Advocate-
Sri.B.V.Manjunath Gowda for
accused no.2 to 4) ,
Reptd by Adv.,Sri.E.P.Satisha
for accused no.5)
Offences complained of U/Secs.143, 147, 323, 427
r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w
Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of
Karnataka Prohibition of
Violence against Medicare
services, personnel and
damage to Property in
Charges framed for the Medicare service Institution
offences Act 2009
U/Secs.143, 147, 323, 427
r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w
Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of
Karnataka Prohibition of
Violence against Medicare
services, personnel and
damage to Property in
Medicare service Institution
Act 2009
Date of commencement
of offence 17.08.2010
C.C.31248/2011
Date of commencement
of recording evidence 13.09.2017
Date of closure of
recording evidence 30.12.2021
Plea of the accused on
their examination : Not Guilty
Offences proved Nil
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of final order 07.04.2022
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Police Sub Inspector of R.T.Nagar police station has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare services, personnel and damage to Property in Medicare service Institution Act 2009.
C.C.31248/2011
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case runs thus;
It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.08.2010 at about 4.P.M, the accused no.1 took his 05 months old baby to Chaithanya Hospital for treatment. C.W.2 was the doctor on duty. C.W.2 examined the child. The SPO2 of the baby was 37%. The baby was in need of ventilator support, but the paediatric ventilator in the hospital was under repair. Hence C.W.2 told the accused to shift his child to another hospital. For which the accused and other people gathered there had assaulted C.W.2-Dr.Anees, security guard-Narayanswamy(C.W.3), Kuppajirao- C.W.4 and the nurse by name Lakshmi ie.C.W.5 with hands. They also broke the glass of the cash counter. On information the polie arrived at the spot. The mob ran away and the child was shifted to Mahaveer Jain Hospital through 108 Ambulance. The accused have voluntarily caused hurt, mischief and destruction of hospital properties and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s 143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of C.C.31248/2011 Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare services, personnel and damage to Property in Medicare service Institution Act 2009.
On these allegations first informant/ C.W.1 lodged First information statement before R.T.Nagar Police.
3. On the basis of the first information statement the police have registered the crime in R.T.Nagar Police station Cr.No.307/2010 for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC and r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare services, personnel and damage to Property in Medicare service Institution Act 2009. Thereafter, the I.O/C.W.13 has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 5 only for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Services, Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institution Act 2009.
C.C.31248/2011
4. The accused no. 1 to 5 have appeared through their learned counsel and got released on bail. The provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. complied with. The charge is framed and read over to the accused. They have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter has been posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. Since the accused no.1 continously remainded absent, the case against him has been split up vide order dated 18.10.2019 and separate case in C.C.2580/2011 has been registered against him.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined C.W.1 to 3 and 10 as P.W.1 to 4 and got exhibited 02 documents at Ex.P.1 and 2 and material object at M.O.1.
7. Despite repeated summons and issuance of warrants even through DCP, the concerned police have failed to secure the presence of C.W.3 to 9 and C.C.31248/2011 C.W.13. Hence their evidence has been dropped as not secured by the prosecution. Learned Sr.APP has given up the examination of C.W.11 and 12.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.2 to 5 are examined U/s.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused are separately read over to the accused no.2 to 5. The accused no.2 to 5 denied all such circumstances as false. The accused no.2 to 5 did not choose to adduce defense evidence and no documents are got marked on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments from both side.
10. The point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused no.2 to 5, beyond all reasonable doubts?"
My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:
C.C.31248/2011 REASONS
11. Point No.1 : It is a case of the prosecution that on 17.08.2010 at about 4.P.M, the accused no.1 took his 05 months old baby to Chaithanya Hospital for treatment. The SPO2 of the baby was 37% and as paediatric ventilator in the hospital was under repair, P.W.2 told the accused persons to shift the child to another hospital. For which the accused persons being members of unlawful assembly committed rioting, voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.2, 3 and C.W.3 committed mischief by causing damage to the cash counter glass and thereby committed the offences alleged.
12. The accused no.2 to 5 have denied the case of the prosecution in toto. Denial of the case of the prosecution is their defence.
13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined 04 witnesses as P.W.1 to 4 and got C.C.31248/2011 exhibited 02 documents at Ex.P.1 and 2 and got marked M.O.1.
14. P.W.1 is the first informant and the owner of the hospital. P.W.2 and 3 are the victims and eye witnesses of the alleged incident. P.W.4 is the police official who has searched for the accused persons.
