Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By Peenya Police Station vs Alleging That The Accused Have ... on 1 April, 2015

    IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE

                     Dated this the 1st day of April 2015

                 Present: Sri. Selva Kumar.C., B.A., LL.B.,
                        VII ADDL.C.M.M., Bangalore.

                     JUDGMENT U/S. 355 OF Cr.P.C.:

1. CC NO.                 :     20461/2031

2. Date of offence        :     1.1.2014

3. Complainant            :     State by Peenya Police Station

4. Accused                :     Boregowda s/o Siddaiah,
                                aged about 40 years,
                                r/at No. 93, 1st Main,
                                3rd Cross, near Byraweshwara
                                Choultry, Doddabidarakallu,
                                Nagasandra Post,
                                Bangalore-560 073.

5. Offences complained of :     324, 504, 506 of IPC

6. Plea                   :     Accused pleaded not guilty

7. Final order            :     Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused are acquitted


      The complainant police have filed the charge sheet against the

accused alleging that the accused have committed offence punishable under

Sec. 324, 504, 506 IPC.
                                       2




      2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.5.2013 at 7 p.m. C.W.5

Ramachandraiah, the brother of C.W.1 Cheluvegowda was constructing a

house and pouring water on to the mould at No. 133, 4th cross, 1st Main,

Byraweshwarana Nilaya, Doddabidarakallu, within the jurisdiction of

Peenya Police Station, accused person assaulted C.W.1 with MACHU on his

right leg and right hand causing him injuries, abused him in filthy language

and criminally intimidated him and thereby the accused person has

committed the aforesaid offences.


      3. After filing the charge sheet, the accused was secured and later

released on bail.   Charge framed and read over to him. He pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. After that prosecution examined 1 witness as

P.W.1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.P.1 and P.2. The accused was

not questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. as there were no incriminating

circumstances appeared against him.



      4. I have heard arguments from both sides.


      5. The points that arise for my consideration are :
                                       3




         (1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
               the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sec.
               324, 504, 506 IPC ?

         (2) What order ?


      6. 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 :

      7. In this case complainant is examined as P.W.1.      He has stated in

his evidence that he knows the accused person and the accused person has

not assaulted him, not abused and not criminally intimidated him. Though,

P.W.1 has admitted his signature on complaint and mahazar, he has denied

the contents of complaint Ex.P.1. Further The learned Sr. APP treated

P.W.1 as hostile and has cross-examined him. But, no purpose was served.

P.W.1 has denied the case of the prosecution. He has not stated anything

against the accused.
                                          4




      8. After examination of P.W.1, the learned Sr. APP prayed for

issuance of process to other witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. His

prayer was rejected in view of evidence of P.W.1, as no purpose will be

served since complainant himself has turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution.     As such, absolutely there is no evidence to believe that the

accused have committed the alleged offences. Hence, the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I

answer this point in the negative.


Point No. 2 :

      9. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the

following:

                                       ORDER

Acting U/s. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 324, 504, 506 IPC.

Acting under Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that the personal bond executed by the accused and cash security deposited by the accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months from this day.

5

Item No.1 and 2 properties seized in P.F. No. 96 (A)/2013 shall be destroyed after Appeal period is over as they are valueless.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 1st day of April 2015) (SELVA KUMAR.C.), VII ACMM, BANGALORE.

ANNEXURES:

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Cheluvegowda List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1          :       Complaint
Ex.P.2          :       Spot mahazar

List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Nil For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BANGALORE. 6 7 8