Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka New Town vs Prasanna on 19 May, 2023
KABC010193322017
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2023
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
S.C. No.989/2017
Complainant : State by Yelahanka New Town
police station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
Accused : Prasanna
S/o Byrappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.220, 1st Main Road,
Atturu Layout, Atturu Post,
Yelahanka, Upanagara, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.A.D.S., advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 02.06.2015
2. Date of report of occurrence 04.06.2015
3. Date of commencement of evidence 23.01.2020
4. Date of closing of evidence 14.10.2022
5. Name of the complainant Sri.Sampath
6. Offences complained of U/Sec.323, 355, 504, 307 of
IPC
7. Opinion of the Judge As per final order
8. Order of sentence Offence not proved
2
S.C.No.989/2017
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Yelahanka New Town police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused before learned CMM Court, Bangalore, alleging the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 355, 504, 307 of IPC.
2. After filing of the charge sheet, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.323, 355, 504, 307 of IPC against the accused and registered the criminal case bearing CC.No.2396/2016.
3. The accused was already on bail, when the charge sheet was filed. As such, on appearance of the accused before the Learned Magistrate, the Learned Magistrate had complied the mandatory provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., by furnishing the copy of charge sheet and other papers annexed with the charge sheet to the accused.
4. Since the offence alleged against the accused which is punishable u/s. 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Learned Magistrate committed the case against accused to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City court for trial by exercising the power u/ Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
5. After committal of the case, case is registered against accused as S.C.No.989/2017 and made over to this court. Thereafter this court issued summons to accused. After 3 S.C.No.989/2017 service of summons, the accused has appeared before the court through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. Then, the matter was posted for hearing accused on the charge.
6. The accused was heard on the charge. Since there are sufficient prima facie materials in the charge sheet to proceed with trial against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 355, 504, 307 of IPC, charge was framed for the said offence and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the matter was posted for evidence of the prosecution.
7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has got examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10. The prosecution has produced 14 documents on its behalf and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.14 and three material objects as M.O.1 to 3. Thereafter, the matter was posted for recording the statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.
8. All the incriminating evidence appearing against accused in the evidence of P.W.1 to 10 were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused has submitted that he has no defence evidence. Hence, the matter was posted for arguments.
4S.C.No.989/2017
9. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for the accused and Learned Public Prosecutor. The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed written arguments.
10. Perused the charge sheet, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, written arguments and other materials available on record.
11. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 02.06.2015 at about 9.30 pm in the public place situated in front of Durgaparameshwari Hotel, 1st main road, Escort Layout, Attoor Badavane, when Cw.1 was standing there by putting his hand inside his pocket, the accused came there and picked up quarrel with him and abused him and CW.4 who came pacify the quarrel between CW.1 and accused and intentionally insulted CW.1 and 4 by abusing them with filthy language and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.504 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused has voluntarily caused hurt to C.W.4 by beating with hands and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused pressed the neck of Cw.4-Manoraj with his leg having chappal and assaulted him with intention to dishonour 5 S.C.No.989/2017 that person and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 355 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused has attempted to murder CW.4 by putting size stone on his head and by pressing the neck of CW.4 with slipper leg and the accused did so having knowledge that the said act would result in death of CW.4 and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC?
5. What order?
12. My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1 .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.2 .. In the Negative
(3) Point No.3 .. In the Negative
(4) Point No.4 .. In the Negative
(5) Point No.5 .. As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
13. Points No.1 to 4:- These four points are
interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
This case arise out of the charge sheet filed by PSI of Yelahanka New Town, before learned CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 355, 504, 307 of IPC. In the charge sheet it is alleged that on 02.06.2015 at about 9.30 pm in the public place situated in front of Durgaparameshwari 6 S.C.No.989/2017 Hotel, 1st main road, Escort Layout, Attoor Badavane, when Cw.1 was standing there by putting his hand inside his pocket, the accused came there and picked up quarrel with him regarding he standing infront of him by putting his hands in the pocket. CW.4 came there and tried to pacify the accused. At that time the accused felt angry with CW.4 and intentionally insulted CW.1 and 4 by abusing them with filthy language. The accused slapped CW.4 with hands his cheek. When CW.4 fell down on the ground, the accused put his leg having slipper on the neck of CW.4 and with intention to murder him tried to put size stone on his head. CW.1, CW.7 to Cw.9 have stopped the accused from doing so. Hence, it is alleged in the chargesheet that the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s. 323, 355, 504, 307 of IPC.
14. The prosecution in order to prove the aforesaid allegations made against accused has examined in all 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10. Among them P.W.7 is the informant and injured. PW.2 is another injured. PW.1 is the panch witness. PW.4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.6 and 10 are the seizure mahazar witness. PW.3 is the doctor who has examined CW.4. PW.8 and 9 are the investigating officers. Now let us examine the evidence of aforesaid witnesses in order to adjudicate whether their evidence is sufficient to prove the alleged charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not.
7S.C.No.989/2017
15. P.W.7 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that CW.4 is his brother. He has further deposed that about 5-6 years back galata took place infront of his shop and at the time some persons have assaulted his brother CW.4 and he do not know who has assaulted CW.4. He has further deposed that when he had gone to the police station to report about the incident, the police took his signature on two documents that is complaint and mahazar and he do not know the contents of the said documents. He has not identified M.O.1 to 3. He has also not identified the accused.
16. PW.2 in his examination in his chief has also deposed that about 5-6 years back galata took place infront of his shop and at the time some persons have assaulted him and he do not know who has assaulted him. He has further deposed that thereafter he went to Nehaprakash Hospital for taking treatment. He has further deposed that he has not given any statement before police about accused assaulting him. He has not identified M.O.1 to 3 and the accused.
