Bangalore District Court
State By Inspector Of Police vs Sathya Kumar.S.V on 11 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
C.C. NO.5309/2016
Complainant State by Inspector of Police
Malleshwaram Police station
-Vs-
Accused 1.Sathya Kumar.S.V,
S/o.S.Venkateshaiah.
Aged about 52 years,
R/o.No.158/3, 3rd Cross,
Bank Colony,
Chikkasandra, Bengaluru-
61.
2. Mujib Pasha,
S/o. Abdul Ajij,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o. Islampura, HAL,
Bengaluru.
The date of 22/10/2015
commission of the
offence :
Name of the informant Sri.Mohammed Mumtaz
of crime :
2 CC No.5309/2016
The offences U/sec.304(A) of IPC.
complained of:
Date of arrest of Accused are not arrested,
accused: surrendered before the
court on 28/10/2015
Date of release on bail 28/10/2015
:
Commencement of
recording prosecution
Nil
evidence:
Closure of recording
evidence:
Nil
State represented by : Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused represented Sri.M.C.Venkatesh...Adv.
by:
Plea of the accused
and his examination : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused acquitted
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Inspector of Police of Malleshwaram station filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2, in Crime No.315/2015, for 3 CC No.5309/2016 the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case runs thus;
That the accused being the contractor and the maestry (labor manager) at Mantrimall, Malleswaram had employed Latheef Nepal and on 23.10.2015 at about 5.30A.M, while said Latheef Nepal was demolishing the wall at Megamart at Mantrimall, the wall collapsed on him and he died on the spot and thereby the accused committed the above said offence.
3. After submitting the charge sheet, cognizance of the alleged offences is taken and criminal case against the accused came to be registered.
4 CC No.5309/2016
4. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared and enlarged on bail and they are represented by their Counsel. The Section 207 of Cr.P.C. complied. The charge is framed and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded "not guilty"
and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution, no oral evidence has been adduced and no documents are got marked.
6. Since there is no evidence of prosecution against the accused, recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with. The accused did not choose to adduce defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments.
5 CC No.5309/2016
8. The following point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?
My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: The prosecution failed to secure CW.1 to 10. Repeatedly NBW was issued against CW.1 to 10. NBW was issued to CW.1 to 10 through DCP. Sufficient opportunities has been given to prosecution to secure the said witnesses. As per order dated 29/01/2018 prayer of Sr.A.P.P. to issue NBW to CW.1 to 10 is rejected and examination of CW.1 to 10 is dropped.
6 CC No.5309/2016
10. Further repeatedly NBW was issued against CW.11 to 20. Proclamation was also issued against the eye-witnesses CW.11 to 14 as contemplated U/s.82 of Cr.P.C. Sufficient opportunities has been given to prosecution to secure the said witnesses. As per order dated 06/09/2018 prayer of Sr.A.P.P. to issue NBW to CW.11 to 20 is rejected and examination of CW.11 to 20 is dropped. For one or the other reasons the witnesses could not be secured.
11. In the decision In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Kar 900 (State of Kar v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to 7 CC No.5309/2016 reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
12. In this present case on hand, the witnesses could not be secured for one or the other reason. Even after giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the witnesses. Adjournment would cause prejudice to the rights of the accused. As such prosecution evidence is taken as Nil.
13. After going through the entire material available on the record, this court comes to the clear conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. With this view I answer above said point in the negative and pass the following;
8 CC No.5309/2016
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.
The accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty forth with. The bail bonds of accused and that of surety stand cancelled.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Typist, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 11 th day of September, 2018.) (HATTIKAL PRABHU .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws: Nil
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps: Nil 9 CC No.5309/2016
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Nil
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.1 CC No.5309/2016