Bangalore District Court
P P Pillar Reddy Asi vs Vijay Singh Alias Vijay on 27 January, 2024
KABC030852802017
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 27th Day of January, 2024
Present: RASHMI M,
L.L.B., L.L.M.
VI Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.19288/2017
Date of Offence : 15.08.2016
Name of complainant : State by Adugodi
Police Station, Bengaluru.
-vs-
Name of accused : 1. Vijay Singh @ Vijay
S/o Yuvaraj Singh,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o No.26, 1st Main,
New Extn, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address
No.26, 1st Main,
New Extention,
K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
2 C.C.NO.19288/2017
2. Narayana Singh @ Manu,
S/o Lakxaman Singh,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o No.26, 15th Main,
New Extn, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address
No.26, 1st Main,
New Extention,
K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
3. Lokesh M.S.,
S/o Sreeramappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o No.26, 1st Main,
New Extn, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address
No.26, 1st Main,
New Extention,
K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
Offences complained off: U/s.341, 353, 332, 504, 506
R/w Sec.34 of I.P.C.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused are acquitted
**** *
3 C.C.NO.19288/2017
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector, Adugodi Police Station has filed this charge sheet against accused persons for offences punishable under Sections U/s. 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:-
It is a case of the prosecution that, during the night hours of 14.08.2016 C.W.1 and 2 were deputed on Hosur Lashkar Road, Main Road near Ganesha Dharshini for checking the vehicles at about 01.00 a.m. on 15.08.2016 a swift car bearing No.KA-53-MB-9299 came from the side of Adugodi signal, CW1 and CW2 stopped the car and asked the 1st accused to blow into the alchometer which was refused by accused no.1 along with the passengers accused no.2 and 3. CW1 asked the accused no.1 to stop the vehicle on the side of the road, but they stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road and all the
3 accused got down from the car and prevented CW1 and scolded him in offensive language and told " ನವ ಯರ ಗತತ ? ನಮಮ ಮಲ ಕಸ ದಖಲಸದರ ನಮಮ ನನ ಕಲಸದದದ ತಗಸಬಡತತ ತವ " and as such accused no.1 to 3 threatened them. They caught hold of the collar of the CW2 pulled and pushed him and assaulted him. CW1 4 C.C.NO.19288/2017 called the control room, the Hoysala vehicle of Adugodi Police station came to the spot and drunk and driving case was registered against the driver. The accused no.1 to 3 who had prevented them from performing their official duty by fighting and scolding them in filthy language and threatened them, thereby the accused no.1 to 3 are alleged to have committed offence punishable under sec. 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
3. After filing of the charge sheet, cognizance of alleged offences was taken and accused No.1 to 3 have appeared in pursuant to summons and they were enlarged on bail. Copies of charge sheet was furnished to the accused No.1 to 3 u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge is framed. Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilt of alleged offences and they claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked 9 documents as per Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused 3 documents Ex.D1 to 3 were marked during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. After the conclusion of the 5 C.C.NO.19288/2017 prosecution evidence, statement of accused No.1 to 3 was recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 3 have denied the incriminating evidence against them and they chose not to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for consideration:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that at about 01.00 a.m. in the early morning of 15.01.2016 on Hosur Laskar Road in front of Ganesha Darshini Hotel the accused no.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained CW1 and 2 from performing their official duty and thereby accused have committed the offences punishable under section 341 r/w sec.34 of IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time, place the accused no.1 to 3 assaulted and prevented CW1 and 2 from performing their official duty and thereby accused have committed the 6 C.C.NO.19288/2017 offences punishable under section 353 r/w sec.34 of IPC ?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time, place the accused no.1 to 3 caught hold of the colar of CW2 and assaulted CW1 and 2 and thereby voluntary caused hurt to CW1 and 2 who were public servants on duty and thereby accused have committed the offences punishable under section 332 r/w sec.34 of IPC ?
(4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time, place the accused no.1 to 3 scolded C.W.1 and 2 in filthy language and thereby the accused have committed the offences punishable under section 504 r/w sec.34 of IPC ?
