Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Amjad on 13 September, 2022
KABC030636142016
Presented on : 20.10.2016
Registered on : 20.10.2016
Decided on : 13.09.2022
Duration : 05y/10m/24days
IN THE COURT OF
XLI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 13th day of September 2022
C.C.No.23247/2016
COMPLAINANT : The State by
Bengaluru Cantonment Railway
Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Amjad,
S/o.Mohammed Sab,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at.Parnabhatti, Rehamathbad,
Ambur Taluk, Vellore District,
Tamilnadu.
2. Rafiq,
S/o.Shabbir,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at.Parnabhatti, Rehamathbad,
2 C.C.No.23247/2016
Ambur Taluk,Vellore District,
Tamilnadu.
Date of Commission of 19.12.2015
offence
Date of report 19.12.2015
Date of arrest 19.12.2015
Name of the complainant S.Ramesh Kumar
Date of commencement of 21.12.2021
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 26.08.2022
Offences complained of U/Sec. 332,323 of IPC &
U/Sec.146 of Railways Act
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst. Public
Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.T.Sathisha., Advocate.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 13.09.2022] The P.S.I of Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 332, 323 of IPC and U/Sec.146 of Railways Act.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 19.12.2015 at 12.30 a.m., in between Krishnarajpuram & White field Railway Stations, the CW.1 being checking squad was discharging his duty at S-7 Compartment of train bearing 3 C.C.No.23247/2016 No.12509- Bengaluru- Gauhati Express and when he saw that the accused are smoking by sitting on the foot board of the train, he asked them to pay fine of Rs.200/- and to show their tickets and at that time they started arguing with him. The accused No.1 bit right index finger of CW.1 and caused injury and deterred him who being the Railway official from discharging his duty. On the basis of written complaint given by CW.1 on 19.12.2015 at 4.30 p.m., Bengaluru Cantonment Railway police have registered the case in Cr.No.98/2015.
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. This Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec.332, 323 of IPC and U/Sec.146 of Railways Act.
4. On 19.12.2015 the accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and produced before the Court. On 23.12.2015, they got enlarged them on bail. After taking cognizance of the offences, this Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
4 C.C.No.23247/2016
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.332, 323 of IPC and U/Sec.146 of Railways Act. The accused did not plead guilty. They claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3 documents. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, this court recorded the statements of the accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C wherein, the accused denied the incriminating evidence led against them. They did not choose to lead their defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri.T.S Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 19.12.2015 at 12.30 a.m., in between Krishnarajpuram & 5 C.C.No.23247/2016 White field Railway Stations, the CW.1 being checking squad was discharging his duty at S-7 Compartment of train bearing No.12509 - Bengaluru- Gauhati Express and when he asked the accused to pay fine of Rs.200/- for smoking by sitting on the foot board of the train and to show their tickets, they argued with him and the accused No.1 bit his right index finger and caused injury and deterred him from discharging his duty and thereby they have committed the offences punishable U/Sec.332 of IPC and U/Sec.146 of Railways Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused caused injury to CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC?
3. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : As per final orders for the following:
6 C.C.No.23247/2016
REASONS
Point No.1 & 2: As these two points are interrelated, I take both the points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused found smoking on the foot board of running train bearing No.12509 Bengaluru-Gauhati Express at 12.30 a.m., of 19.12.2015 and when the complainant being the Railway Checking Squad asked them to pay fine and show the tickets, they argued with him and the accused No.1 bit his right index finger and thereby caused injury to him and deterred him from discharging his duties. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant - CW.1 as PW.1, an eyewitness CW.2 as PW.2, CW.4- Police official, who registered the case and partly investigated the matter as PW.3 and investigation officer-CW.5 as PW.4 and got marked the complaint as Ex.P.1, FIR as Ex.P.2 and Wound Certificate as Ex.P.3.
