Bangalore District Court
The State By Srirampura vs Krishna Murthy @ Krishna on 12 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ACMM, BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA(LAW), LL.B.
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,
C.C.No.11833/2016
Dated : On this the 12th January, 2023
Complainant: The State by Srirampura
Police Station, Bengaluru
(By Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: Krishna Murthy @ Krishna,
S/o Dalappa, 30 years,
R/at U5, 7th Cross,
1st Main, Dayananda Nagar,
Srirampura, Bengaluru21.
(By Sri. G. Dayananda Advocate)
Date of commission of offence : 17.03.2016
Date of report of the offence : 17.03.2016
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Vijaya
Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence : 17.11.2020
Date of Closing of evidence : 12.09.2022
Offences complained are : u/s 354,355,506 of
IPC
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru
2 CC.11833/2016
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The PSI of Srirampura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable u/s 354, 355, 506 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :
Since last six months from the alleged date of
incident the accused was parking his car near the
house of the complainant situated at No.3, 1st Main
Road, Dayananda Nagar and the complainant asked
with the accused not to park his car near to her house.
Thereafter the accused started coming near to the
house of the complainant with two to three other boys
and they were speaking loudly by smoking cigarette and
consuming alcohol. The complainant had questioned
the said act of the accused for several times. Therefore
the accused got illwill towards the complainant.
3. It is further allegation that, on 17.03.2016 at
about 9.30 pm when the complainant was standing in
front of Surabi Fashion Shop situated at 1st Main Road
of Dayananda Nagar alongwith her daughter, all of a
3 CC.11833/2016
sudden the accused came near to the complainant,
picked up quarrel with her, abused her in filthy
language and thereafter assaulted to the complainant
on her both cheeks with right leg slipper and gave life
threat to her by saying that, she will face the dire
consequences and went away from the said place.
Therefore complainant gave complaint against the
accused.
4. Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered
against the accused for the punishable u/s 354, 355,
506 of IPC and after investigation has filed charge sheet
against the accused for the aforesaid offence. After filing
charge sheet, the predecessor in office has taken
cognizance of the offences against the accused and
summons was issued to accused. In pursuance of the
summons the accused appeared before the court.
5. Thereafter charge sheet copies were furnished to
the accused as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter heard the learned prosecution and counsel
for the accused about framing of charge. Since there
4 CC.11833/2016
were sufficient materials to frame charge against the
accused, charges were framed u/s 354, 355, 506 of IPC.
The sum and substance of the accusation was read over
to the accused and his answers to the said accusation
was denial and he claimed to be tried. Hence, the
prosecution was given an opportunity to establish the
guilt of the accused.
6. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused it got examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to 8 and
got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P4. The prosecution has failed to examine the
remaining cited witnesses and their evidence was
dropped by this court.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of the accused as contemplated u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C was recorded. His answer to the incriminating
circumstances arised in the evidence was denial and
not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution
and counsel for accused.
5 CC.11833/2016
9. The points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as under :
:: POINTS ::
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused was parking his car near the house of the CW1 situated at No.3, 1st Main Road, Dayananda Nagar for which the CW1 asked with the accused not to park his car near to her house. Thereafter the accused started coming near to the house of the CW1 with two to three other boys and they were speaking loudly by smoking cigarette and consuming alcohol and the CW1 had questioned the said act of the accused several times. Therefore the accused got illwill towards the CW1. On 17.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm when the CW1 was standing in front of Surabi Fashion Shop situated at 1st Main Road of Dayananda Nagar alongwith her daughter all of a sudden the accused came near to the CW1t, picked up quarrel with her and thereafter assaulted to the CW1 on her both cheeks with right 6 CC.11833/2016 leg slipper and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.354 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, the accused with an intention to dishonor CW1 used criminal force and assaulted with slipper to CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 355 of IPC
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, the accused gave life threat to CW1 by saying ನನಗ ಒಒದದ ಗತ ಕಣಸದದ ಬಡದವದಲಲ and committed an act of criminal intimidation so as to cause alarm on her mind and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 506 of IPC
4. What Order?
10. The findings of this Court on above points are as under: Point No.1 to 3: In Negative Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following: 7 CC.11833/2016 REASONS
11. POINT No.1 to 3 : All these points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the said facts and appreciation of the evidence, all these points are taken up together for common consideration.
12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, Since last six months from the alleged date of incident the accused was parking his car near the house of the complainant situated at No.3, 1st Main Road, Dayananda Nagar and the complainant asked with the accused not to park his car near to her house. Thereafter the accused started coming near to the house of the complainant with two to three other boys and they were speaking loudly by smoking cigarette and consuming alcohol. The complainant had questioned the said act of the accused for several times. Therefore the accused got illwill towards the complainant. It is further allegation that, on 17.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm when the complainant was standing in front of Surabi 8 CC.11833/2016 Fashion Shop situated at 1st Main Road of Dayananda Nagar alongwith her daughter, all of a sudden the accused came near to the complainant, picked up quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language and thereafter assaulted to the complainant on her both cheeks with right leg slipper and gave life threat to her by saying that, she will face the dire consequences and went away from the said place. Therefore complainant gave complaint against the accused.
13. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused it got examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8. The PW1 is the complainant and victim, PW2 is the witness to the spot mahazar, PW3 and PW4 are the children of the victim who are the eye witnesses to the incident, PW5 is the doctor who treated the victim, PW6 is the ASI who registered the case against the accused and PW7 is the PSI who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Along with oral evidence, the prosecution has produced and got marked four documentary evidence as per 9 CC.11833/2016 Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 which includes the complaint, spot mahazar, FIR and wound certificate. The prosecution has failed to examine the other four cited witnesses and their evidence was dropped by this court.
14. Now it is necessary to analise the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution got examined PW1 who is the complainant and victim who deposed that, on 17.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm the accused came in a car near to her house and parked the said car in front of her house. When she told to the accused not to park the said car, at that time the accused assaulted to her with slipper on her cheeks and thereafter gave life threat to her. The witness further deposed that, the public who saw the incident came and pacified the quarrel and thereafter she went to K.C. General Hospital and took treatment and on next day given complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. The witness further deposed about drawing of panchanama in the place of incident. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
10 CC.11833/2016
15. The prosecution further got examined PW2 who is witness to the spot mahazar who deposed about drawing of panchanama in the place of incident as per Ex.P.2. The accused counsel did not cross examined this witness.
16. The prosecution further got examined PW3 who is the son of the victim and eye witness to the incident. The said witness deposed that on 17.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm the accused came in a car and parked the said car in front of their house and when the complainant questioned the said act of the accused, he abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted on her back with a slipper and gave life threat to her. The witness further deposed that, he saw the said incident from first floor of his house and when he came down to the ground floor, the accused ran away from the said place and thereafter he took the complainant to K.C. General Hospital for treatment. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
11 CC.11833/2016
17. The prosecution further got examined PW4 who is the daughter of the victim and also eye witness to the incident. The said witness in her examination in chief deposed the same version as deposed by PW3. The said witness further deposed that, when the said incident was took place she was inside the house and after hearing the quarreling voice she went to pacified the quarrel and the accused gave life threat to her by saying that, he will not allow her to live. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
18. The prosecution further got examined PW5 who is the doctor who treated the victim. The said witness deposed about injury found on the face of the complainant when she treated the victim on 17.03.2016 and also issuance of wound certificate as per Ex.P.3. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
19. The prosecution got examined PW6 who is the PSI who deposed about registering of FIR as per Ex.P.4. The prosecution further got examined PW7 who is the 12 CC.11833/2016 investigating officer who deposed about drawing of panchanama in the place of the incident, recording of the statement of witnesses, arresting of the accused, obtaining of wound certificate from K.C. General Hospital and thereafter filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
20. Lastly the prosecution got examined PW8 who is the eye witness to the incident. The said witness in his examination in chief deposed that, the accused was parking his car in front of the house of the complainant. The witness further deposed that, on 17.03.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant along with CW4 were standing in front of Surabi Fashion Shop situated at 1st Cross Dayananda Nagar, the accused came near to the said place in order to park the vehicle and when the complaint told to the accused not to park the vehicle, at that time the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant and assaulted on her back with slipper and gave life threat to her. The witness further deposed 13 CC.11833/2016 that thereafter the CW4 took the victim to K.C. General Hospital for treatment. The accused counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
21. On careful evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and also on perusal of the complaint which is marked as Ex.P.1 one thing is clear that, there was illwill between the complainant and accused about the parking of vehicle in front of the house of the complainant. When there was an earlier illwill between complainant and accused, the oral evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 who are the victim and eye witnesses has to be carefully appreciated in order to conclude that, in the earlier ill will, the false complaint was not lodged against the accused. As it is discussed above the prosecution in order to bring the guilt of the accused if mainly relied upon the evidence of victim and also the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW8 who are the eye witnesses to the incident. On perusal of the relationship between the said eye witnesses, the PW3 and PW4 are the children 14 CC.11833/2016 of victim who is PW1. The PW8 who is another eye witness to the incident is none other than the tenant under the victim. The prosecution has cited CW6 as another eye witness to the incident, but it fails to examine the said witness. Therefore the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of victim and other three eye witnesses to the incident.
22. On perusal of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has stated that, six months prior to the filing of the complaint the accused started parking his car in front of her house and when she questioned about the said act, the accused developed the illwill against her and on 17.03.2016 the alleged incident was took place when the accused came near to the house of the complainant in order to park his vehicle. Further the charge sheet material reveals that, on 18.03.2016 again the complainant gave her statement before the police by changing her version that, on 17.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm when she along with her daughter standing in front of Surabi Fashion 15 CC.11833/2016 Center situated at 1st Cross of Dayananda Nagar the accused came by walking and picked up quarrel with her about parking of the vehicle. By taking into consideration of the said facts stated in the complaint and also statement given before the Investigating Officer, now it is necessary to analise the oral evidence of victim deposed before the court.
23. As it is discussed above the PW1 who is the victim in her examination in chief deposed that, on 17.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm when she was standing in front of her house, the accused came to the said place and parked his vehicle and when she told not to park the vehicle, then the said incident was took place. The said facts stated by the victim is entirely contrary to the facts stated by the victim in her complaint and further statement given before the Investigating Officer. The complainant in her further statement deposed that, when she was standing in front of one Surabi Fashion Shop the accused came to the said place and caused the incident stated in the complaint. Her said version is 16 CC.11833/2016 entirely different to the oral evidence deposed before the court. Further the PW1 who is the victim in her cross examination deposed that, the accused is not known to her prior to the incident, but the said fact is also very much contrary to the facts stated by her in the complaint. Further the complainant has admitted that, there was no hurdle to give the complaint before the police on same day of incident. Further the witness during her oral evidence categorically deposed that, the public who gathered in the said place of incident has pacified the quarrel. But the Investigating Officer has not examined any such public who pacified the quarrel. Further the PW1 in her oral evidence deposed that, the accused assaulted to her with green colour slipper, but the Investigating Officer has not seized the said material object. Hence on careful perusal of evidence of PW1 her oral evidence contains contradiction to the facts stated in her complaint and also in her further statement given before the Investigating Officer.
17 CC.11833/2016
24. As it is discussed above, the prosecution also got examined PW3 and PW4 who are the children of the victim and also eye witnesses to the incident. On careful perusal of the cross examination of PW3 he categorically admitted that, there was no cordial relationship between the complainant and accused and when the alleged incident was took place he was in the first floor of the building. The said fact deposed by the PW3 is contrary to his statement given before the Investigating Officer. Further the PW3 during his cross examination admitted that, he has not seen the colour of the said slipper which was used for commission of the offence. Since the PW3 being the son of victim the interesting witness his evidence cannot be completely acceptable in order to conclude about the act of the accused.
25. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW4 who is the daughter of victim, in her cross examination categorically admitted that, when the alleged incident was took place she was inside the house which is existing in the first floor of the building. Further the 18 CC.11833/2016 said witness deposed that, the accused used red colour slipper for the commission of the said offence which is contrary to the evidence deposed by the victim. On careful perusal of the entire oral evidence of PW4 it crates doubt that, she is the eye witness to the incident.
26. Lastly the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW8 who is the another eye witness to the incident. The said witness is none other than the tenant under the victim. On perusal of his oral evidence he deposed that, on the date of incident the accused came near to the said place of incident in order to park his vehicle. The said fact deposed by the PW8 is entirely contrary to his statement given before the Investigating Officer and also to the oral evidence deposed by the victim. Further the PW8 during his cross examination deposed that, when the alleged incident was took place he was inside his tailoring shop and he did not come to the place of incident to pacified the quarrel. If really there was an such a incident, this witness being the tenant under the victim, he might have made every 19 CC.11833/2016 effort to pacify the quarrel if really there was such an incident was took place. Further the PW8 during his cross examination admitted that, four to five publics were gathered when the alleged incident was took place, but the Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to record the statement of said individual eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore the evidence of PW8 also not much inspires to this court to conclude about the occurrence of the alleged incident. Hence on careful evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, no doubt the PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW8 have deposed about the incident, but for the reasons discussed above, their evidence cannot be completely acceptable in order to conclude about the alleged act of the accused. All the said witnesses are interesting and even though there are other alleged eye witnesses are available the Investigating Officer has not made effort to secure them and examine them before the court. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that, there are no sufficient materials produced by the 20 CC.11833/2016 prosecution to establish the alleged act of the accused. Therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
27. It is the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that no man should be punished unless the guilt against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it is discussed above the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitle for benefit of doubt. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 354, 355, 506 of IPC. Hence for the said reasons this court answer points no.1 to 3 in negative.
28. POINT No.4: In view of discussion held on above points, this court proceeds to pass the following:
:: ORDER :: Acting under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 354, 355, 506 of IPC.21 CC.11833/2016
The bail bond of the accused and surety shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the of 12th January 2023) (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW1 : Smt. Vijaya W/o Gangadhara PW2 : Sunil S/o Ganesh PW3 : Mahesh S/o Gangadhara PW4 : Poornima D/o Gangadhara PW5 : Dr. Suma W/o Keshava Rao PW6 : Chunchunagiriyappa S/o Late Gaviyappa PW7 : B.S. Mahadevaiah S/o Sowlisiddaiah PW8 : Muniraju S/o Ganesh
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Punchanama Ex.P2(a)(b): Signatures of witnesses Ex.P3 : Wound certificate Ex.P3(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P4 : F.I.R.
Ex.P4(a) : Signature of witness 22 CC.11833/2016
3. Material objects exhibited on behalf of prosecution Nil
4. List of witnesses and documents on Defense side Nil (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru