Bangalore District Court
State By Hal Police vs Sharavana S/O. Shivakumar on 11 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated: The 011th Day of October 2021
PRESENT: Sri. G.R.KULKARNI,
B.A.(LAW)., LL.B.,
XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.NO. 55111/2017
COMPLAINANT :- State by HAL Police
(By Sr.APP)
ACCUSED 1. Sharavana S/o. Shivakumar,
Aged 19 years,
R/at.No.13, 4th Cross, Rama Temple,
Doddanekkundi, Bengaluru.
2. Tejas S/o. Gopal,
Aged 19 years,
Doddanekkundi Main Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.Sundar., Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT 22.02.2021
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF 04.10.2021
EVIDENCE
DATE OF JUDGMENT 11.10.2021
2 C.C.No.55111/2017
JUDGMENT
This is a final report filed by the PSI of HAL Police Station against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 324 and Sec.506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
2. BRIEF FACTS:-
The case of prosecution is that on 11.05.2017 at about 9.00 A.M at Doddanekkundi Junction within the jurisdictional limits of HAL Police Station the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention have wrongfully restrained CW.1, assaulted with hands, accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 with iron rod and criminally intimidated him.
3. Based on the first information, the police have registered the case, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation final report filed against the accused No.1 and 2.
4. The accused No. 1 and 2 have entered appearance in response to the summons and have been enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused No.1 and 2. After hearing, the charge against the accused No. 1 and 2 was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances as false. The accused No. 1 and 2 submit no defence.
3 C.C.No.55111/20176. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 11.05.2017 at about 9.00 A.M at Doddanekkundi Junction within the jurisdictional limits of HAL Police Station the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention have wrongfully restrained CW.1 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention have assaulted CW.1 with hands causing injury thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention have among them accused No.1 has assulted CW.1 with iron rod causing injury thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.324 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention among them accused No.1 has criminally intimidated CW.1 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order?
8. My answer to the aforesaid points is as under.
Point No.1 to 4 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - As per final order for the following:
4 C.C.No.55111/2017
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4:- As the facts pertaining to these points are related to each other, all these points are taken together for common discussion for brevity.
10. PW.1 is the Investigation Officer who has testified that on 11.05.2017 at about 11.00 A.M he has received the complaint from CW.1 as per Ex.P1. Thereafter he has drawn FIR as per Ex.P2. Thereafter he has handed over the further investigation to CW.9. Nothing significant is elicited during his cross- examination.
11. CW.1 is the complainant, CW.2 is the wife of CW.1, CW.3 is the hearsay witness, CW.4 and CW.5 are the alleged attesting witnesses to the spot mahzar, CW.6 is the alleged eye witness, CW.7 is the Medical Officer and CW.9 is the official witness who have not been secured by the prosecution inspite of all effective measures against them and therefore these witnesses were dropped.
12. At this stage it is relevant to consider the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surendar Kumar v/s State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 wherein it is held that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. In the case on hand the only witness who has testified before the Court is the Investigation Officer/official 5 C.C.No.55111/2017 witness(PW.1). All the remaining witnesses have not been secured inspite of exhausting all effective measures and therefore they have been dropped.
13. Although the evidence of official witness cannot be distrusted or disbelieved merely on account of their official status as stated in the decision cited supra, the solitary evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused as the evidence of PW.1 is corroborative in nature and in the absence of evidence of material witnesses would not hold any significance.
14. The solitary evidence of PW.1 who is the Official witness who has testified in support of the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Not securing the material witnesses proves fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore I am of the view that only on the basis of evidence of PW.1 the guilt of the accused cannot be attributed to the alleged crime. The case of the prosecution fails on account of lack of substantive evidence.
15. Therefore I hold that the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the charges leveled against the accused is not proved. Hence the accused No.1 and 2 deserve to be acquitted. Therefore I answer point No.1 to 4 in the NEGATIVE.
16. Point No.5: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
6 C.C.No.55111/2017ORDER Acting U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. accused No.1 and 2 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 324 and Sec.506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 and 2 is stands cancelled.
The cash security offered by accused No.1 and 2 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, same is corrected and then pronounced in open Court on this the 11th day of October 2021) (G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 Ramesh LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 FIR Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.1 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
(G.R.Kulkarni) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 7 C.C.No.55111/2017 11.10.2021 State by APP Accused For Judgment (Judgment passed separately in the Open Court) ORDER Acting U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. accused No.1 and 2 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 324 and Sec.506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 and 2 is stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 and 2 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
XXIX ACMM 8 C.C.No.55111/2017