17. PW.4 and 5 in their chief examination have not supported the prosecution case and they have not deposed any thing about they witnessing the accused assaulting CW.4 and attempting to murder him. They have not identified the accused and MO.1 to 3. They have stated that they have not given any statement before the police about the incident.
8S.C.No.989/2017
18. Since, PW.2, 4, 5 and 7 have not supported the prosecution case, they were treated as hostile and they were cross examined by Learned PP. But nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross examination to prove that on the date, place and time as alleged in the chargesheet, accused has raised quarrel with CW.1 and 4 and abused them with filthy language and beaten CW.4 with hands and attempted to murder him by putting size stone on his head and by putting his leg having slipper on the neck of CW.4. Further nothing has been elicited during the course of cross examination of CW.7 to prove that he has given complaint against the accused as per Ex.P.7 and Mahazar was conducted in his presence as per Ex.P.8. Further nothing has been elicited during the course of cross examination of PW.4, 5 and 7 to prove that they have given statement before the police about the incident stating that accused has committed the alleged offences.
19. P.W.1 is the mahazar witness. PW.6 and 10 are the seizure mahazar witnesses. They have also not support the prosecution case. PW.1 has not deposed anything about conduct of Ex.P.1 spot mahazar in his presence. PW.6 and 10 have not deposed about conduct of Ex.P.6 seizure mahazar they have not identified M.O.1 and 3. They have stated in their chief-examination that they have signed on the mahazar in the police station as per the say of the police and they do not know the contents of said two mahazar. Hence, aforesaid three 9 S.C.No.989/2017 mahazar witnesses were treated as hostile and they were cross-examined by Learned Public Prosecutor. But nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross- examination to prove that the police have conducted spot mahazar and seizure mahazar in their presence and they have signed mahazar after understanding the contents of the mahazar and M.O.1 and 3 were seized in their presence at the time of conducting mahazar. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1, 6 and 10 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 mahazars were conducted in their presence.
20. PW.3 doctor in his evidence has deposed that on 02.06.2015 at about 10.30 pm he has examined CW.4 at Nehaprakash Hospital who came to hospital with history of assault and deposed that he gave Ex.P.3 wound certificate by mentioning the details of the injuries.
21. P.W.8 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he has received complaint from C.W.1 on 03.06.2015 and registered the case in Cr.No.141/15. PW.9 has deposed in his chief examination that after receiving the investigation from PW.8, he has conducted mahazar of the place of the incident as per Ex.P.1 and seized M.O.1. P.W.9 in his examination-in- chief has deposed about recording the statements of the witnesses, conducting seizure mahazar of M.O.3 as per Ex.P.6, seizure mahazar of M.O.2 as per Ex.P.8, recording of 10 S.C.No.989/2017 voluntarily statement of accused, collecting the documents and filing the charge sheet against the accused after completing the investigation of the case.
22. The evidence of the Investigating Officers is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7-the informant, PW.2-the injured and other eyewitnesses and mahazar witnesses. Further the victims and the informant themselves have not supported the prosecution case and they have not deposed anything about the accused abusing them, accused assaulting PW.2 and attempting to murder him. Further all eyewitnesses and panch witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of doctor is also not helpful the prosecution to prove that PW.2 has sustained injuries due to assault alleged to have been made by the accused. The prosecution has failed to adduce any believable evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused has committed the alleged offences and PW.2 and PW.7. The evidence of Investigating Officers and doctor alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offences. The evidence of Investigating Officers is also not corroborated by the evidence of informant, panch witnesses and the other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed all the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the alleged four 11 S.C.No.989/2017 charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubts and accused is entitled to be acquittal for the alleged offence. Since prosecution has failed to prove Points No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubts, I answer Points No.1 to 4 in Negative.
23. Point No.5: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 355, 504, 307 of IPC .
The bail bond of accused and surety bond of surety of accused shall stand cancelled.
M.O.1 stone, M.O.2 shirt and M.O.3 chappal are of no value and hence they are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Accused is set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May, 2023).
PRAMODA Digitally signed by
PRAMODA B G
BG Date: 2023.05.20 12:31:06
+0530
(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Elangu
12
S.C.No.989/2017
P.W.2 Manoraj
P.W.3 Dr. Kiran
P.W.4 Chinnaraju
P.W.5 R.Vijaykumar
P.W.6 Mallikarjun N.R.
P.W.7 Sampath Kumar
P.W.8 Govindaraju
P.W.9 Jayananda
P.W.10 Mahesh
Documents marked for the prosecution :
Ex.P.1 Spot mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 Wound certificate Ex.P.3(a) Singature of P.W.3 Ex.P.4 Portion of statement Ex.P.5 Portion of statement Ex.P.6 & 6(a) Mahazar and signature of witness Ex.P.7 Complaint Ex.P.8 Mahazar Ex.P.9 Photo Ex.P.10 Portion of statement Ex.P.11 FIR Ex.P.12 & 12(a) P.F.No.42/15 and signature of witness Ex.P.13 & 13(a) P.F.No.43/15 and signature of witness Ex.P.14 P.F.No.53/15 and signature of witness
Witnesses examined for the Accused:
NIL Documents marked for the Accused:
NIL Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
M.O.1 Stone 13 S.C.No.989/2017 M.O.2 Shirt M.O.3 Slipper Digitally signed by PRAMODA PRAMODA B G BG Date: 2023.05.20 12:31:13 +0530
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bangalore. 14 S.C.No.989/2017