Bangalore District Court
Name Of The Accused: 1.Kiran vs To 9 And 11 To 18 Are on 30 July, 2022
1
KABC030190392011
Presented on : 09-06-2011
Registered on : 09-06-2011
Decided on : 30-07-2022
Duration : 11 years, 1 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 30th day of July 2022.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO. 19005-2011
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
Sl. No. of the Case 19005 /2011
The date of commission 15/03/2011
of the offence
Name of the Byatarayanapura Police Station.
complainant
Name of the Accused: 1.Kiran, S/o.Chandre Gowda, 28
years, R/at No.37, Avalahalli,
Near Maramma Temple,
Bengaluru.
2.Vinay Kumar,
S/o.Gundegowda, 33 years, II
Main Road, II Cross, Bagegowda
Layout, Devegowda Circle,
Bengaluru.
3.Kempegowda M.K.,
S/o.M.J. Krishnappa, 33 years,
No.139, 3rd Cross,
Bagegowda Layout, Devegowda
Circle, Bengaluru.
4.Venkatesh, S/o.Chaluvegowda,
41 years, No.139, 3rd Cross,
2
Bagegowda Layout, Devegowda
Circle, Bengaluru.
5.Siddalingaiah, S/o.Siddaiah, 60
years, R/at No.94, I Cross,
Bagegowda Layout, Devegowda
Circle, Bengaluru.
6.Devaraj, S/o.Javaregowda, 29
years, R/at No.18/1, 6th Main, 7th
Cross, Ittamadagu, Bengaluru.
7.Ningaraju, S/o.Javaregowda,
37 years, R/at No. 137/A, 4th
Cross, Bagegowda Layout,
Devegowda Circle, Bengaluru..
8.V.Ramesh, S/o.Venkataswamy
Naidu, 37 years, R/at No. 81, I
Cross, Bagegowda Layout,
Devegowda Circle, Bengaluru..
9.M.K. Nanjappa, S/o.M.J.
Krishnappa, 45 years, R/at No.
139, 3rd Cross, Bagegowda
Layout, Devegowda Circle,
Bengaluru..
10.Smt.Jayamma,
S/o.M.J.Krishnappa, 70
years, No.139, 3rd Cross,
Bagegowda Layout,
Devegowda Circle,
Bengaluru.-(Abated)
11.Smt.Manjulamma @
Nanjamma,W/o.Nanjaiah, 50
years, R/at No. 143, II Main
Road, 3rd Cross, Bagegowda
Layout, Devegowda Circle,
Bengaluru.
12.Nanjaiah, S/o.late Jollegowda,
53 years, R/at No. 143, II Main
Road, 3rd Cross, Bagegowda
Layout, Devegowda Circle,
Bengaluru.
13.Jayamma,
S/o.Thirumalegowda, 45 years,
R/at No. 137/A, 4th Cross,
Bagegowda Layout, Devegowda
Circle, Bengaluru.
14.L.Shivakumar, S/o.Linganna,
34 years, R/at No.51,
3
Veerabhadranagara, Ring Road,
Bengaluru.
15.Narasimhaiah, S/o.late
Boraiah, 62 years, R/at No. 133,
II Cross, Bagegowda Layout,
Pramodh Layout, Bengaluru.
16.Harish, Narasimhaiah, 24
years, R/at No. 37, Maramma
Temple Road, Avalahalli, Mysore
Road, Bengaluru.
17.Smt.Jayamma,
W/o.Narasimhaiah, 50 years,
R/at No. 133, II Cross,
Bagegowda Layout, Pramodh
Layout, Bengaluru.
18.Smt.Mala, W/o.Kiran, 25
years, R/at No. 133, II Cross,
Bagegowda Layout, Pramodh
Layout, Bengaluru.
The offence complained U/sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 353,
of or proved 332, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC.
Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(2) Cr.PC
Accused-1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are
convicted for the offenses
punishable u/sec. 143, 147, 148,
341, 353, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC.
Acting u/sec.248(1) of Cr.PC.,
accused -1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are
acquitted for the offense
punishable u/sec. 332 of IPC.
Date of such order 30/07/2022
For the following:-
State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
Accused represented Sri.AP Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
4
JUDGMENT
The PI, Byatarayanapura Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 332, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 15. 03. 2011 at about 9.30 a.m. at Sy.No.73, situated at Mysore Road, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, the Nice Company in order to carry out the construction work, asked for police protection and accordingly when CW.1 to 4, 6 and 7 were on Police Bundabust duty, at that time accused -1 to 9 and accused -11 to 18 in prosecution of common object to commit an offence formed unlawful assembly with an intention to commit riot by holding deadly weapons, they restrained illegally and obstructed the public servants in discharging their duties, assaulted them and threatened them with dire consequences and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused -1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are on bail. Accused-10 is reported as dead. Hence, case accused accused-10 stands abated. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable u/sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 332, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC. Accused-1 to 9 and 11 to 18 have pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 5
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 and Mos-1 to 22. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statements of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused have placed no evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
15. 03. 2011 at about 9.30 a.m. at
Sy.No.73, situated at Mysore Road,
within the jurisdiction of
Byatarayanapura Police Station, the
Nice Company in order to carry out
the construction work asked for
police protection and accordingly
when CW.1 to 4, 6 and 7 were on
Police Bundabust duty at that time
accused -1 to 9 and accused -11 to 18
in prosecution of common object to
commit an offence formed unlawful
assembly and thereby committed the
offence punishable U/sec. 143 r/w
149 of IPC.?
2) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that on the above said date, time and
6
place accused -1 to 9 and accused -11
to 18 in prosecution of common
object to commit an offence
committed rioting and thereby
committed the offence punishable
U/s.147 r/w 149 of IPC.?
3) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that on the above said date, time and
place accused -1 to 9 and accused -11
to 18 in prosecution of common
object to commit an offence holding
deady weapons and thereby
committed the offence punishable
U/s.148 r/w 149 of IPC.?
4) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that on the above said date, time and
place accused in prosecution of
common object to commit an offence
wrongfully restrained CW.1, 2, 3, 4, 6
and 7 and thereby committed the
offence punishable U/sec. 341 r/w
149 of IPC.?
5) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that on the above said date, time and
place accused in prosecution of
common object to commit an offence
used criminal force to deter public
servants i.e., CW.1 to 4, 6 and 7, who
7
are public servants, from discharge
of their duties and thereby
committed the offence punishable
U/s.353 r/w 149 of IPC.?.
6) Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that on the above said date, time and
place accused in prosecution of
common object to commit an offence
threatened CW.1 to 4, 6 and 7 with
dire consequences by showing stones
thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.506(B) r/w 149 of IPC.?.
7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused in prosecution of common object to commit an offence voluntarily caused grievous hurt to CW.1 to 4, 6 and 7, who are public servants, in the discharge of their duties as such public servants and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s. 332 r/w 149 of IPC.?.
8) What order?
7. My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 6: In the Affirmative.
8 Point No.7 : In the Negative.
Point No.8 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1 to 7 :-
The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took all the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatati The Byatarayanapura Police registered the case against the accused alleging that all of them by forming unlawful assembly with an intention to commit riot by holding stones, they restrained illegally and obstructed the public servants in discharging their duties, assaulted them and threatened them with dire consequences.
9.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and got marked 6 documents and MOs-1 to 22.
10.PW.1 to 3 are the officials of Nice Company and PW.4 to 8 are the police officials.
11.CW.2 is examined as PW.1, he is a field supervisor in Nice Company and he deposed that, Nice Company has acquired 2 acre 36 guntas land in sy.no.73 of Hoskerehalli village in order to construct highway. So, on 3.3.2011 when the officials of the Nice Company were started construction work, the accused -1 and others were tried to 9 construct houses in the acquired land. So, the Nice Company officials have obstructed for the illegal construction and there was a quarrel on that day. So, due to the objection and interference by the localites the Nice Company has took assistance of the police Dept and again started to work on 15.03.2011 at about 9.30 a.m. when they proceeded with the machineries such as JCB , all the accused persons came to the spot and obstructed in discharging their duties, at that time the CW.1- PSI asked the accused persons not to obstruct to the peaceful work , but the accused have not heeded to the request , but in turn they pushed CW.1, due to which he fell down. They also assaulted him with hands and threatened to take away his life. In the said incident, the name plate of CW.1 was dislocated and his cap was fell down in a mud. CW.1 sustained injuries. The other police officials and the staff of the Nice Company rescued the CW.1 and shifted him to the hospital. He identified the accused persons .
12.CW.8 is examined as PW.2, he also deposed as per the version of PW.1. In the cross-examination the counsel for accused has simply suggested that the Nice Company has undertaken the construction work illegally without following due procedure and there is no obstruction by the accused persons, but the said suggestion has been denied by PW.1 and 2.
10
13.CW.4 is examined as PW.3, he is a security person of Nice Company. He also deposed about the construction work undertaken by the Nice Company and he added that, the Nice Company has paid compensation of Rs.42,126/- by way of cheque to the accused no.11, inspite of that the accused - 1 to 5, 11, 13, 17 and other persons by forming unlawful assembly obstructed to the construction work, when the police officials such as CW.1 and other persons try to restrain the accused persons, all the accused with an intention to commit riot manhandled the CW.1 and they have also assaulted with stones and threatened with dire consequences . He has identified all the accused persons and also reiterated about the dislocation of the name plate and P-Cap of Cw.1. In the cross-examination he admitted about the acquisition of the disputed land by the KIADB . Further the counsel for accused has simply denied the presence of the accused and also obstruction by them, but the said suggestion has been denied by PW.3.
14.CW.10 is examined as PW.4, she is a Women PI , she also deposed that, on 15.03.2011 as per the direction of the higher officers she was deputed to the duty at Bagegowda Layout. At about 10 a.m. when the Nice Company officials started the road work, at that time the accused no.1 to 11, 13 and 15 and others obstructed to the work, at that time the PSI - Cw.1 requested the accused persons not to obstruct, then also the accused were not heeded to the request and manhandled 11 to CW.1 thereby the P-Cap and nameplate of Cw.1 were fell down in the said incident. The CW1 has sustained some abrasion injuries to his right elbow and parts of the body, the accused have also threatened Cw.1 to take away his life. She has identified all the accused persons . In the cross-examination it was suggested to her that, only 35 guntas is acquired in Sy.no.73, but she pleads ignorance about the same . The counsel for accused has made a suggestion that the accused have protested to the construction work of the Nice Company, because Nice Company tried to construct the road in the excess portion rather than the acquired area. Therefore, the police has unnecessarily arrested them, even though the said suggestion is denied by the witness, but by making such suggestion the accused have admitted their presence in the place of incident. She also pleads ignorance about the pending of civil cases at Civil Court and Hon'ble High Court between the accused and Nice Company.
15.CW.9 is examined as PW.5, he is a police inspector, he also deposed about the his deputation on 15.03.2011, in the place of incident, construction work under taken by the Nice Company, obstruction caused by the accused, manhandled to CW.1 and also dislocation of name plate P-cap of CW.1 and threat posed by the accused. He also identified all the accused persons. In the cross-examination he clarified that all the accused were not the residents of the disputed area 12 because some of the accused came to that place from outside such as Hittamadagu, Veerabhadranagara, Avalahalli . He pleads ignorance about the extent of acquired land by the Nice Company and he further deposed that on the date of incident, totally 125 police officials were on duty, in order to assist the Nice Company for road formation. Even though there are 150 persons of the general public, but only 30 persons have obstructed to the construction work.
16.CW.11 is examined as PW.6, she is also Woman ASI she also reiterated about the deputation of police officials in the place of incident and also formation of the road by the Nice Company , obstruction raised by the accused, manhandling of CW.1, injuries to CW.1 and also life threat posed by the accused persons .
17.CW.37 is examined as PW.7, she is also Woman Head Constable and she also deposed regarding her deputation to the place of incident on the alleged date of incident and also construction work undertaken by the Nice Company, obstruction caused by the accused persons . Injury suffered by the CW.1, due to manhandling by the accused persons, dislocation of the name plate and P-Cap of the CW.1. She has identified the accused persons and the material objects. In the cross-examination she also reiterated the same and even after detailed cross-examination nothing has been elicited from her mouth to disbelieve her evidence. 13
18.CW.52 is examined as PW.8, he is an Investigating Officer . He deposed regarding registering of the crime, conducting of spot mahazar, seizure of MOs , recording of the statement of the witnesses, arrest of the accused, receipt of wound certificate of CW.1 and fiing of charge sheet. He also identified the accused persons . In the cross-examination he affirmed about the deputation of police staff in the place of incident on 15.03.2011, in view of the proposed objection by the local persons to the formation of road by the Nice Company. He pleads ignorance about the cases pending between the Nice Company and the accused persons, who have lost their properties. He has admitted that, all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet were the police officials and staff of Nice Company.
19.The learned Sr.APP has argued that, the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly with an intention to obstruct to the construction of the road, they have manhandled the police officials and assaulted with stones and hands, thereby the CW.1 has sustained injury and the name plate and P cap has been dislocated. Therefore , prays to convict the accused.
20.On the other hand, the advocate for accused has vehemently argued that, the prosecution has not at all examined any of the independent witnesses and all the witnesses who have been examined 14 are police officials and staff of Nice Company. All of them are interested witnesses the accused have not at all any committed any offenses as alleged by the prosecution and they are innocent. Therefore prays to acquit the accused.
21.On perusal of the prosecution materials, it is a clear case that on 15.03.2011 when the Nice Company authorities have started the construction of the road in Bagegowda Layout, Mysore Road, all the accused by forming unlawful assembly with an intention to commit riot , obstructed to the construction work and when the police officials try to convince the accused persons, they have manhandled with the police officials and in the said incident the name plate and P Cap of the CW.1 were fell down. The CW.1 has also sustained injuries meanwhile the other police officials have rescued the CW.1 and send him to the treatment. Even though the CW.1 is not examined by the prosecution , but the other witnesses such as PW.1 to 8 have categorically, consistently deposed about the deputation of the police officials in the place of incident on the date of incident, the obstruction caused by the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly and also the manhandling by the accused . There is a corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 to 7 . There is no missing of chain link in the prosecution case . The incident took place in the month of March, 2011 and trial started in the month of October, 2013 and ended in the month of May, 2022. So, there is a huge gap i.e., 15 passage of time in conclusion of the trial. So, it is quite normal that some of the minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. It is an admitted fact that the human memory is very short and it will decrease day by day. So, on the following grounds the minor contradictions and discrepancies can be ignored.
