Bangalore District Court
State By vs Manukumar on 6 March, 2023
KABC010125992017
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SRI.KASHIM CHURIKHAN.
B.A., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th day of March 2023.
S.C.No.688/2017
COMPLAINANT: State by
Rajagopalanagar Police,
Bengaluru.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Manukumar,
S/o.Nanjundaiah,
20 years,
R/at.No.70,
Bairagondanahalli,
Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan.
2. Santhosh Kumar,
S/o.Narayanappa,
28 years,
R/of.Neelagiri Thopu,
10th Cross,
Shivaramakarantha Road,
New Baldwin School,
S.C.No.688/2017
2
Hegganahalli Cross,
Bengaluru.
3. Rudresh,
S/o.Mallappa. ..... (Split-up)
4. Nagaraju,
S/o.Narasegowda. ..... (Split-up)
5. Dilip Kumar,
S/o.Palashappa,
R/of.Sundaramma Building,
K.T.C.Road,
Hegganahalli,
Bengaluru.
6. Shankar,
S/o.Thimmanayaka,
R/of.Gollarahalli Grama,
Bookasagar Post,
Sriramapur Hobli,
Hosadurga Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
7. Praveen Kumar,
S/o.Chandra. ..... (Split-up)
8. Prasanna Kumar,
S/o.Hanumanthaiah.
.... (Split-up)
9. Mahesh,
S/o.Puttaswamy. ..... (Split-up)
10. Walek Naik,
S/o.Kukke Naik. ..... (Split-up)
11. Gajendra,
S/o.Vishnuram. ..... (Split-up)
12. Bhimaram,
S/o.Ranaram. ..... (Split-up)
S.C.No.688/2017
3
13. Hithesh,
S/o.Mootchand. ..... (Split-up)
14. Harish,
S/o.Baburam. ..... (Split-up)
15. Mypal,
S/o.Shankar. ..... (Split-up)
16. Dhananjaya,
S/o. Kujappa. ..... (Split-up)
17. Narayana,
S/o.Late Gangaiah.
..... (Split-up)
18. Hutchaiah,
S/o.Late Gangaiah.
..... (Split-up)
19. Srinivas,
S/o.Boraiah. ..... (Split-up)
20. Sunil,
S/o.Narayana. ..... (Split-up)
JUDGMENT
The P.S.I., of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153(A), 307, 427 & 353 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 15 by splitting up the case against accused Nos.4, 7, S.C.No.688/2017 4 10 and 16 to 20 under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, as the offence under Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, it is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is alleged that on 12.09.2016 at about 8-00 p.m., near Laggere Bridge, within the limits of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit the crime, holding deadly weapons in their hands, committed rioting against the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding distribution of Cauvery Water to Tamil Nadu, pelted stones against BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-42-FA-1687 and committed mischief by liting fire to the public vehicles and caused damage to the tune of Rs.30,300/- and also deterred the public servants from discharging their official duty with an intention to commit the murder, have dragged the public servants from the bus and assaulted with stones, causing bleeding injuries to them and thereby attempted to commit their murder and damaged the public property.
4. After committal of the case, the accused Nos.3, 8, 9, 11 to 15 remained absent before the court. Hence, the case against them was split-up and ordered to file S.C.No.688/2017 5 split-up charge sheet against them.
On securing the presence of accused Nos.1, 2, 5and 6, the charge has been framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153(A), 307, 427 and 353 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(a) of The Karnataka Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The case is posted for prosecution evidence. In the meanwhile, the accused No.6 remained absent before the court and hence, the case against accused No.6 is split-up and ordered to register split-up charge sheet against him.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 10 and M.Os.1 to 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses the statements of accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them and they have not chosen to adduce defense evidence.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.09.2016 at about 8-00 p.m., near S.C.No.688/2017 6 Laggere Bridge, within the limits of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit the crime against the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding distribution of cauvery water to Tamil Nadu and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object committed rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object holding deadly weapons in their hands, committed rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly with common object to commit crime holding deadly weapons in their S.C.No.688/2017 7 hands, pelted stones against BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-42-FA-1687 and caused damage to the tune of Rs.30,300/- & committed mischief and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 427 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly with common object to commit the crime, have pelted stones against the BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-42-
FA-1687 and damaged to the public property and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) of The Karnataka Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act ?
6. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly, in furtherance of common object have intentionally caused mischief by damaging the BMTC Bus and deterred the public servants from discharging their official duty and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 353 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
7. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common object with an intention to S.C.No.688/2017 8 commit the murder of public servants/P.Ws.1 and 2, dragged them out of the bus and assaulted with stones, causing bleeding injuries and attempted to commit their murder and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
8. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 along with split-up accused were being the members of an unlawful assembly with common object to commit the crime have damaged the public property and promoted enmity between the classes and society, persons of the states of the territory of the country and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 153(A) r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
9. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative, POINT No.2 - Negative, POINT No.3 - Negative, POINT No.4 - Negative, POINT No.5 - Negative, POINT No.6 - Negative, POINT No.7 - Negative, POINT No.8 - Negative, POINT No.9 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS S.C.No.688/2017 9
8. POINT Nos.1 TO 8 : Since all these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Sri.Varadarajan as P.W.1, who is running Glass and Plywood business in the name of Balaji within the limits of Raagopalanagar Police Station. He has deposed before the court that he does not know the accused as well as the facts of this case. He has not given statement to the police in respect of the present case.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined him. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that on 12.09.2016 at about 4-30 p.m., in connection to distribution of cauvery river water as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike under the leadership of Sri.Narayanappa and his son and one Sri.Hutchappa with 200 persons were gathered to protest by holding deadly weapons in their hands. He has denied that the assailants obstructed to the wandering people & plying vehicles and obstructed to the police officials to discharge their official duty. He has further denied that the assailants had assaulted on the police officials with clubs, stones, etc., and set S.C.No.688/2017 10 ablaze Hoysala vehicle and BMTC buses and also assaulted to the Driver and Conductor of BMTC Buses and caused damage to the buses. He has denied that the assailants were set fire to the shops. He has denied that the assailants caused damage to the Fire Extinguishing Vehicle and assaulted its staff. He has denied that the assailants have committed rioting and caused damage to the public property. He has denied that he has witnessed incident. He has denied that the accused in the case are assailants caused damage to the public property. He has denied that he has given statement Ex.P.1 in this regard to the police.
9. P.W.2-Sri.Saravana is worker in the shop of P.W.1. He is turned hostile to the prosecution case. He has stated that he does not know the accused or facts of the case. He has not given statement to the police.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined him. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied the prosecution story as suggested to P.W.1. He has further denied that he has given statement Ex.P.2 in respect of the incident to the police.
10. P.W.3-Sri.Paramesh & Sri.P.W.4-Sri.Jayashankar- Head Constables have deposed that on the instructions of Investigating Officer, they have apprehended the assailants by name Narayana, Hutchaiah & Srinivas S.C.No.688/2017 11 and produced them before the Investigating Officer.
During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, they have denied that they have not apprehended the said persons or produced them before the Investigating Officer.
11. P.W.5-Sri.Mahantappa is BMTC Driver, who alleged said to have lodged report to the police against the accused in respect of the incident. He has deposed before the court that he being BMTC Driver and P.W.6 Conductor were on duty on 12.09.2016 on Route No.248G/3 in Bus No.KA-42-F-1687. At about 8-00 p.m, their bus came near Laggere Bridge, where the road was blocked, there was huge traffic, he stopped the bus, hundreds together people gathered there, pelting stones towards vehicles, due to that their bus glasses were broken. He does not know who are the people were shouting and he does not know how much damage caused to their bus. He has informed to his superior officer about the damage to the bus and lodged report to the police as per Ex.P.3. He has stated that the police did not draw mahazar in his presence, he has not given statement to the police and he does not know the accused.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined him. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that on 13.09.2016, S.C.No.688/2017 12 he shown the place of incident to the police and the police drew spot mahazar Ex.P.4. He has denied that in his presence, the police have seized glass pieces, stones & clubs, these are marked at M.Os.1 to 3. He has further denied that the police have called him to the Police Station & shown the accused and he has identified the accused and given further statement Ex.P.5. He has denied that the accused had obstructed to discharge his public duty and tried to attempt to commit his murder. He has denied that the accused had caused damages to their vehicle to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. He has denied that due to the alleged acts of the accused there was breach of public peace and tranquility. He has identified the bus photos, marked at M.Os.4 and 5. He has denied that to assist the accused he has deposed false evidence before the court.
