Bangalore District Court
And Victim To The Alleged Incident. ... vs By Trespassing Into Her Property ... on 26 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 24th day of August 2015
Present : Sri.J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.CC No 20364/2012
2.Date of Offence 1-8-2005
3.Complainant State by Rajajinagar Police Station
4.Accused Smt. Bhagyamma
W/o. Munichenna, No.155/Y,
15th Main, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-10.
5. Offences complained U/s.448, 323, 427 and 506 of IPC
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 24-8-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajajinagar Police Station,
Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the accused for
the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 427 and 506
of IPC.
2 C.C. No.20364/2012
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
23-5-2012 at 12-00 p.m., C.W.1 Smt Lakshmamma, C.W.2
Smt. Munirathna, and C.W.9 Gowramma visited the house
property bearing No.155/Y, situated at Yeddaluru Dinne, 15th
main 3rd block, Rajajinagar within the jurisdiction of
Rajajinagar Police Station. Though civil suits are pending
pertaining to said house property from 1981, CW.1 continued
to be in possession of it. On the above, said date and time
when they were near the said house, the accused visited,
trespassed into it, picked up quarrel with them, threatened
C.Ws.2 to 7 and 10 the tenants of the said houses to vacate,
and damaged the roof tiles of it and caused loss to the extent
of fifty thousand rupees. When C.W.1 questioned, the accused
voluntarily caused simple hurt to her with hands, threatened
her with dire consequences of life, and thereby committed
alleged offences.
3. The accused is on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished
to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After
hearing on charges of both counsels, charge for the offences
punishable under sections 448, 323, 427 and 506 of IPC., has
been framed and read over to the accused in the language
know to her. She denied the charge and claims to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the
accused has examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got
3 C.C. No.20364/2012
marked thirteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P.13 and closed
its side evidence.
5. Thereafter, statement of accused as required U/s.313
of Cr.P.C., has been recorded, the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against her and submitted
that she has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused
the entire file.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against accused has
examined six witnesses. P.W.1-Lakshmamma is the
complainant and victim to the alleged incident. P.W.2-
Munirathna, P.W.3-Gowramma, P.W.5-Tayamma and P.W.6-
Mahesh.T are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. P.W.4-
T.Puttaraju is the Investigating Officer. It appears, in spite of
giving sufficient opportunities prosecution has not examined
C.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 7 and 10 to 13.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence on record. The
testimony of P.W.1 indicates that her father-in-law
Munichannaiah had six children. The accused is the wife of
brother of her husband. The elder brother of her husband by
name Krishnappa had executed an agreement consenting her,
to collect rent of the houses belonged to him, from the tenants.
4 C.C. No.20364/2012
Accordingly, she had filed civil suit against said Krishanappa
and it is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. She
had also filed suit against said Krishnappa seeking partition
and now it is pending before civil court. The accused by
throwing the tenants from rented houses has locked the same
saying that the said house belonged to her and her grand
father. She is unable to say exactly the date and time of the
said incident and even she does not know what action taken
by her against the accused. However, she lodged the
complaint to the police saying that the accused assaulted her
and damaged her houses and she has given her further
statement to the police in respect of cause of damage to her
houses by the accused. Since, P.W.1 has not explained the
incident as per the case of the prosecution, the learned
Sr.APP., treated this witness as hostile and further cross
examined. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted the
suggestion that she had filed the suit for partition as per
Ex.P.9. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in
O.S.No.647/1999 on the file of 1st Additional City Civil and
Session Judge, Bangalore City dated 27-3-2012. She had
further admitted the suggestion that the suits in
O.S.No.687/1981 and 1120/1981 are already disposed.