(5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 3 threatened C.W.1 and 2 and thereby the accused have 7 C.C.NO.19288/2017 committed the offences punishable under section 506 R/w sec.34 of IPC ?
(6) What order?
6. Heard the arguments. Perused oral and documentary evidence placed before the court.
7. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 to 5 : In the Negative Point No.6: As per final order, for the following:
REA S ON S
8. Point No.1 : It is the specific case of the prosecution that, during the night hours of 14.08.2016 C.W.1 and 2 were deputed on Hosur Lashkar Road, Main Road near Ganesha Dharshini for checking the vehicles at about 01.00 a.m. on 15.08.2016 a swift car bearing No.KA-53-MB-9299 came from the side of Adugodi signal, CW1 and CW2 stopped the car and asked the 1 st accused to blow into the alchometer which was refused by accused no.1 along with the passengers accused no.2 and 3. CW1 asked the accused no.1 to stop the vehicle on the side of the road, but they stopped the vehicle in 8 C.C.NO.19288/2017 the middle of the road and all the 3 accused got down from the car and prevented CW1 and scolded him in offensive language and told " ನವ ಯರ ಗತತ ? ನಮಮ ಮಲ ಕಸ ದಖಲಸದರ ನಮಮ ನನ ಕಲಸದದದ ತಗಸಬಡತತ ತ ವ " and as such accused no.1 to 3 threatened them. They caught hold of the colar of the CW2 pulled and pushed him and assaulted him. CW1 called the control room, the Hoysala vehicle of Adugodi Police station came to the spot and drunk and driving case was registered against the driver. The accused no.1 to 3 who had prevented them from performing their official duty by fighting and scolding them in filthy language and threatened them, thereby the accused no.1 to 3 are alleged to have committed offence punishable under sec. 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
9. P.W.1 - P. Pilla Reddy has stated that on 14.08.2016, as per the direction of his superiors he along with CW2 were on duty on Hosur Laskar road in front of Ganesha Dharshini by putting the barricade and checking the vehicles till the morning of 15.08.2016. At about 01.00 a.m on 15.08.2016 a car came from the side of Adugodi signal and they stopped it near the barricade. They checked the 9 C.C.NO.19288/2017 vehicle and his driver and they found that the driver was drunk. He instructed the driver to take the vehicle to the side of the road but the driver stopped the vehicle there itself and along with two other passengers they got down and started to argue with them. He wanted to test the driver on the alchometer, but he did not co-operate. The driver and the passengers questioned him as to whether he knows as to who they are and if he registers a case against them he will be removed from the job. All the 3 of them caught hold of the colar of the CW2. They called the control room and informed about the incident. He noted down the car number. The law and order police who came there asked the passengers and the driver to give breath test but they also abused them then they called the Hoysala vehicle and asked them to get into the vehicle to which the accused told them " ಕಳಳ ನನನ ಮಕಕ ಳ, ವಹನಕಕ ನವ ಹತತ ವದಲಲ " . It was swift car bearing number KA-53-MB-9299. He stated that CW2 had video graphed the incident. His identified the accused before the court. He stated that he can identify the car bearing No.KA.53.MB.9299. In his cross-examination, by the advocate for accused it is elicited that on 14.08.2016 his higher officer had 10 C.C.NO.19288/2017 made an order deputing him on Laskar Road, near Ganesha Dharshini hotel to check the drunk and driving vehicles. It is elicited that he had given the said order to the I.O. It is elicited that in his mobile there is no provision to take the video so he asked his staff to take video graphy in his mobile. He admitted that there are roads on two sides of Ganesha Darshini hotel and CCTV cameras have been installed on the said roads. It is elicited that he does not have any documents to show that he had reported about the incident at about 01.00 a.m on 15.08.2016. It is elicited that the traffic police station and Adugodi police station is at a distance of 200 to 250 feet from the place