12. P.W.6-Sri.Parameshwaraswamy, BMTC Conductor has deposed what P.W.5-Bus driver has deposed before the court.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined him. Even in his cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied the prosecution case and has also denied that he has given statement Ex.P.6 before the police in respect of the incident.
13. P.W.7-Sri.Vijay & P.W.9-Sri.Krishnaiah, Worker and Owner of the bakery by name Surya Bakery situated S.C.No.688/2017 13 near Laggere Bridge, have deposed that they do not know the accused persons before the court, they do not know about the incident and they have not given statements to the police. There was galata in respect of cauvery water.
These witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross examined them. During the cross examination by the prosecution, it is suggested that on the alleged date of incident, the accused had involved and caused obstacle to the officials for discharging their official duty and caused damage to the public property, the same has been denied by them. They have further denied that they have given statements Exs.P.7 and 10 against the accused before the police in respect of the incident.
14. P.W.8-Sri.Santhosh Ram, the then Police Inspector of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, did part of investigation in this case. He has deposed that he took records for further investigation, he has visited the spot, C.W.1 shown the place of incident, he drew spot mahazar Ex.P.4 and seized M.Os.1 to 3. He has submitted P.F.-Ex.P.8. He has recorded the statements of witnesses. His staff have produced the accused before him and he has recorded the voluntary statements of the accused. He has stated that C.W.19 has registered the crime and sent FIR-Ex.P.9 to the S.C.No.688/2017 14 court. He has handed over records to P.W.10.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that C.W.1 has not shown the spot to drew panchanama. He has denied that he did not seize M.Os.1 to 3 in the place of incident. He has denied that the witnesses have not given statements before him and the accused have not given voluntary statements.
15. P.W.10-Sri.Jnanamurthy.T.N., the then P.S.I., of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet in this case. He has stated that he took records, perused and filed charge sheet.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.
16. On perusal of the materials placed on record, none of the independent witnesses would come forward to support the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Only the police officials have stated about the alleged incident. Without corroborative evidence, mere on official witnesses testimony, it is not safe to say that the accused have committed the alleged offences.
17. P.W.5-Informant/Bus Driver and P.W.6-Conductor were in the bus on the day of alleged incident & P.Ws.1 S.C.No.688/2017 15 and 2 are businessman and worker, P.Ws.7 and 9 are Bakerymen, all alleged said to have witnessed the incident are turned hostile to the prosecution case. They have not identified the accused before the court. Even in their cross examination by the prosecution after treating them as hostile witnesses, they have denied the involvement of the accused in the alleged incident. They being material witnesses would not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the case of prosecution is suffering from lack of corroborative evidence to support the versions of official witnesses.
18. P.Ws.3 and 4-Head Constables, have stated about apprehension of three persons, who are not the accused in the case on hand.
19. The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 are police officials, their evidence is formal in nature regarding conducting investigation and submission of charge sheet.
20. On perusal of the materials placed on record there is no materials against the accused to say that in the alleged protest incident, the present accused were participated and have committed the offences levelled against them. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the alleged S.C.No.688/2017 16 offences. The prosecution utterly fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer the Point Nos.1 to 8 in the Negative.
[21. POINT No.9 : In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 8 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153(A), 307, 427 and 353 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1) of The Karnataka Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 stand cancelled.
M.Os.1 to 5 shall be retained till disposal of the case registered against the split-up accused. (Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of March 2023) (KASHIM CHURIKHAN) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1 Varadarajan
P.W.2 Saravana
S.C.No.688/2017
17
P.W.3 Paramesh
P.W.4 Jayashankar
P.W.5 Mahanthappa
P.W.6 Parameshwaraswamy
P.W.7 Vijay
P.W.8 Santhosh Ram
P.W.9 Krishnaiah
P.W.10 Jnanamurthy.T.N.
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.3 Report/Complaint
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.5 Further Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.6 Statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.8 Property Form
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.9 F.I.R.
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.10 Statement of P.W.9
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 Glass Pieces
M.O.2 Stone Pieces
M.O.3 2 Clubs
M.Os.1(a) to Signatures of P.W.8
3(a)
M.Os.4 & 5 Photos of the damaged bus
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
S.C.No.688/2017 18
- NIL -
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.