Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sheik Juber Ahammed @ Juber on 19 April, 2023
1
SC.No.1179/2016
KABC010231012016
Presented on : 01-10-2016
Registered on : 01-10-2016
Decided on : 19.04.2023
Duration : 6 years 6 months 18 days
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R ,
B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 19 th day of April, 2023
S.C.No.1179/2016
COMPLAINANT/S:- STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Chamarajpet Police station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED:- 1. SHEIK JUBER AHAMMED @ JUBER,
s/o late Sheik Iliyas,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.2, 2nd Cross, Near Bamboo Bazar,
Mothinagar, Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru. [Accused No.2]
2. SHEIK MUFID AHAMMED @ MUFEED,
s/o late Sheik Iliyas,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.2, 2nd Cross, Near Bamboo Bazar,
Mothinagar, Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru. [Accused No.3]
(A2, 3 by Sri. SL., Advocate)
2
SC.No.1179/2016
Date of Commencement of 27.04.2016
offences
Date of report of offences 28.04.2016
Name of complainant Sardar Ahmed
Date of recording of evidence 22.12.2022
Date of closing of evidence 10.01.2023
Offence complained of U/s.143, 144, 148, 147, 326, 307 r/w
Section 149 of IPC
Opinion of the judge Acquitted
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by Police Sub-Inspector, Chamarajapete police station against the accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 341, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case.-
The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is working as water supply and about 2 years six months ago while he was sitting near his house a person named Naushad assaulted him with knife and the complaint was registered in the same station and also compromised the case. The person who assaulted him with knife earlier, Naushad was murdered about 20 to 25 days ago knowing that he had murdered him and suddenly on the same day at around 9.30 pm., the accused persons assaulted him on his head, left hand, right hand and right leg with machete and iron rod and ran away and the complainant was fell down and his 2nd son Khalid Ahmed was taken him to hospital in an auto rickshaw for treatment and admitted to Victoria hospital. As such the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police after receiving the complaint have registered a case in 3 SC.No.1179/2016 Crime No.92/2016 against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 341, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
3. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the accused No.2 and 3 in CC.No.17521/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 341, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The trial court having taken cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused No.2 and 3, has committed the said case to Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and in turn the said case has been made over to this court in SC.No.1179/2016 for disposal. This court after securing the accused No.2 and 3 framed the charges against the accused persons and the accused No.2 and 3 having not pleaded guilty. The accused No.2 and 3 were on bail earlier and they being remained absent, NBW was issued by this court, on execution of the NBW both accused were remanded to judicial custody from till the conclusion of the trail. Hence the trial was conducted.
4. The prosecution to prove their case have examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. CW4 is examined as PW1, CW5 is examined as PW2, CW6 is examined as PW3 and CW11 is examined as PW4. CW1 is reported to be dead. PW1 to PW4 are the eye witnesses to the said incident. The PW1 to PW4 being turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The proclamation issued against CW2, CW7 to CW10 and CW12 is duly published and CW2, CW7 to CW10 and CW12 were absent, hence the evidence of CW2, CW7 to CW10 and CW12 are dropped. The other witnesses examination has been dropped as no purpose would be served in examining them as PW1 to PW4 had turned hostile 4 SC.No.1179/2016 to the case of the prosecution as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused No.2 and 3, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed.
5. Heard the arguments. The points that arise for my consideration.-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 27.04.2016 at 9.30 pm., at Mysore Road, No.6/1, Opposite M.M. Service Center, near Footpath, due to an old enmity against CW1, the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 in prosecution of their common object formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143 r/w Section 149 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 with an intention of murdering CW1 and in prosecution of their common intention of using criminal force, armed with deadly weapons, formed an illegal gang and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 144 r/w Section 149 IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 being the members of an unlawful assembly used force in prosecution of their common object and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 r/w Section 149 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid 5 SC.No.1179/2016 date, time and place, the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 in prosecution of their common object armed with deadly weapons such as knife, iron rod and machete bricks used force and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 r/w Section 149 IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 in prosecution of their common object, assaulted CW1 and caused hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the he accused No.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 by forming an unlawful assembly, armed with dangerous weapons with an intention and with a knowledge that by their act they would cause the death of CW1, assaulted CW1 with knife, iron rod and machete and thereby committed offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 149 IPC?
7. What Order?
6. My findings on the above said points are as under.-
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- In the Negative
Point No.3:- In the Negative
Point No.4:- In the Negative
Point No.5:- In the Negative
Point No.6:- In the Negative
6
SC.No.1179/2016
Point No.7:- As per the final order
for the following
REASONS
7. Points No.1 to 6: - Since these points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take these points together for common consideration.
8. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is working as water supply and about 2 years six months ago while he was sitting near his house a person named Naushad assaulted him with knife and the complaint was registered in the same station and also compromised the case. The person who assaulted him with knife earlier, Naushad was murdered about 20 to 25 days ago knowing that he had murdered him and suddenly on the same day at around 9.30 pm., the accused persons assaulted him on his head, left hand, right hand and right leg with machete and iron rod and ran away and the complainant was fell down and his 2nd son Khalid Ahmed was taken him to hospital in an auto rickshaw for treatment and admitted to Victoria hospital. As such the complainant has lodged the complaint. The police after receiving the complaint have registered a case in Crime No.92/2016 against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 341, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
9. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the accused No.2 and 3 in CC.No.17521/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 147, 341, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The trial court having taken cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the accused No.2 and 3, has committed the said case to Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, 7 SC.No.1179/2016 Bengaluru and in turn the said case has been made over to this court in SC.No.1179/2016 for disposal. This court after securing the accused No.2 and 3 framed the charges against the accused persons and the accused No.2 and 3 having not pleaded guilty, hence the trial was conducted.
10. The prosecution in support of their case have examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. CW4 is examined as PW1, CW5 is examined as PW2, CW6 is examined as PW3 and CW11 is examined as PW4. CW1 is reported to be dead. PW1 to PW4 are the eye witnesses to the said incident. The PW1 to PW4 being turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The proclamation issued against CW2, CW7 to CW10 and CW12 is duly published and CW2, CW7 to CW10 and CW12 were absent, hence the evidence of CW2, CW7 to CW10 and CW12 are dropped.
11. CW4- Ranjith is examined as PW1 wherein PW1 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police and he has not seen the incident and he does not know the accused persons about this case and in this regard he has not give any statement before the police. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW1 wherein PW1 has denied the suggestion that on 27.04.2016 at about 9.30 pm., after finishing work from the shop, the owner of the building next to his service center Sardar and his younger son Khalid were standing near M.M service station, after a while Khalid Ahmed went to home and Sardar was 8 SC.No.1179/2016 talking on the phone near the garage next to the stairs the two unknown boys came there with deadly weapons and a person wearing a cap has assaulted Sardar on the head and right side of the neck with a machete and another boy assaulted Sardar on the head, neck and shoulders for which Sardar fell on the ground and thereafter the accused ran away from there and later the injured was admitted to hospital and later he came to know that Zubed Ahemed and Mufeed have assaulted the Sardar and denied the suggestion that that in this regard he has given statement to the police on 28.04.2016. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the portion of the said statement is marked as Ex.P1 and he does have the complete information about the case even though he has given statement before the police as per Ex.P1 and the accused have requested him he is giving false evidence to help the accused.
12. CW5- Vinod Kumar is examined as PW2 wherein PW2 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police and he has not seen the incident and he cannot identify the knife. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross- examined PW2 wherein PW2 has denied the suggestion that on 27.04.2016 at about 9.30 pm, he and the owner of the building next to his service center Sardar's son Khalid Ahmed was talking in the service station and the two unknown persons came with deadly weapons and a person wearing a cap has assaulted Sardar on the head and neck with a machete and another boy has also assaulted Sardar on the head and shoulders. PW2 has denied the suggestion that thereafter when the boys who were working in the garage screamed, the accused ran away from there and thereafter the injured 9 SC.No.1179/2016 was admitted to the hospital and the name of the one who assaulted with machete was Suber and the name of the one who assaulted with knife was Mufeed. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police as per Ex.P2 and further denied the suggestion that he does have the complete information about the case even though he has given statement before the police as per Ex.P2 and the accused have requested him he is giving false evidence to help the accused.
13. CW6- Deepak is examined as PW3 wherein PW3 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and he has not given any statement before the police and he has not seen the incident and he cannot identify the knife. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross- examined PW3 wherein PW3 has denied the suggestion that on 27.04.2016 at about 9.30 pm, he and the owner of the building next to his service center Sardar's son Khalid Ahmed was talking in the service station and the two unknown persons came with deadly weapons and a person wearing a cap has assaulted Sardar on the head and neck with a machete and another boy has also assaulted Sardar on the head and shoulders. PW3 has denied the suggestion that thereafter when the boys who were working in the garage screamed, the accused ran away from there and thereafter the injured was admitted to the hospital and the name of the one who assaulted with machete was Suber and the name of the one who assaulted with knife was Mufeed. PW3 has denied the suggestion that he has given statement before the police as per Ex.P3 and further denied the suggestion that he does have the complete information about the case even though he has given statement before the police as per Ex.P3 10 SC.No.1179/2016 and the accused have requested him he is giving false evidence to help the accused.
14. CW11 Jilan is examined as PW4 wherein PW4 has deposed that he does not have any information about this case and the police have not conducted any panchanama in his presence and also not conducted any spot panchanama in his presence. PW4 has identified his signature in the said spot panchanama and the said spot panchanama is marked as Ex.P4 and his signature as Ex.P4(a) and he does not know the contents of Ex.P4 and he has signed on Ex.P4 in the station. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witness as hostile, has cross-examined PW4 wherein PW4 has denied the suggestion that on 28.04.2016 the incident place shown by CW1, the spot panchanama was made as per Ex.P4 from morning 11.15 to 12.00 pm.,and also seized the blood stained cement and soil and blood stained water on the floor. PW4 has denied the suggestion that as per Ex.P4 -the spot panchanama was conducted in his presence even though he is giving false evidence to help the accused.
15. The prosecution in support to bring the guilt of the accused have examined PW1 to PW4 in the present case and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. As the PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution the other witnesses in the present case have not been examined. CW1 being the injured and reported to be dead, CW4 to CW6 and CW11 being the eye witnesses who have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW4 being the seizure panchanama witness has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. As PW1 to PW4 having turned hostile and other witnesses were not examined. and CW1 being the injured and reported to be dead. Whereas CW4, 11 SC.No.1179/2016 CW5 and CW6 are examined as PW1 to PW4 who have been cited as eye witnesses to the said incident wherein the said PW1 to PW3 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have deposed that they does not know anything about the case nor they have given any statement to the police. The learned Public Prosecutor having treated the said witnesses as hostile, has cross-examined PW1 to PW3 nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 to PW3 to prove the guilt of the accused. PW4 being the panch witness to the spot panchanama as per Ex.P4 wherein he has deposed that the police have not conducted any panchanama in his presence nor seized any articles in his presence. As PW1 to PW4 having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the evidence of CW2, CW3, CW7 to CW10, CW10 and CW12 have been dropped. CW1 and CW2 being the complainant and the injured witness having not been secured no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses CW14 to CW23, hence the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor to examine other witnesses was rejected and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted CW1 and CW2. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. As such the accused No.2 and 3 are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the 'Negative'.
16. Point No.7:- For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following.-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., 12 SC.No.1179/2016 accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused No.2 and 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 19th day of April, 2023) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:-
PW1 : Ranjith
PW2 : Vinod Kumar
PW3 : Deepak
PW4 : Jilan
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P1 : Portion of the statement of PW1
Ex.P2 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW3
13
SC.No.1179/2016
Ex.P4 : Spot panchanama
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:-
-Nil-
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
- Nil -
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.