15. P.W.1 is not an eye witness of the alleged incident. Despite repeated summons and warrants, even through DCP, the presence of other witnesses is not secured by the prosecution. P.W. 4 has only deposed regarding search of the accused persons. Therefore, now I have to see whether the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 is sufficient to hold accused persons guilty of the alleged offences.
16. It is alleged in Ex.P.1 that accused no.1 to 5 being members of unlawful assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.2-Dr.Anees, C.W.3-Narayanswamy, P.W.3- Kuppajirao and nurse-Smt.Lakshmi. P.W.1 who has lodged the complaint has deposed that the accused C.C.31248/2011 have assaulted C.W.3 and 4 only. He has not deposed anything regarding alleged assault against P.W.2 and nurse-C.W.5. During the cross examination P.W.1 has stated that he did not witness the incident. He has stated that the alleged incident was over before he could reach the spot. Even he has stated that he wrote the complaint as stated by the security personnel. Therefore, a careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 shows that he has no personal knowledge regarding the alleged incident. The evidence of P.W.1 itself is contrary to his first information statement at Ex.P.1.
17. P.W.2 who is an injured of the alleged incident has deposed that at the ground floor of the hospital the father of the patient assaulted him. He deposed that he cannot identify the accused. P.W.2 has also not deposed regarding alleged assault against other persons. He has been treated as partly hostile. During the cross examination by learned Sr.APP he has denied all the suggestions put by learned Sr.APP.
C.C.31248/2011
18. P.W.3 has deposed that he was working as ward boy in Chaithanya hospital. In the month of August 2010, 10 persons from patient's side made galata in the hospital and accused no.3 slapped him on his left cheek. He has not deposed anything regarding assault against P.W.2, C.W2 and C.W.3. Despite sufficient opportunities this witness has not turned out for cross examination.
19. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 shows that their evidence is contrary to each other and also to the first information statement at Ex.P.1. Their evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution. They have not deposed in accordance with the complaint at Ex.P.1.
20. It is alleged that the accused persons have broken the glass of the cash counter and thereby committed an offence of mischief . P.W.1 has stated that he did not see accused breaking glasses. Though P.W.2 has deposed that the father of the patient broke the glass in the cash counter but he has not deposed regarding C.C.31248/2011 value of the property. Even during the cross examination by learned Sr.APP he has stated that he does not know that accused have caused loss of Rs.2,000/- by breaking the glass. P.W.3 who is cited as eye witness has not deposed regarding offence of mischief. The I.O has seized and produced the piece of glass/M.O.1. But the prosecution has not examined panch witness and hence seizure of M.O.1 is not proved.
21. Though the alleged offence is said to have occurred in the hospital , prosecution has not examined any other person who is said to have witnessed the incident. There are no other eye witnesses of the alleged incident. The I.O has not produced any documents to show that the accused no.1 took his son from Bowring hospital to Chaithanya Hospital. The evidence of P.W.1 to 3 are contrary to each other. The evidence of P.W.1 to 3 do not inspire the confidence to hold the accused persons guilty of the alleged offences. Evidence placed on record is not sufficient to hold the accused no.2 to 5 guilty of C.C.31248/2011 the alleged offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Services, Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institution Act 2009. Hence I proceed to answer point under consideration in the Negative and I proceed to pass the following....
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Services, Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institution Act 2009.
Accused no.2 to 5 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond C.C.31248/2011 of accused and that of surety stand canceled.
No order is passed regarding disposal of M.O.1 since the split up case is pending against accused no.1.
(Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of April 2022).
(Padmakar Vanakudre) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore. :ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1-Dr.P.M.Patil P.W.2-Dr.Anees Parweez- P.W.3-M.Kuppaji Rao P.W.4-Chikka Arasaiah-Retd.PSI
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a): Signature C.C.31248/2011
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1-Glass piece.
(Padmakar Vanakudre) C/c.XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
C.C.31248/2011 Order pronounced in the open court ( vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 427 r/w Sec.149 of the IPC r/w Sec.2(b)(d) and Sec.4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare Services, Personnel and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institution Act 2009.
Accused no.2 to 5 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of accused and that of surety stand canceled.
No order is passed regarding disposal of M.O.1 since the split up case is pending against accused no.1.
(Padmakar Vanakudre) C/C.XXXII ADDL.C.M.M. BANGALORE.
The accused no2 to 5 are directed to execute personal bond for sum of Rs.20,000/-, each for their appearance before appellate Court, if necessary as contemplated in Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Padmakar Vanakudre) C/C.XXXII ADDL.C.M.M. BANGALORE. C.C.31248/2011