However, she denied the suggestion that the suit filed by
Krishnappa dismissed however, she further admitted that an
appeal is pending before High Court of Karnataka. She further
admitted the suggestion that an interim order was passed to
5 C.C. No.20364/2012
maintain status quo until disposal of RFA-684/2002,
835/2002 and 676/2002. She further admitted the suggestion
that the suits before Civil Courts and High Court came to be
disposed. She further admitted the suggestion that, the
accused by trespassing into her property assaulted and by
putting threat to the tenants made them to vacate and
damaged the roof tiles. She further admitted the suggestion
that after lodging of the complaint, the police visited the spot,
prepared the mahazar and she gave further statement to the
police pertaining to damages. It appears though in the cross
examination of learned Sr.APP., P.W.1 has admitted the case
of the prosecution, no explanation is offered as to why she has
not deposed as per the case of the prosecution in her chief
examination itself. It appears in the chief examination itself,
P.W.1 has clearly stated that she cannot say exactly the date
and time of quarrel by accused and even she does not know
what action she had taken against the accused. However, in
the cross-examination of learned counsel for the accused,
P.W.1 has admitted that her counsel by name Adinarayan has
prepared the complaint in his office and she does not know its
contents. Moreover, she has not specifically stated regarding
assault, trespass into her property, damages and life threat to
her by accused. Admittedly, civil dispute is pending between
complainant and accused before civil court as well as before
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Apart from it, P.W.1 has
clearly stated that the complaint was prepared in the office of
6 C.C. No.20364/2012
her advocate and she does not know its contents. Since
P.W.1 has not explained the incident as per the case of the
prosecution, in view of civil disputes, it is not safe to place
reliance on the sole testimony of P.W.1. In my opinion, in
order to believe the testimony of P.W.1 independent
corroboration by other witnesses is necessary.
9. The testimony of P.W.2-Munirathna the eyewitness
indicating that P.W.1 is her mother-in-law. One Krishnappa
has given nine houses to P.W.1 and permitted her to receive
the rent from the tenants of said nine houses. Accordingly, her
mother-in-law P.W.1 herein and her daughter-in-law were
collecting the rent but suits are pending pertaining to rented
houses. On 23-5-2012 at 12.00 p.m., the accused quarreled
with her mother in law P.W.1 herein saying that the rented
house belonged to her as per the order of the court. Though
she, P.W.1 and others convinced the accused that they would
vacate the rented houses if the court order in her favour, she
did not agree. Even in spite of it, the accused damaged roof
tiles with wooden logs and P.W.1 has sustained injuries due to
fall of roof tiles. Since, P.W.2 has not explained the incident
as per the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr.APP., treated
this witness as hostile and further cross examined. In the
cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted the suggestion that
due to damages to roof tiles and to the door, P.W.1 has
sustained loss to the extent fifty thousand rupees. Further,
7 C.C. No.20364/2012
she admitted the suggestion that the accused give life threat to
the tenants if they did not vacate. It appears there is no
corroboration between P.Ws.1 and 2 in the matter of quarrel,
alleged tress pass and damages to roof tiles by the accused. It
is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was
forcing the tenants to vacate the premises and when P.W.1
questioned the same, the accused assaulted her, damaged the
roof tiles, removed the door of rented house and threatened
the tenants of the rented house to take their life did not
vacate. However, the say of P.W.2 indicating that when
accused damaged the roof tiles, P.W.1 has sustained injuries
due to fall of said tiles is quite contrary to the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, there is serious contradiction in the
evidence of P.W.2, which goes to the very route of case of the
prosecution case. Moreover, P.W.2 has not stated assault or
cause of injuries by accused to P.W.1. Admittedly, P.W.2 is
the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and as such naturally, she is the
interested witness. Since P.W.2 has not explained the incident
as per her statement and her testimony is not in corroboration
to the testimony of P.W.1, it is not safe to place reliance on her
testimony.