of incident. He also admitted that from the said police station the police could have reach a spot in 2 minutes. But he denied the suggestion that one can reach the spot from Adugodi police station in 5 minutes. He admitted that if any uncalled for incident takes place when they are on duty and if he gives an complaint to the concerned law and order police station the same will be entered by the personals of the said police station in their station dairy. He admitted that he has not stated in his complaint that in the midnight 1.00 a.m. he had informed Adugodi police station about 11 C.C.NO.19288/2017 the incident through wireless. He admitted that in his roll call book it will be mentioned as to where he was deputed to duty on 14.08.2016. He also admitted that in the said roll call book the details of the personal who was deputed to the duty along with him will also be mentioned. He admitted that unless his higher officials change his place of duty he cannot go to some other place to do his duty. He admitted that as per the station document on 14.08.2016 he was not deputed to duty near Ganesha Darshini, Doubble road, Bangalore Hosur Laskar road. The witnesses further stated the documents pertains to the morning duty and as per the direction of his higher officials he was on night duty near Ganesha Darshini Hotel, double road. He admitted that in the said documents it is not mentioned as to whether he was on day duty or night duty. He admitted that as per the document he was posted to duty at Aishwarya Junction and Jakkasandra Sector 5 and water tank junction. He stated that he was on duty near Ganesha Darshini Hotel as per the orders of his higher officials. He admitted that as per the said documents on 14.08.2016 P.C. 7256 Thimmaraju was deputed on duty at St. John's Bus bay, but he stated that it was 12 C.C.NO.19288/2017 for day duty. He admitted that in the said document it is not mentioned that on 14.08.2016 he and P.C.7256 Thimmaraju were deputed near Hosuru Laskar Road, Ganesha Darshini Hotel. It is elicited that at 02.15 at night when he went to the police station he did not lodge a complaint. He admitted that in column no.12 of the FIR his signature is not there. He admitted that the reason for delay in lodging the complaint is not mentioned in the complaint and in the FIR. He denied the suggestion that as he had not personally given the complaint so his signature is not there on the FIR. He denied the suggestion he was not on duty at the said spot and no one had prevented him from performing his official duty. He denied the suggestion that as he was not performing his official duty and same was video graphed by the accused and with an intention to obtain the mobile phones in which video graphy was done he has made false allegation against the accused persons. The witness was questioned that in examination-in-chief dated 05.07.2019 in para no.4 it is mentioned that the abusing was recorded to which the witness stated that he does not know. He admitted that he exactly knows which of the accused had scolded him. He denied the suggestion that he 13 C.C.NO.19288/2017 has given a false complaint and he has not conducted any breath test of the accused persons.
10. P.W.2 - Dr. Shalini R.H. has deposed about examining Thimmaraju on 15.08.2016 at about 08.30. In this regard she has given the wound certificate as per Ex.P1. In her cross-examination it is elicited that she had sent the MLC information to the concerned police station. She admitted that she has not brought patient history sheet and she is not deposing on its basis. She admitted that it is not mentioned as to on which date to whom the wound certificate was given. It is elicited that she has given wound certificate to the police. She admitted she has not mentioned in the wound certificate as to how many cms long was the wound located on the neck. She admitted that a person can himself do to himself the injury that is mentioned in the wound certificate. He denied the suggestion that no such person had come to the hospital for treatment. She denied the suggestion as the said person was a police she has created the wound certificate to help him.
14 C.C.NO.19288/201711. P.W.3 - Narasimha Murthy R. has stated that, on 14.08.2016 he was on duty as SHO. On 15.08.2016 in the early morning hours between 02 a.m to 03.00 p.m. C.W.1 came and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 then registered the FIR in Cr.No.207/2016 and forwarded the FIR to the court. For the further investigation he handed over the case file to CW.10. In the cross-examination by the advocate for accused it is elicited that on 15.08.2016 between 01.00 a.m. to 02.00 a.m. he did not receive any information about the incident through wireless or through mobile phone. It is elicited that on 15.08.2016 between 01.00 a.m to 4.05 a.m. he had not deputed any of his staff at the place of incident. He denied the suggestion that Thimmaraju did not come to the station and lodge the complaint. He stated that Pilla Reddy came and gave a complaint on the basis of which he registered a FIR. It is elicited that in the FIR he has not mentioned at Pilla Reddy had given the complaint about the same incident. It is elicited he has not obtained any signature of the complainant in column no.12 of the FIR. He admitted that he did not have any problem to obtain the signature of the complainant. He admitted that in the complaint wherein 1 to 3 15 C.C.NO.19288/2017 corrections have been made and the person who did the correction or the person who lodged the complaint has not put his signature at the said places. He admitted that in the complaint it is not mentioned as to which person was driving under the influence of alcohol. He admitted that at 2.00 a.m. no complaint or statement was received. He admitted that CW1 did not produce any property in his presence. He denied the suggestion that to help the accused he has created the FIR. He admitted that the place of incident is at a distance of 500 meters from the police station and same can be reached within 2-5 minutes. But the complaint and the FIR does not mention the reason for the delay of 3 hours in lodging the complaint. He denied the suggestion that he has created the requisition and FIR to help the complainant and his department. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
12. P.W.4 Thimmaraju has stated that on 14.08.2016 he went to the police station for the night duty. The SHO posted him along with CW1 for vehicle inspection duty. Accordingly he along with CW1 were inspecting the vehicle near Ganesha 16 C.C.NO.19288/2017 Dharshini Hotel, Hosuru Laskar Road. In the midnight at about 01.00 a.m a swift car bearing No.KA-53-MB-9299 came from the side of Adugodi signal. They stopped the vehicle and inspected it and they came to know that the driver had consumed alcohol, they checked through alchometer. The car driver along with two passengers came out side the car and scolded C.W1. in filthy language and threatened them that they would be removed from their job. They caught hold of his uniform collar and at that time the CW1 called the control room. The Hoysala van of Adugodi police station came to the spot. The three people were taken to the police station and Victoria Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter CW1 went to Adugodi police station and registered a drunk and driving case. Thereafter CW1 lodged the complaint against the accused persons in Adugodi Police station. He identified the accused before the court. In his cross- examination by the advocate for the accused. It is elicited that he has not given the roll call to show that he was posted at the said place along with CW1. He admitted that once a person is posted for duty at a particular place without a modification order he cannot go and do duty at a different place. He denied 17 C.C.NO.19288/2017 the suggestion that there was no traffic at police checking place near Ganesha Darshini Hotel, Laskar road. He admitted that at as per Roll Call Ex.D1 and entry as per Ex.D1(a) he was posted for duty at St. John's Bus bay on 14.08.2016. It is elicited that he was on night duty near Ganesha Darshini Hotel and he has furnished documents pertaining to his posting at the said place. It is elicited that the said order was passed by ASI Pilla Reddy. He admitted that the police inspector of the police station has the power to do roll call and to post a person on duty. He admitted that he was given the order by ASI Pilla Reddy. He admitted that every police personal enters the details of his duty in the pocket diary. He admitted that he is deposing about the alleged incident on 14.08.2016 as taught by ASI Pilla Reddy. He admitted that he did not face any problem and he does not have personal knowledge about the incident and he deposing as per the instruction of CW.1. He admitted that as per Ex.D2 column no.10 it is mentioned that on 14.08.2016 he was posted at St. Johns bus bay for duty. It is elicited that on 14.08.2016 no one else was deputed along with him for duty. He admitted that on any check point the police constable does not have the power to stop any 18 C.C.NO.19288/2017 vehicle, check the vehicle, impose fine or receive fine. He admitted that no police constable will be deputed alone at any check point and he does not have power to perform such duty. He admitted that a driver can drive vehicle when has consumed alcohol upto 8%. It is elicited that he does not know whether BAC test was conducted on the drivers to check whether they had consumed alcohol. He admitted that they have not conducted any BAC test on the drivers to check the alcohol consumption. He admitted that he has not inspected any vehicle nor any person who was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and he did not have any opportunity to see them. He admitted that when there is no opportunity to see the accused the question of talking to them and they causing obstruction to his duty does not arise. He admitted that on 14.08.2016 he did not meet the accused face to face and he did not speak to them. It is elicited that on 14.08.2016 at about 01.00 clock in the midnight at Adugodi signal when the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-53-MV-9299 was tested on the alchometer they got a slip but he has not given a slip to the investigating officer. It is elicited that he has not furnished any documents to show that when the accused had blown into the 19 C.C.NO.19288/2017 alchometer it had shown that he had consumed alcohol. He admitted that as per Ex.D3 which is a drunk and driving slip there is 0% alcohol as such the driver was not driving under the influence of alcohol. He admitted that it is wrong to allege that a person is driving under the influence of alcohol even though he has not consumed any alcohol. He admitted that when the public or his higher officials noticed that they are violating the duty they have the power to question them. He admitted that the accused had not consumed alcohol and in the alchometer it was shown that they had not consumed alcohol and same was being video graphed by the accused. He admitted that the road where they were doing duty was having moment of people. He admitted that on the said day he did not face any hurdle in performing his duty. It is elicited that they did not ask the accused to delete the video graphy which was done about him and CW.1. He admitted that he has not mentioned about the bad words used by the accused in his examination-in- chief or in his statement given to the police. He admitted that if the accused had scolded him in filthy language he did not have any problem to mention the same in his statement and examination-
20 C.C.NO.19288/2017in-chief. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court even though no such incident had occurred and to help CW1 who has lodged a false complaint.
