Bangalore District Court
State By: Madivala Police Station vs Lokesh S/O Shivalingegowda on 12 May, 2016
1 C.C.14922/2012
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this Thursday the 12th day of May 2016
Present: Sri.Mohan Prabhu, B.Com., M.A, LL.B.,
III Addl., CMM.,
Bengaluru.
C.C.No.14922/2012
Complainant : State by: Madivala Police Station
V/s
Accused : Lokesh S/o Shivalingegowda, 40 yrs,
R/at:No:177/B, HSR Layout, 4th Sector,
Benglauru Nagar.
(By Sri.MG Adv., Bengaluru)
---
::JUDGEMENT::
Case No. : C.C.No.14922/2012
Date of offence : 2/1/2011
Complainant : Sharan
Accused : Named above
2 C.C.14922/2012
Offence : U/ss.324, 506 of IPC
Charge : Accused pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused acquitted
Date of order : 12/5/2016
The brief statement
of the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
The PSI of Madivala Police Station has filed the
chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/ss.324, 506 of IPC
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
That on 2/1/2011 at about 6-45 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madivala Police Station at HSR Layout, BDA Complex, Shree Shakthi Veg Restaurant when Cw.1 was working as Waiter at that time the accused came to that Restaurant and drank the Coffee and thereafter offered Rs.500/- note. When Cw.1 asked the accused to give the 3 C.C.14922/2012 change at that time the accused picked up quarrel with Cw.1 and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with Coffee Glass on his head and voluntarily caused him simple injuries and also gave life threat to Cw.1.
3. Based on the first information lodged by Cw.1, the Madivala Police Station Police registered the case in Crime No.2/2011 and dispatched FIR to the Court. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer after collecting the Wound Certificate on completion of investigation has filed chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/ss.324, 506 of IPC.
4. Upon taking cognizance and registering the case summons came to be issued to the accused. The accused appeared before this Court on 3/6/2015 and by engaging 4 C.C.14922/2012 counsel released on bail. The chargesheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby provision u/s.207 of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with. After hearing on both sides charge came to be framed for the offences punishable U/ss.324, 506 of IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.
5. During the course of trial on the side of prosecution Cw.1 is examined as Pw.1 and document Ex.p1 and Ex.p2 are marked. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused recording of statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with. No defence evidence is led.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 2/1/2011 at about 6-45 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madivala Police Station at HSR Layout, BDA Complex, Shree Shakthi Veg Restaurant the accused picked up quarrel with Cw.1 and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with Coffee Glass on his head and voluntarily caused him simple injuries and also gave life threat to him and 5 C.C.14922/2012 thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/ss. 324, 506 of IPC?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above point:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
::REASONS::
9. Point No.1: Pw.1 is the first informant and injured. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that on 2/1/2011 at about 6-45 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Madivala Police Station at HSR Layout, BDA Complex Shree Shakthi Veg Restaurant accused picked up quarrel with Cw.1 and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with Coffee Glass on his head and voluntarily caused him simple injuries and also gave life threat to him. But quite contrary to this Pw.1 completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that no such incident was occurred. 6 C.C.14922/2012
10. Pw.1 deposed that the accused has not picked up quarrel with him and not abused him in filthy language and not assaulted him with Tea Glass and not caused any injuries. He states that the accused has not given any life threat to him. He states that at about five years back there was some altercation between him and the accused, hence he went to the Police Station at that time the police took his signature on Ex.p1 complaint and Ex.p2 mahazar. He states that No mahazar was conducted in his presence. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution learned Sr.APP cross examined Pw.1 in detail. In his cross examination Pw.1 denied the entire contents of the document Ex.p1 complaint and Ex.p2 mahazar. It is elicited from the mouth of Pw.1 is that he has compromise the case with the accused.
11. In this case Pw.1 is the important witness but Pw.1 is not supported the case of the prosecution. Pw.1 is not deposed anything against the accused. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. It is elicited from the mouth of Pw.1 is that he has compromised the 7 C.C.14922/2012 case with the accused. Pw.1 and the accused may set right their differences, hence Pw.1 may not supported the case of the prosecution for which the prosecution cannot be blamed. Even though learned Sr.APP cross examined Pw.1 in detail, nothing is elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/ss.324, 506 of IPC. The prosecution is failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
U/s.248(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/ss.324, 506 of IPC. His Bail bond stand cancelled after completion of appeal period.8 C.C.14922/2012
The material object which is mentioned in PF.No.2/2011 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12/5/2015).
(Mohan Prabhu), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. ::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1: Sharan
2. List of Documents on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.p1: Complaint Ex.p2: Mahazar P1(a):2(a): Signatures Ex.p3: Further statement of Pw.1 Ex.p4: Statement of Pw.2
3. Material objects marked: Nil
4. Defence: Nil
- --
III ACMM., Bengaluru.
9 C.C.14922/2012