10. The testimony of P.W.3-Gowramma another
eyewitness indicating that about two years back the accused
by vacating the tenants from the rented house, assaulted her,
her mother-in-law P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 with hands. It is not the
8 C.C. No.20364/2012
case, of the prosecution accused assaulted P.W.3 also. Since
P.W.3 has not explained the incident as per her statement, the
learned Sr.APP., treated this witness as hostile and further
cross examined. In the cross-examination P.W.3 has admitted
the suggestion that the accused was troubling the tenants to
vacate the premises. On 25-3-2012 at 12-00 p.m., when she,
P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned, the accused picked up quarrel with
P.W.1 and assaulted her with hands. She further admitted
the suggestion that, the accused by trespassing into the
rented houses, damaged its roof tiles, removed the door and
caused loss to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and also threatened
the tenants of said houses to take away their life if they did
not vacate. Even P.W.3 admitted the civil dispute between
accused and P.W.1 pertaining to said rented houses. Though
P.W.3 in her cross-examination has all most admitted the case
of the prosecution, no explanation is offered as to why she has
not deposed as per her admission in the cross examination, in
her chief examination itself. It appears in the cross-
examination, P.W.3 has also admitted that she and P.W.1 are
close relatives. Therefore, naturally she is interested witness.
Since, P.W.3 has not explained the incident as per her
statement before the police and no explanation is offered as to
why she has not explained about incident in her chief
examination itself, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to
place reliance on the testimony of P.W.3. Moreover, her
9 C.C. No.20364/2012
testimony is not in corroboration to the testimony of P.Ws.1
and 2.
11. The testimony of P.W.5-Thayamma the eyewitness
and victim to the alleged incident indicating that she was one
of the tenants in the rented premises but she does not know
about the quarrel between P.W.1 and accused and she has not
given any statement. Totally, P.W.5 has turned hostile.
Though P.W.5 was subjected to cross examination by learned
Sr.APP., but nothing worth is elicited from her.
12. The testimony of P.W.6-Mahesh.T the mahazar and
eyewitness indicating that he was one of the tenants of the
rented premises belonged to P.W.1. The accused forced him to
vacate the premises. In this regard, there was an incident
between P.W.1 and accused near the said premises. Since
P.W.6 has not explained the incident as per the statement
recorded by the police, the learned Sr.APP., treated this
witness as hostile and further cross examined. In the cross-
examination P.W.6 though admitted the suggestion as per the
case of the prosecution, he denied the suggestion that the
accused threatened him with dire consequences of life.
Therefore, the testimony of P.W.6 is not trust worthy to
believe.
10 C.C. No.20364/2012
13. The testimony of P.W.4-T.Puttaraju the investigation
officer indicating that on 30-5-2012 he received the complaint
and registered the case. Thereafter, he recorded the
statements of witnesses, obtained wound certificate of P.W.1
and after completion of other formalities of investigation has
filed charge sheet against accused. In my opinion, the
testimony of P.W.4 is only formal one and need not required
detailed consideration.
14. I have carefully perused the evidence on record.
Though prosecution to prove guilt against accused has
examined six witnesses, it has failed to prove the guilt against
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly, there is
rivalry between P.W.1 and accused in respect of rented
premises and civil dispute is pending before concerned courts.
Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have supported the case of the
prosecution, there is no corroboration between them and their
evidence is not trust worthy to believe. The eyewitnesses
P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 have not fully supported the case of the
prosecution. The prosecution has failed to give corroboration
to the testimony of P.W.1 in the matter of incident. Therefore,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and
the evidence available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt
against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
11 C.C. No.20364/2012
accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/s.448, 323, 427 and 506 of IPC.
Hence, acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
Her bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
The properties seized under P.F No.52/2012 Item No.1 and 2 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Office to issue direction to SHO of Rajajinagar Police station to deposit the said properties forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1, Lakkamma;
P.W.2, Munirathna;
P.W.3, Gowramma;
P.W.4, T. Puttaraju;
P.W.5, Thayamma;
P.W.6, Mahesh.T;
12 C.C. No.20364/2012
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1, Complaint, Ex.P.1(a) Signature Ex.P2, Mahazar, Ex.P.2(a) Signature Ex.P.3 to 6 Photo
Ex.P.7 to 10 Judgement and decree copies Ex.P.11 FIR Ex.P.11(a) Signature Ex.P.12 Wound certificate Ex.P.13 Statement List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil List of witnesses examined, documents & materials marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore