Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Daniel S/O Late Susainathan on 7 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 7th day of April 2016
PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A., Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 265 / 2015
COMPLAINANT :- The State of Karnataka,
By Kadugondanahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:- 1. Daniel S/o Late Susainathan, 39 years
H.No.240, 22nd Cross,
Old Bagaluru Layout,
K.G.Halli, Bengaluru
(Died on 03.02.2013 and hence case is
abated)
2. Arun S/o Ramdas,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o No.244, 22nd Cross,
Old bagaluru Layout,
2 SC 265/2015
Kadugondanahalli,
Bengaluru - 84.
3. Sharath Kumar S/o Sampath,
Aged about 21 years
R/o No.101, 21st Cross,
Old Bagaluru Layout,
Saint Thomas Post,
Bengaluru - 84.
(A2 & 3 rep: by Sri Younous Ali Khan, Advocate)
Date of offence 03.02.2013
Date of report of offence 03.02.2013 at 15.30 hours
Name of the complainant Mariya Dileep @ Bijju
Date of commencement of 26.02.2016
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 31.03.2016
Offences complained of Sec. 324 and 307 R/w 34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by A2 and 3 rep: by Sri Younous Ali
Khan, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Accused No. 2 and 3 are charged and prosecuted for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 326 and 307 R/w 34 of IPC. 3 SC 265/2015
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-
On 2.2.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, Anna Mary, the grand mother of CW2 Arokya Mary died and they kept the dead body in front of the house of CW2 at Old Bagaluru Layout, Kadugondanahalli and they performed bhajan programme during night hours. Accused No.1 to 3 participated in the Bhajan programme. On 3.2.2013 at about 00.45 hours, CW1 asked Bhajan Party to sing a song of mother and CW1 gave Rs.100/-. Enraged by the act of CW1, the accused raised quarrel and accused No.1 abused CW1 that "Hey, vada inge, kasu kodthu, ennedurike pattu kekriya" and then he dashed with his head to the head of CW1 and when CW2 came there to pacify them, the accused No.1 took a knife and assaulted to the right hand of Arokya Mary, Accused No.2 assaulted with long on the head of CW3 Evalin Mary and accused No.3 assaulted CW1 on his head with a club and caused injuries and 4 SC 265/2015 thereafter accused No.1 was about stab on the stomach of CW1 with an intention to murder him, CW1 has raised his hand and the blow hit to his right index finger and caused injury with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they by that act caused death of C.W.1, they would be guilty of murder and thereby accused have committed an offences punishable u/s 324, 326 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.
3. On the basis of the first information statement given by CW2 Mariya Dileep, Kagugondanahalli police registered a case in Cr.No.58/2013 and took up investigation and went to the spot of occurrence, drew up mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and seized one long and knife and recorded statement of witnesses and obtained wound certificate of CW1 to CW3 and after completion of investigation formalities, showing accused No.1 dead, filed charge sheet against the accused No.2 and3 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
5 SC 265/2015
4. During the course of investigation, accused No.3 was arrested and produced before the Magistrate court and he was remanded to judicial custody and accused No.2 was secured under body warrant. Subsequently, accused No.3 obtained regular bail from FTC-III in Crl.Misc.25006/2015 dt.20.1.2015 and accordingly, Accused No.3 was released on bail. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned magistrate and after complying the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for trial against accused No.2 and 3. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.265/2015 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused No.3 by issuing summons and issued directions to jail authorities to produce accused No.2. Subsequently, accused No.2 obtained regular bail in Crl. Misc. No.25179/2015 dt.23.2.2015 and accordingly, he was 6 SC 265/2015 released on bail. The matter was heard before charge. As the reasonable grounds existed, charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable u/s. 324, 326 and 307 R/w 34 of IPC and accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution altogether examined 05 witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 and closed its side. After conclusion of trial, since there is no incriminating evidence in the prosecution witnesses, recording of statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed with.
6. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
7. The following points arise for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proved that on the eve of death of one Anna Mary on 7 SC 265/2015 2.2.2013, in the bhajan programme during night hours on 3.2.2013 at about 00.45 hours, CW1 asked the Bhajan Party to sing mother song and gave Rs.100/-, enraged by the act of CW1, accused No.1 raised quarrel and abused CW1 that "Hey, vada inge, kasu kodthu, ennedurike pattu kekriya" and then he dashed with his head to the head of CW1 and when accused No.1 was about stab on the stomach of CW1 with an intention to murder him, CW1 has raised his hand and the blow hit to his right index finger and caused injury with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they by that act caused death of C.W.1, they would be guilty of murder and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved that when CW2 came there to pacify them, accused No.1 took a knife and assaulted 8 SC 265/2015 to the right hand of CW2 Arokya Mary and caused grievous injury and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.326 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved that Accused No.2 assaulted with long on the head of CW3 Evalin Mary and accused No.3 assaulted CW1 on his head with a club and caused injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. What order?
8. My finding on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : In the negative
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3:- CW1 Mriya Dileep gave first information statement before the Kadugondanahalli Police 9 SC 265/2015 station stating that on 2.2.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, Anna Mary, the grand mother of CW2 Arokya Mary died and they kept the dead body in front of the house of CW2 at Old Bagaluru Layout, Kadugondanahalli and they performed bhajan programme during night hours. Accused No.1 to 3 participated in the Bhajan programme. On 3.2.2013 at about 00.45 hours, CW1 asked Bhajan Party to sing a song of mother and CW1 gave Rs.100/-. Enraged by the act of CW1, the accused raised quarrel and accused No.1 abused CW1 that "Hey, vada inge, kasu kodthu, ennedurike pattu kekriya" and then he dashed with his head to the head of CW1 and when CW2 came there to pacify them, the accused No.1 took a knife and assaulted to the right hand of Arokya Mary, Accused No.2 assaulted with long on the head of CW3 Evalin Mary and accused No.3 assaulted CW1 on his head with a club and caused injuries and thereafter accused No.1 was about stab on the stomach of CW1 with an intention to murder him, CW1 has raised his hand and the blow hit to his right index finger and caused injury with 10 SC 265/2015 an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they by that act caused death of C.W.1, they would be guilty of murder and thereby accused have committed an offences punishable u/s 324, 326 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.
10. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined all together five witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 5. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement given by CW1 and Ex.P.2 to 5 are the statements of PW2 to PW5.
11. Let me examine the ocular evidence of prosecution. CW1 Mariya Dileep @ Bijju is examined as PW1. In his evidence, he has deposed that he does not know the accused and he does not know reading and writing Kannada. He has further deposed that he did not give any complaint against accused that they raised quarrel and assaulted them. Since this witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of 11 SC 265/2015 prosecution, this court permitted the Public Prosecutor to cross examine him, no worthful evidence elicited from his mouth regarding involvement of the accused in the commission of evidence.
12. CW3 Evalin Kumari is examined as PW2. In her evidence also, she has deposed that she does not know the accused and she did not give any statement before the police. She has stated that the accused did not assault CW1 and CW2 and cause injury. This witness has also not supported case of prosecution and turned hostile. Though this witness has been cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited from her mouth regarding the incident and involvement of accused.
13. CW4 Mariya Naveen, CW4 Mariya Aravind and CW2 Arokya Mary are examined as PW3 to PW5 and they have also not deposed in support of prosecution case and not deposed about the involvement of accused in the commission of offence. 12 SC 265/2015 Though PW5 Arokya Mary is the injured, in her evidence, she has deposed that about two years back, when they were performing bajan programme in the eve of death of her grand- mother Anna Mary, somebody came and assaulted with knife and at that time, there was no electricity and so she could not identify the person who assaulted them. She has further deposed that the accused neither assaulted her nor assaulted CW1 and caused injury and she did not give statement before the police. Since PW3 to 5 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined them. Nothing has been elicited from their mouth regarding involvement of accused in the commission of offence. Therefore, all the material witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution has not able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Since material witnesses turned hostile, this court declined to issue summons to CW6 to 14, even though Public Prosecutor prayed for issuance of summons. Even if they were to be examined, no purpose would 13 SC 265/2015 be served to the prosecution. Therefore, there are no incriminating evidence in the prosecution witnesses. Version of the prosecution is not corroborated with the evidence of eye- witnesses and injured witness and therefore, this court has no other option, but to acquit the accused by giving finding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in Negative.
14. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty and acting under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C., they are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 324, 326 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by Accused No.2 and 3 during the course of trial stand cancelled. However, Accused are directed to execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with 14 SC 265/2015 one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of this court as required U/s.437(A) of Cr.P.C., to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court issue notice in respect of any appeal filed against the judgment, which bond shall be in force for a period of six months.
(Dictated to Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of April, 2016) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Mariya Dileep @ Bijju PW2 Evalin Kumari PW3 Mariya Naveen PW4 Mariya Aravind PW5 Arokya Mary
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil 15 SC 265/2015 List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2 Statement of PW2 Ex.P.3 Statement of PW3 Ex.P.4 Statement of PW4 Ex.P.5 Statement of PW5
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
Nil LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Rrt*