11. CW.1/PW.1- S.Ramesh Kumar in his evidence has stated that in the year 2015, one day he was discharging his duty of 7 C.C.No.23247/2016 checking tickets in Bengaluru-Gauhati Express train as a squad at S-7 Compartment. After crossing Krishnarajpuram Railway Station, he noticed that the accused are smoking by sitting on the foot board of the train at 12a.m, he asked them to show their tickets. But, they did not show their tickets. When he asked them to pay fine for smoking in a running train, they started arguing with him. The accused No.1 bit his right index finger and caused injury. His colleague CW.2 came to his rescue. His right index finger was bleeding. Subsequently, they both caught hold of them and handed over the accused to Bangarpet Railway Police. The Police took him to Bangarpet Government hospital, wherein his right index finger was sutured. On the same day, he gave Ex.P.1 Complaint regarding the incident.
12. CW.2/PW.2 -M.Venkataramana, in his evidence has stated that, on 18.12.2015 he was discharging his duty as CTI Squad in Bangarpet-Jolarpet-Bengaluru Railway Station. Himself, PW.1 and Nagaraj boarded Bengaluru-Gauhati Express on the same night at 11.30 p.m. After leaving Krishnarajpuram Railway Station, he 8 C.C.No.23247/2016 was discharging his duty at S-6 Compartment. At that time, a tea selling boy came and informed him that a person is quarrelling with TT in another compartment. Immediately, he rushed to S-7 compartment and saw that a person by name Amjad was smoking. PW.1 asked him to show his tickets and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for smoking in the train. At that time, the said Amjad bit the right index finger of PW.1. Himself and 2 others caught hold of Amjad and another person and handed over them to Bangarpet Police. He has identified the accused, who are present before the court.
13. CW.4/PW.3 -N.Manjunath, in his evidence has stated that, on 19.12.2015, when he was discharging his duty as PSI at Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police station, at 4p.m., Bangarpet Railway police came with PW.1, Amjad and Rafiq. On the basis of Ex.P.1 complaint given by PW.1, he registered a case as per Ex.P.2. By following the arrest procedure, he recorded the voluntary statements of the accused and produced them before the court. On 07.01.2016, he recorded the statement of PW.2. Bangarpet 9 C.C.No.23247/2016 Railway police produced Ex.P.3 wound certificate of PW.1. He has identified the accused, who were brought by Bangarpet Police.
14. CW.5/PW.4- Shanmuka in his evidence has stated that, on 10.06.2016, he has taken charge of this case from PW.3 and by perusing the records he found that, the investigation is completed and accordingly he filed charge sheet against the accused.
15. On the basis of written complaint given by PW.1 on 19.12.2015, the Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police have registered this case against the accused, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.1 is the written complaint given by PW.1, wherein he has stated that on 18/19.12.2015 he along with his squad were checking the tickets. On 19.12.2015 at 11.30 p.m., Bengaluru-Gauhati train departed from Bengaluru City Railway Station. In between Krishnarajpuram and White field Railway Stations, he was checking tickets in S-7 Compartment. He came across two persons, who were sitting on the foot board and smoking. Hence, he asked them to show their tickets and pay fine of Rs.200/- for smoking. 10 C.C.No.23247/2016 At that time, they started arguing with him and all of a sudden, a person bit his right index finger and as a result, his right index finger was cut and bleeding profusely. His other squad staff came to his rescue and they both caught hold of those persons and handed over them to Railway Police at Bangarpet. He was taken to Government hospital at Bangarpet for treatment. Accordingly, he prayed the police to take necessary action against those 2 persons.
16. The PW.3 in his evidence has stated that Bangarpet police accompanied PW.1, Amjad and Rafiq to their station on 19.12.2015 at 4p.m., and PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 complaint against the accused. Though the prosecution contends that accused and PW.1 were taken to Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police station and in turn PW.1 gave complaint to the police, the PW.1 did not name the persons in his complaint, who quarreled with him. As contended by the prosecution, if the police had taken the accused and PW.1 to Bengaluru Cantonment railway police station on 19.12.2015 and thereafter PW.1 gave complaint to the police, why the PW.1 did not name the accused in his complaint, who allegedly caused 11 C.C.No.23247/2016 injury and deterred him from discharging his duties? This aspect has not been clarified by the complainant.
17. The PW.2 is said to be the eyewitness to the alleged incident. In his cross examination, the PW.2 has clearly admitted that, he has not seen the person biting the finger of PW.1. On the sayings of PW.1, the PW.2 stated that Amjad has bitten his finger. According to PW.2, the person, who was wearing T-shirt before the court had bitten PW.1. But that person's name is Rafiq and not Amjad.
18. In Ex.P.3 wound certificate, the history of injury is mentioned as " Bite on right index finger by Basha". This makes the Court to doubt the genuineness of this case because, there is no accused by name Basha. No mahazer was drawn at S.7 compartment of Bengaluru Gauhati express train to explain the place where the alleged incident took place.
19. As stated by the PW.1 and 2 if the first among them was discharging his duty at S-7 Compartment and 2nd among them was discharging his duty at S-6 Compartment and a 3rd person, a tea 12 C.C.No.23247/2016 seller informed PW.2 regarding the quarrel, it is not acceptable that the PW.2 had seen the accused No.1 biting PW.1. The investigating officer has not collected any documents from railway department to show that, PW.1 and 2 were deputed for ticket checking work as a squad in Bengaluru-Gauhati express on 19.12.2015.
20. As per the prosecution case, the PW.1 and 2 were discharging their duties at reservation compartments of S-7 and S-
6. The details of the reserved passengers will be available with railway department. Inspite of it, the IO did not care to enquire with any of the passengers to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made by PW.1.
21. In the present case, except PW.2, the IO has not cited any of the eyewitnesses to this case. The IO did not say that he has enquired with tea selling boy or other passengers to ascertain the allegations made by PW.1 in his complaint. The PW.1 in Ex.P.1 had alleged that, his right index finger got cut and it was bleeding 13 C.C.No.23247/2016 profusely and the doctor sutured his wound. But, no such injury is mentioned in Ex.P.3.
22. As per Ex.P.3, the PW.1 had sustained lacerated wound of 2 X 0.2cm at the top of right index finger. The CW.3/doctor did not say that it was bleeding injury and it was such a nature that he had to suture the wounds. In Ex.P.3, the doctor did not mention that the right index finger of PW.1 was cut and it was bleeding. In order to confirm the correctness of the contents of Ex.P.3, this court had issued repeated summons, warrants and proclamation against CW.3. Inspite of it, CW.3 did not appear before the court and hence he was dropped from examination.
23. Except PW.2 nobody has deposed in support of the version of the PW.1. The PW.2 cannot be held as an eyewitness, because he himself in his cross examination has stated that he has not witnessed the person biting the finger of PW.1. Moreover, the PW.2 did not identify the person, who allegedly bit the right index finger of PW.1.
14 C.C.No.23247/2016
24. The PW.2 and 3 deposed regarding the investigation conducted by them. From their evidence, the allegations made against the accused will not be proved. In the absence of the evidence of independent witnesses, the evidence of PW.3 and 4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. In the absence of the oral evidence of independent witnesses, the evidence of PW.1 and 2 cannot be believed.
25. The allegations made by the PW.1 against the accused is contrary to the name-Basha mentioned in the wound certificate/Ex.P.3. There are no materials on record to hold that the accused were travelling in Bengaluru-Gauhati train on 19.12.2015. As contended by the PW.1 and 2, if the accused found smoking in a running train, why a petty case was not registered against them under Railways Act? This aspect has not been clarified by the prosecution. The IO did not say that, a separate case came to be registered against the accused under Railways Act for smoking in a running train.
15 C.C.No.23247/2016
26. All these aspects make the Court to doubt the presence of the accused on the alleged date of incident at Bengaluru-Gauhati train. In such circumstances, the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the accused are guilty of the offences punishable U/s 332, 323 of IPC and U/Sec.146 of Railways Act. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused caused injury and deterred PW.1 from discharging his official duties. In such circumstances, I answer point No.1 and 2 in Negative. Point No.3: For the aforesaid reasons I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted from the charges of Sec. 332, 323 of IPC and U/Sec.146 of Railways Act.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stand cancelled.
13.09.2022 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU 16 C.C.No.23247/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : S.Ramesh Kumar PW.2 : M.Venkataramana PW.3 : N.Manjunath PW.4 : Shanmuka
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.1[b] : Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.3 : Wound Certificate LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED : NIL ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 07.09.2022
Transcribed on : 08.09.2022
checked on : 09.09.2022
Signed on : 13.09.2022
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS