Bangalore District Court
State Haveri Town Police vs Rudrappa S/O Manappa Lamani on 30 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH82)
Dated: This the 30th July, 2018
Spl. CC No. 136 of 2018
-: Present :-
Sri B.V.PATIL, B.Com., LLB., (Spl)
LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)
Complainant :- State Haveri Town Police
(represented by Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- 1. Rudrappa S/o Manappa Lamani
Aged about 57 years
Social Service
R/at: Khanderayanahalli Thanda
Ranebennur Ta.,
2. Imam Jafar Khan S/o Husmankhan Patan
Aged about 55 years
Social Service
R/at: Nagendranamatti
Haveri
3. Malleshappa S/o Basalingappa
Pattanashetty
Aged about 60 years
Social Service
R/at: Nagendranamatti
Haveri
4. Kotresha @ Kotreshappa S/o Rudrappa
Baseganni, Aged about 59 years
2 Spl.CC No.136/2018
Social Service,
R/at: Hanagal Road,
Haveri.
5. Sanna Fakkira Gouda N.Gajigowdra
Aged about 65 years
Social Service
R/at: Kanakapura
Haveri Tq.
6. Sri Murugiswamy S/o Murigaiah Hiremath
Aged about 47 years
Social service
R/at: Kallihal
Haveri Tq.,
7. Sri Karabasappa S/o Veerabhadrappa
halagannanavar
Aged about 40 years
Social service
R/at: Yalakki Oni
Haveri.
Date of offence 11.04.2013
Date of report of offence 11.04.2013
Name of the complainant Smt.Anitha Subramanya
Date of commencement of 25.11.2015
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 18.06.2018
Offences complained of Sec. 143, 147, 323, 354, 504 and
506 r/w 149 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused are found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri Sathis R.Girji, Adv for accused
3 Spl.CC No.136/2018
JUDGMENT
Originally, Haveri Town Police, Haveri Taluq and District filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s. 143, 147, 323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC before the Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Haveri, who registered a case in CC No.108/2013 and conducted trial of the case in part.
2. In view of the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka bearing No.LAW 10 LCE 2018 dt.8.2.2018 and letter No.RSB 288/2017 dt.26.2.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, after establishing special court i.e., LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru, exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka, as accused No.1 in the case was elected MLA from Haveri Constituency in Haveri District, the case was transferred to this Court. On receiving the records, the case was re-numbered as Special. CC No.136/2018. On service of Court notice, accused No.1 to 7 appeared before this Court through their Advocate.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that; On 11.4.2013 complainant Anitha Subramanya lodged a complaint before Haveri Town P.S., alleging that on that day evening 4 Spl.CC No.136/2018 at about 7 to 8 p.m. when herself and other workers of KJP Party extending an invitation to the public at M.G.Road, Haveri, near the house of one Basavaraj Jabin requesting to attend a public function arranged on 12.4.2013 said to be addressed by the President of KJP Party Sri B.S.Yadiyurappa, at that time accused No.1 to 7 by forming an unlawful assembly with common object to commit offence, came to the spot, accused No.2 abused the complainant in filthy language like "K ºÁzÀgÀVwÛ J°èAzÀ §A¢¯ÉÃ" and warned her not to canvass in favour of KJP party as the Muslim voters are in favour of Congress Party, in case they are lured and won over by KJP party, the jamath will out- cast them, in case if she did not leave the said place they threatened that they will take away her life, pulled her hand, slapped on her face, heathered and tethered, outraged her modesty. The incident was witnessed by other party workers namely Smt.Leelavathi Jabin, Neelamma Hanjagi, Renuka Bajantri, Hanumanthappa Devageri, Sathish Mayappa Haveri and Nagaraja Harigola, who rescued the complainant. Thereafter, she went and sat in a nearby house, police and officials of Election Commission rushed to the spot, protected her, later she went to police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1.
5 Spl.CC No.136/2018
4. On the basis of such a complaint, SHO, registered a case in Cr.No.63/2013 for offences punishable U/s.143, 147, 323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. After investigating the case, I.O. filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
5. On appearance of the accused before Civil Judge and CJM, Haveri, accused were enlarged on bail, copy of charge sheet was furnished; charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove it case, the prosecution, in all cited twelve witnesses in the charge sheet, out of them CW1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12 were examined as PW1 to 7 and got marked six documents as Ex.P.1 to 6. Even though summons, body warrant and NBW were issued by CJM, Haveri, to CW5, 8, 10 and 11, though sufficient time granted, those witnesses were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Accordingly those witnesses were dropped. CW2 was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Hence, prosecution side was treated as closed. Statement of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The defence of the accused is one of total denial. 6 Spl.CC No.136/2018
6. I heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned advocate for the accused.
7. The points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11.4.2013 at about 8.00 p.m. near the house of one Basavaraj Jabin in Gudasalageri Oni, off M.G.Road, Haveri town, accused No.1 to 7 with common object of committing criminal offence formed an unlawful assembly, being members of the said unlawful assembly they committed rioting, thereby committed offences punishable U/s. 143, 147 r/w 149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place, accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly with common object to commit criminal offence, accused No.2 slapped on the cheek of CW1 and caused simple hurt and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 323 r/w 149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place, accused No.1 to 7 being the members of 7 Spl.CC No.136/2018 unlawful assembly with common object to commit criminal offence, accused No.2 pulled her hand, heathered and tethered, assaulted her and used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 354 r/w 149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place, accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly with common object to commit criminal offence, accused No.2 intentionally insulted the complainant by abusing her in filthy language like "K ºÁzÀgÀVwÛ J°èAzÀ §A¢¯ÉÃ" knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause breach of public peace and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 504 r/w 149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place, accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly with common object to commit criminal offence, criminally intimidated the complainant that they will take away her life and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 506 r/w 149 of IPC?
6. What order?8 Spl.CC No.136/2018
8. My findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1: - In the Negative Point No.2: - In the Negative Point No.3: - In the Negative Point No.4: - In the Negative Point No.5: - In the Negative Point No.6: - As per the final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 5: Before examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is quite necessary to refer the facts of the case as narrated in the complaint:-
"On 11.4.2013 complainant Anitha Subramanya lodged a complaint before Haveri Town P.S., alleging that on that day evening at about 7 to 8 p.m. when herself and other workers of KJP Party extending an invitation to the public at M.G.Road, Haveri, near the house of one Basavaraj Jabin requesting to attend a public function arranged on 12.4.2013 said to be addressed by the President of KJP Party Sri B.S.Yadiyurappa, at that time accused No.1 to 7 by forming an unlawful assembly with common object to commit offence, came 9 Spl.CC No.136/2018 to the spot, accused No.2 abused the complainant in filthy language like "K ºÁzÀgÀVwÛ J°èAzÀ §A¢¯ÉÃ" and warned her not to canvass in favour of KJP party as the Muslim voters are in favour of Congress Party, in case they are lured and won over by KJP party, the jamath will out-
cast them, in case if she did not leave the said place they threatened that they will take away her life, pulled her hand, slapped on her face, heathered and tethered, outraged her modesty. The incident was witnessed by other party workers namely Smt.Leelavathi Jabin, Neelamma Hanjagi, Renuka Bajantri, Hanumanthappa Devageri, Sathish Mayappa Haveri and Nagaraja Harigola, who rescued the complainant. Thereafter, she went and sat in a nearby house, police and officials of Election Commission rushed to the spot, protected her, later she went to police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1.
10. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Smt.Anitha Subramanya, who deposed before the Court that in the year 2013 Assembly Elections, she was working for KJP party, CW4 to 10 were also workers of KJP party. On 12.4.2013 state president of KJP party Sri B.S.Yadiyurappa was visiting Haveri town and addressing a public gathering. Accordingly, on 11.4.2013 10 Spl.CC No.136/2018 evening at 7 to 7.30 p.m. herself and other party workers had been to Yalakki Oni for inviting public to attend the said function. When they were in front of the house of Basavaraj Jabin, accused No.1 to 7 along with other persons came to the spot, dragged her and threatened that she must leave Haveri town and she should stop canvassing on behalf of KJP party, abused her in filthy language, pulled her hand, heathered and tethered, accused No.2 threatened that he will take away the life of the complainant, other accused persons also abused her in filthy language, accused No.2 pulled her hand, saree, slapped on the cheek, outraged her modesty. Accused even insulted her at Nagendranamatti and threatened that she should leave Haveri. It is further deposed that the muslim voters are in favour of congress party, in case, the complainant lure or won over the muslim voters in favour of KJP party, they will be out-casted by the Jamath. Complainant was rescued by Chandrahas Kyathannavar, Hanumanthappa and others. Later, officers of Election Commission including police came to the spot. She went to the police station and lodged complaint a per Ex.P.1.
11. In the cross-examination, PW1 categorically admitted that there was darkness in the place of occurrence and there was 11 Spl.CC No.136/2018 light in the nearby house. In the said light she witnessed the incident. Further more, this witness categorically deposed that her saree was pulled by accused No.2 and outraged her modesty. On plain reading of the complaint Ex.P.1 lodged by complainant, nowhere she has stated that accused No.2 pulled her saree and outraged her modesty. This evidence is clearly an improvement when she was examined before the Court. Thereby on plain reading of the complaint Ex.P.1, no overtact has been attributed against accused No.1, 3 to 7. However, in her evidence before the Court, she has deposed that all the accused abused her in filthy language. Thereby the evidence of the complainant in respect of criminal intimidation, including intentionally insulting her by abusing in filthy language by accused No.1, 2 to 7, is clearly an improvement which is not at all found in the complaint Ex.P.1. Thereby the evidence of complainant clearly contradicts with the contents of complaint Ex.P.1 and same does not corroborate with complaint Ex.P.1.
12. PW2 Chandrahas Kyathannavar who is pancha witness of scene of occurrence Ex.P.2 deposed about drawing of panchanama.
12 Spl.CC No.136/2018
13. PW3, 4 and 5 who are the eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though elaborate cross-examination was made, nothing has been elicited in the evidence of these witnesses in respect of commission of the offences by the accused.
14. PW6 Manjunath Tandur deposed before the Court that on 11.4.2013 himself and CW4 to 6, 8 to 11 had been to Gudasalageri street for canvassing in election contested by Neharu Olekar, at 8.00 p.m. when they were canvassing in front of the house of Jabin, accused picked up quarrel with CW1, abused her in filthy language, pulled her hands, accused No.2 slapped CW1, himself and other party workers rescued the complainant. Accused threatened the complainant that they will take away her life. On the next day morning at 9.30 to 10.30 a.m. police drawn panchanama and recorded his statement. In the cross-examination this witness categorically admitted that a counter case was also registered against Nehru Olekar arising out of the same incident. According to PW6 all the accused abused the complainant in filthy language. However, contents of the complaint Ex.P.1 filed by the complainant never disclose that all the accused abused the complainant and 13 Spl.CC No.136/2018 threatened that they will take away her life. Thereby evidence of Pw6 does not corroborate with the evidence of complainant including contents of the complaint in material particulars.
15. PW7 Dhruvaraj Patil, CPI deposed before the Court that on 11.4.2013 when he was on SHO duty night at 9.30 p.m. CW1 came to police station and submitted a computer typed complaint. On verifying the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.63/2013 for offences punishable under Sec.143, 147, 323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC, sent FIR to the jurisdictional Court and also to superior officers. On the next day he drawn scene of occurrence panchanama in presence of CW2 and 3 as per Ex.P.2. The scene of occurrence was shown by CW9. Statement of CW4 to 11 were recorded, on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
16. On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed by me supra, makes it very clear that the evidence of complainant and PW6 does not corroborate with the contents of complaint Ex.P.1 in material particulars. Complainant and PW6 both have given different versions in respect of the alleged incident, thereby their evidence is unbelievable one. The other 14 Spl.CC No.136/2018 material witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW3 to 5 shown their total hostility towards the case of prosecution, thereby prosecution has failed to produce cogent, corroborative and satisfactory material evidence to prove its case.
17. On examination of the evidence of adduced by the prosecution, the same suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to the root of the case of prosecution. The evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to hold that accused have committed the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 5 in the negative.
18. Point No.6: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 5, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following final order;
ORDER Accused No.1 to 7 are found not guilty of the offences alleged against them punishable U/s.143, 147, 323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC. Accordingly, 15 Spl.CC No.136/2018 exercising the power under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C accused No.1 to 7 are acquitted.
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 7 and that of their surety shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, same is corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 30th day of July, 2018) (B.V.Patil) LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
PW1 Anita Subramanyam PW2 chndrahas Kyatannavar PW3 Neelavathi Jabin PW4 Renuka Talavar PW5 Hanumanthappa Devagiri PW6 Manjunatha Tandura PW7 Dhruvaraj
Witnesses examined by the defence/accused. -- NIL Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 complaint
Ex.P.2 spot mahazar
Ex.P.3 statement of PW3
Ex.P.4 Statement of PW4
Ex.P.5 statement of PW5
Ex.P.6 FIR
16 Spl.CC No.136/2018
Documents exhibited by the defence/accused. - NIL List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution.--NIL LXXXI ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) Rrk.