13. P.W.5 Ramesh Kumar H.B. DYSP has stated that on 24.08.2016 CW10 had asked him to furnish certified copy of the duty roster and station house dairy pertaining to CW1 and 2. Accordingly on 22.09.2016. He forwarded the certified copy of the duty roster and station dairy pertaining to CW1 and CW2 to CW10. The said certified copy of the station dairy and duty roster is marked as Ex.D1 and 2 on behalf of the accused. He has identified his signature on the said documents as per Ex.D1 (b) and Ex.D2(b).
14. P.W.6 Muniraju has stated the he signed the mahazar as per Ex.P5 as per Ex.P5(a) in the Adugodi police station in the year 2016. He does not remember the date. Between 10.00 am to 11.00 a.m the police called him to the police station and asked him to put a signature. He doe not know as to what is written in the mahazar and he has not given any statement to the police. As the witness has not fully 21 C.C.NO.19288/2017 supported the prosecution he has been treated hostile. In his cross-examination by the Ld. APP nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case the statement denied by the witness is marked as Ex.P6. He denied the suggestion that he deposing falsely before the corut to help the accused persons.
15. P.W.7 Ravi has stated that he has signed the seizure mahazar Ex.P5 as per Ex.P5(b) in the Adugodi police station. He stated that the police called him to the station at 01.00 p.m and as per the instruction of the police he put his signature. He does not know as to what is written in the mahazar. The police did not seize any property in his presence and he has not given any statement to the police. As the witness has not fully supported the prosecution he has been treated hostile. In his cross-examination by the Ld. APP nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. The statement denied by the witness is marked as Ex.P7. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court to help the accused persons.
22 C.C.NO.19288/201716. P.W.8 Cheluve Gowda, retired P.I. has stated that on 15.08.2016 he received the case file from C.W.9 and proceeded with the investigation. On the same day between 07.30 to 80.30 he conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P8) at the place shown by C.W.1 and he signed it as per Ex.P8(a). On the same day between 06.00 to 07.00 he seized the two mobile phones produced by the accused and conducted seizure mahazar in the police station as per Ex.P5 and same was mentioned in P.F.No.63/2016. On 24.08.2016 he wrote a correspondence as per Ex.P9 to the traffic police to furnish information regarding C.W.1 and 2 being on duty on the same day he recorded the statement of witnesses C.W.2 to 4. On the same day he produced the accused before the court and they were sent to judicial custody. On 22.09.2016 he received the documents regarding CW.1 and 2 being on duty and he placed the same in the file. On 15.01.2017 he received the wound certificate of C.W.2 as per Ex.P1. As per the court order he released the phones to the accused persons. He has identified the 3 photographs of the mobile phones as per Ex.P10 to 11. On completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. In his cross-examination by 23 C.C.NO.19288/2017 the advocate for accused it is elicited that he had not issued any notice to the mahazar witnesses but had orally called them and he has mentioned the same in the spot mahazar. The witnesses was confronted with the spot mahazar and was questioned as to whether it is mentioned that he had informed the mahazar witnesses orally to which a witnesses stated that it is not written that they were orally informed. He admitted that the spot mahazar is not in his hand writing. He admitted that in the spot mahazar it is not mentioned that it is prepared as per his instructions and also does carry the designation or signature of the person who prepared the mahazar. It is elicited that he seized the two mobile phones as it is mentioned in the complaint that it was used for video graphy. He admitted that he has seen in the complaint that it is mentioned that they were doing video graphy. The witnesses was confronted with the complaint and it was suggested that it is not the complaint which mentions that video graphy was being done and same was denied by the witness. He admitted that in the complaint it is not mentioned that video graphy was been done, the witnesses stated that it is the same complaint. It is elicited that the witnesses have 24 C.C.NO.19288/2017 not stated that the accused were doing videography. It is elicited that when he seized the mobile phones he had checked as to what was there in it but no proper information was available in it. It is elicited he has not sent the mobile phones for obtaining expert opinion as to whether mobile phone was used for videography or any information was deleted from it. He denied the suggestion that he had personally verified the videography which showed that CW.1 and 2 were unlawfully conducting their duty. It is elicited that he has not conducted any investigation drunk and driving of the accused. It is elicited that during his investigation he came to known that the accused were driving under the influence of alcohol. He admitted he did not have any problem to mention which accused was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. It is elicited that he has not conducted breath alcoholic test or blood alcoholic test of the accused. It is elicited he has not collected any material regarding accused having driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol but it was collected by the Inspector of Traffic. He admitted that he has not conducted any investigation regarding the consumption of alcohol but same was being done by the Traffic Inspector. The witness was 25 C.C.NO.19288/2017 confronted with Ex.D3 and it was suggested that in the breath test of the accused alcohol level is shown as 0% to which the witness stated that it is mentioned as % but he does not known as to how much it is mentioned. He admitted that if a person has consumed alcohol and if he is examined in the alchometer one can come to know as to how much alcohol he has consumed. It is elicited that he has not obtained any statement regarding non mentioning of % of alcohol in Ex.D3. It was suggested that CW.2 has stated he has videographed the incident and whether he had collected the said videography and kept it in the file to which he stated that he has not done so. He denied the suggestion that if he had seen the videoprahpy done by the accused and C.W.2 he would have come to the know that the accused persons have not committed any mistake. He denied the suggestion that he has destroyed the videography from the mobile phones of the accused after its seizure and so he has not sent the same for FSL. It is elicited that in the wound certificate it is mentioned that unknown person was involved. He denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statements of CW2, 3 and 4 but he has created the same to help his staff. He denied the 26 C.C.NO.19288/2017 suggestion he has not conducted the investigation properly and has filed a false charge sheet against the accused persons.
17. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court it is first necessary to note that, it is the specific allegation of the prosecution that on the early morning hours at 01.00 a.m on 15.01.2016 on Hosur Laskar road infront of Ganesha Dharshini Hotel, accused no.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained CW1 and 2 from performing their official duty. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the complaint Ex.P2 wherein it is stated that on the said date and time they had stopped the swift car KA-53-MB-9299 and asked the driver to blow into the alchometer and at that time they came to know that the driver had consumed alcohol so they asked the driver to stop the vehicle on the side of the road and at that time the driver along with two other passengers who were in the car stopped the car in the middle of the road and thereby caused hinderance to the traffic movement. At that time the driver who was drunk refused to blow into the alchometer and he was prevented by two other passengers and they also questioned CW1 whether 27 C.C.NO.19288/2017 they know who they are and threatened to get him removed from his job, scolded them in filthy language and caught hold of the collar of P.C.7256 Thimmaraju and pushed him thereby came in the way of them in performing their official duty. He then called the Hoysala vehicle to the spot even when the Hoysala police directed them to blow into alchometer they refused and when they asked the accused persons to climb into Hoysala van to take them Hospital for testing them for consumption of alcohol. The accused also abused them in filthy language in view of the said complaint it is necessary to refer to Ex.D3 that is the alchometer test result slip which pertains to the 1 st accused wherein [ % of alcohol present]. The said slip signed by CW1 does not mention the level of alcohol in the breath of the accused. From the evidence placed before the court it clearly goes to show that only if one blows into the alchometer the said slip is generated. When that being the case from Ex.D3 it can be safely said that the accused no.1 had not consumed alcohol as alleged in the complaint. Even otherwise from the documents placed on record it is clear that the accused was not subjected to any alcohol test in the hospital. In the absence of supporting documentary 28 C.C.NO.19288/2017 evidence it can be safely that the accused was not driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
18. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused had caught hold of the collar of the uniform of CW2 pushed him and abused CW2 and scolded CW1 and thereby they prevented them from performing their official duty. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the cross- examination of PW4 i.e., CW2 Thimmaraju who has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the alleged incident and he is deposing before the court as per the instructions of CW1. He has also admitted that no BAC test was conducted on the drivers to check the alcohol. He has also admitted that he had not seen the accused face to face as such there was no opportunity for the accused to speak to him nor cause any obstruction in performing his duty. He has also admitted that as per Ex.D3 there is 0% alcohol as such driver was not driving under the influence of alcohol. He admitted that accused did not cause any obstruction to him in performing his official duty nor abused him in filthy language. In view of the said admission brought out in the cross-examination of CW2 it can be safely said 29 C.C.NO.19288/2017 the evidence of CW2 contradicts with the evidence of CW1 and prosecution case. Further from the evidence of CW1 it is observed that according to him CW2 had video graphed the said incident in the mobile phone of CW2 as per his instruction. Also from the evidence of CW1, 2 and CW10 it is evident that the accused were also recording the incident on their mobile for that reason CW10 had seized the mobile phones of the accused persons. But from the evidence of CW10 it can be safely said that he had not obtained any video graphy pertaining to the incident from the seized mobile phones of the accused nor CW2 had furnished before him the video graphy of the incident from his mobile. From the said evidence of CW10 it can be safely said that the I.O. has not conducted the investigation properly. He has not made any efforts to send the mobile phones of the accused to the FSL or to the experts to obtain the video graphy if they were deleted from the mobile phones. Also it is not explained as to why CW2 did not produce the video graphy before the I.O. As discussed supra the evidence of C.W2 contradicts with the evidence of CW1. If the accused had refused to blow into the alchometer then it is not clear has to how the alchometer breath test was done as per 30 C.C.NO.19288/2017 Ex.D3. It is not the contention of CW1 that the breath test was done by the Hoysala police. Further it is alleged that the accused had scolded them in filthy language while they were climbing Hoysala van. In this regard it is necessary to note that CW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused did not scold him nor he had any opportunity to face them. When that being the case the evidence of the Hoysala police would have played a important role regarding the incident which alleged to have occurred while the accused persons were climbing the Hoysala van. But the I.O. had not made any efforts to enquire the Hoysala police nor they are made the witnesses in the present case.
19. It is one of the defence of the accused that CW1 and 2 were not deputed on duty at the said place, at the said time. In this regard they have relied upon roll call and station house dairy Ex.D1 and 2 furnished by the Traffic Inspector CW8 as per the requisition sent by the Police Inspector CW10. Ex.P9 which is a letter written by the Adugodi Police Inspector to Adugodi Traffic Inspector wherein he has asked the Traffic Inspector to furnish duty roster SHD of CW1 and 2 for having been on night duty on 31 C.C.NO.19288/2017 14.08.2016. In reply to the same as per Ex.P4 the Traffic Inspector with a covering letter has furnished certified copies of the duty roster SHD. As per the duty roster Ex.D1 Thimmaraju i.e., CW2 was posted on duty at St. John's bus bay. Ex.D2 which is a station house dairy CW2 was on duty at 08.00 a.m. had reported to regular duty at 08.00 a.m. But in column no.18 of the station house dairy it is mentioned that 14.08.2016 at 09.50 p.m. " ಈ ವಳಗ ರತತ ಕರರವವ ಕಕ ಹಜರಗರತತ ತನ ನರರ ಜತಯಲಲ ಹಚ ಸ 5470, & ಪಸ 7256 ರವರ ಸಹ ರತತ ಕರರವವ ಕಕ ಹಜರಗರತತ ರ ನರರ ಠಣ ಉಸತ ವರಯಲಲ ದದ ಹಚ ಸ 5635 ರವರನನ ವಶತ ದ ತಗ ಕಳಹಸ ನನ ಠಣ ಉಸತ ವರಯಲಲ ರತತ ತ ನ in column no 21 on 14.08.2016 at 10.10 p.m. " ಈ ವಳಗ ಕಟತ ತಲ ರದನ ನಸಸ ದತವನ ಕರಯ ಮರಗ ಮತತ ಹರಯ ಅಧಕರಗಳ ಆದಶದ ಮರಗ ಮದವ ಪನ & ಐ ಎದ ವ ಪತ ಕರಣಗಳನನ ದಖಲಸಲ ಪಸ 7256 ರವರ ಜತಯಲಲ ಠಣ ಸರಹದದ ಗ ಹತಗತತ ಎಸ ಹಚ ಡ ಚರರಗ ಹಚ ಸ 5470 ರವರನನ ನಮಸರತತ ತನ .
20. In the corresponding entries in column "SHO name" of Column no.18 and 21 name is mentioned as Pilla Reddy ASI and he has signed the same. From column no.21 it is evident that ASI Pilla Reddy i.e., CW1 herein along with HC 7256 i.e., CW2 herein were deputed to duty on Hosur Laskhar Road for 32 C.C.NO.19288/2017 checking the vehicles. As such CW1 and 2 were on duty on Hosur Laskar road infront of Ganesha Darshini Hotel.
21. In view of the discussion made supra it is observed that even though CW1 and CW2 were on duty on the alleged date and time on Hosur Laskhar road infront of Ganesha Darshini Hotel. But the evidence of CW1 and 2 are contradictory and inconsistent in nature as such their evidence cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offences as alleged against them. Further from the oral evidence placed before the court it is evident that CW2 had done the recording of the alleged incident in his mobile phone as per the instructions of CW1. Also from the evidence it is evident that the accused were also recording the incident in their mobile phones. In the present case I.O. has admittedly seized the mobile phones of the accused. But admittedly he has not sent the said mobile phones to the experts for retrieving any recording if they were deleted from the mobile phones. From which it can be safely said that there is lacuna in the investigation carried out by the I.O. which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
33 C.C.NO.19288/2017As discussed supra the evidence of CW1 and 2 are contradictory and inconsistent in nature. From the evidence of CW1 one can come to a conclusion that CW2 was doing video graphy of the incident in his mobile phone but same has not been stated by CW2 in his evidence nor in his statement given to the jurisdictional police. In view of the discussion made supra the evidence placed before the court is inconsistent and contradictory in nature and the investigation carried out by the I.O. is filed with lacuna. As such it can be safely said the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that accused no.1 to 3 have committed offences punishable under sections 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. Hence point No.1 to 5 are answered in the Negative.
22. Point No.6: - For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1, following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 r/w sec.34 of I.P.C.34 C.C.NO.19288/2017
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused No.1 to 3 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
(Typed by the stenographer directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 27 th day of January, 2024).
(RASHMI M.) VI Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
1. List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
1. P.W.1. : P. Pilla Reddy
2. P.W.2. : Dr. Shalini R.H.
3. P.W.3. : Narasimha Murthy R.
4. P.W.4. : Thimmaraju
5. P.W.5. : Ramesh Kumar H.B.
6. P.W.6. : Muniraju
7. P.W.7. : Ravi
8. P.W.8. : Cheluve Gowda
2. List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
1. Ex.P1. : Wound Certificate
2. Ex.P2. : Complaint
3. Ex.P3. : FIR
4. Ex.P4. : Letter
5. Ex.P5. : Seizure Mahazar 35 C.C.NO.19288/2017
6. Ex.P6. : Statement of P.W.6
7. Ex.P7. : Statement of P.W.7
8. Ex.P8. : Spot Mahazar
9. Ex.P9. : Letter
3. List of material object:- NIL
4. List of Witnesses examined for defence:- NIL
5. List of documents marked for defence:-
1. Ex.D1. : Certified copy of Station Dairy
2. Ex.D2. : Certified copy of Duty Roster
3. Ex.D3. : Certified copy of Drunk and Drive slip Digitally signed RASHMI by RASHMI M M Date: 2024.01.27 16:36:35 +0530 VI Addl. CMM., Bengaluru