1. By and large the witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a photo type is replayed on the mental screen.
2. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is over taken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often as an element of surprises. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to observe the details.
3. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
4. By and large people cannot accurately recall the conversions and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversations. It is un realistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
5. In regard to exact time of an incident or a time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. Again it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
6. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequences of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused or mixed up when interrogated later on.
16
22.All the witnesses specifically PW.3, 4, 5 and 7 have identified the accused persons with their names . Further the advocate for accused himself has made suggestion to PW.4 in the cross-examination that the accused have made galata in view of the excess land acquired by the Nice Company. By making such suggestion the accused have admitted the incident and also their presence in the place of incident in respect of offence u/sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC. In view of the non-examination of the CW.1, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused for the offence punishbalbe u/sec. 332 of IPC. Unless the CW.1 is examined, the allegations of the prosecution cannot be believed in respect of Section - 332 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt .Therefore, Point Nos. 1 to 6 are held in Affirmative and Point No.7 is held in Negative.
23.Point No.8- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused-1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are hereby convicted of the offences Punishable u/sec.
143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC. 17 Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused -1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.332 of IPC Bail bonds of accused -1 to 9 and 11 to 18 and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Hear on sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 30th day of July 2022.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
18 ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE Learned Sr.APP has submitted that the accused have committed, heinous offences against the law enforcing agencies. Therefore they are not entitled for any kind of leniency. Therefore prays to impose maximum punishment.
The advocate for accused submitted that the accused are poor persons, agriculturists, daily wages and household workers. They are unable to pay the maximum fine amount. They are having responsibilties of their dependents such as wife, husband, parents and children's. They are the first offenders. Therefore prays to release the accused on PO Act and also for leniency.
Hearing on both sides.
The offences committed by the accused is U/S 143,147,148,341,353, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC The offences are against the law enforcing agencies. If the accused are not punished defiantly it will goes wrong message to the society and it will leads to encouraging the people to commit the offences. Looking to the family 19 background and financial conditions of the accused. It appears that they are entitled for some king of leniency. Because they are the first time offenders. The accused not entitled for benefit of PO Act. Hence I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.each For the offence Punishable U/S 143 r/w 149 of IPC.
In default of payment of fine accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall further undergo SI for one month.
Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 hereby sentenced to undergo SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.each For the offence Punishable U/S 147 r/w 149 of IPC. .
In default of payment of fine accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall further undergo SI for one month.
Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 hereby sentenced to undergo SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.each For the offence Punishable U/S 148 r/w 149 of IPC.
20 In default of payment of fine accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall further undergo SI for one month.
Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 hereby to pay fine of Rs.500/-.each For the offence Punishable U/S 341 r/w 149 of IPC.
In default of payment of fine accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall further undergo SI for three days.
Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 hereby sentenced to undergo SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.each For the offence Punishable U/S 353 r/w 149 of IPC.
In default of payment of fine accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall further undergo SI for one month.
Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 hereby sentenced to undergo SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-.each For the offence Punishable U/S 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC.
In default of payment of fine accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 shall further undergo SI for one month.
21 All the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused No.1 to 9, 11 to 18 are entitled for set off as per Sec.428 of Cr.P.C if they are in Judicial Custody during the trial It is made clear that as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C even if the accused undergone the default sentence they are not absolved from payment of fine.
Acting U/S 357 (3) Cr.P.C Rs.15,000/- is awarded as compensation to the complainant i.e, CW-1 and remaining amount of Rs.2,40,500/-is to the exchequer of the Government.
Office is directed to supply free Copy of this judgment to the accused. No.1 to 9, 11 to 18.
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
1. Puttaswamy
2. Channamarigowda
3. N.S. Ramachandrappa
4. Smt.Shivarathna.H
5. Bharamappa.B.Mallur
6. Smt.M.Jayalakshamamma
7. Sumithra
8. D.S.Rajendra 22
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Mahazar
2. Possession Certificate
3. Wound certificate
4. Wound certificate
5. Wound certificate
6. Official Gazette.
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Mos:
1. Cap
2. Name Plate.
3 to 22:. Stones.
4.List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
Dws:- -NIL-
5.List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.Ds:- -NIL-
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
23 Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C the accused-1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are hereby convicted of the offences Punishable u/sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 506(B) r/w 149 of IPC.
Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused -1 to 9 and 11 to 18 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.332 of IPC Bail bonds of accused -1 to 9 and 11 to 18 and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Hear on sentence.
XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.