Bangalore District Court
S Ramachandra vs R A Narayana @ Adinarayana on 2 January, 2024
KABC030477652015
Presented on : 13-07-2015
Registered on : 13-07-2015
Decided on : 02-01-2024
Duration : 8 years, 5 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2024
Criminal Case No.16649/2015
Complainant : The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
Sheshadripuram Police Station
( By Asst. Public Prosecutor )
--- V/s ---
Accused : R.A.Narayan @ Adinarayan,
S/o.R.A.A.Char,
Aged about 65 years
R/At. No.426, 7th cross,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-
(Accused Rept. By-Sri.Manjunatha..Adv)
Date of commencement of : 02.07.2014
offence
Date of report of offence : 02.07.2014
2 C.C.16649/2015
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : S.Ramachandra
Date of commencement of : 23.11.2023
recording evidence.
Date of closing of evidence. : 23.11.2023
Offences complained of : U/Secs.304(A) and 427 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge. : Accused is found not guilty
Date of Judgment : 02-01-2024
XXXII Addl.C.M.M
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of Sheshadripuram P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable Under Secs.304(A) and 427 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That, the accused is the owner of Diamond Petrol Bunk situated at P.F.Road, Sheshadripuram and on 02.07.2014 at about 8.30 A.M, at Diamond Petrol Bunk while deceased-Krishna, i.e. brother of C.W.1 was sitting and reading newspaper, the compound wall of Diamond Petrol bunk collapsed on the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Further on the same date, time and place, 3 C.C.16649/2015 a car bearing No.KA-51-ME-1041 was damaged due to the collapse of the compound wall. Thereby the accused has caused the death by negligence without providing safety measures in the service station and caused damage to the car at the petrol bunk and has committed the offences punishable Under Secs. 304(A) and 427 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW-1, the Sheshadripuram Police have registered a case under Crime No.146/2014 for the offences punishable U/s 304(A) and 427 of IPC against the accused and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter the investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable Under Secs.304(A) and 427 of IPC. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused, the accused surrendered before court and was released on bail. Thecopies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs. 304(A) and 427 of 4 C.C.16649/2015 IPC and read over to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined three witnesses as PW-1 to 3, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 15 and got marked four documents as Ex.P1 to P 4. Since PW-1 to 3 who are the material witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the presence of the rest of the material witnesses could not be secured and since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused from the material witnesses, no purpose would be served by issuing summons to rest of the witnesses. Hence, the evidence of the rest of the witnesses is dropped by rejecting the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The statement of the accused as required Under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there were no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused. 5 C.C.16649/2015
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration :
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the owner Diamond Petrol Bunk and on 02.07.2014 at about
8.30 A.M, at Diamond Petrol Bunk, P.F.Road, Sheshadripuram, while deceased -Krishna, i.e. brother of C.W.1 was sitting and reading newspaper, the compound wall of Diamond Petrol bunk collapsed on the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot and thereby the accused has caused the death by negligence without providing safety measures in the service station and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, place and time a car bearing No.KA-51-ME-1041 was damaged due to the collapse of the compound wall in the said petrol bunk and thereby the accused has committed the offence of "mischief causing damage" punishable U/Sec. 427 of IPC?.
3. What Order ?
6 C.C.16649/2015
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REA S ON S
9. As these points are inter linked with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10. It is the allegation that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 304(A) and 427 of IPC.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined the informant of crime/C.W.1 by the name S.Ramachandra as P.W.1, C.W.2/Shekar is examined as P.W.2 and C.W.7/Sujatha i.e wife of deceased (Krishna) is examined as P.W.3.
Out of the documents marked for the prosecution Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the mahazar and Ex.P.3 and 4 are the statements of P.W.2 and 3.
7 C.C.16649/2015
11. In support of the case of prosecution, C.W.1- informant of crime by name Ramachandra is examined as P.W.1. This witness deposed that C.W.7 is the wife of deceased Krishna and deceased is his elder brother. He further deposed that about 8 years back he received a phone call from the son of deceased informing him that his brother had succummbed to the injuries sustained due to collapse of the compound wall over him(deceased-Krishna) and he rushed to the spot and found his brother was dead. He further deposed that he does not know how, when and where his brother died. He further deposed that he has not lodged complaint before the police. He further deposed that police took his signature on the blank paper, but he does not know the contents of complaint which is at Ex.P.1 and he has not given any statement before the police. He identified his signature on Ex.P2-Mahazar and further deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2 -mahazar and police did not draw mahazar in his presence.
This witness was treated as hostile witness by the Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor and cross examined at length. In the cross examination also nothing worth could be elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution and he denied the suggestion that he has compromised the matter with the accused. 8 C.C.16649/2015
12. C.W.2-Shekhar is examined as P.W.2. This witness deposed that he knows C.W.1 and deceased Krishna and husband of C.W.7(Krishna) died about 9 years back and he does not know how, when and where deceased Krishna died and he has not given statement before the police as per Ex.P.3. He further deposed that he has not seen the accused anywhere before.
13. C.W.7-Sujatha is examined as P.W.3. This witness deposed that the deceased is her husband and he expired 09 years back and she does not know how, where, when and due to whose negligence said Krishna died. She further deposed that she has not given statement before police and she has not seen the accused anywhere before.
14. These witnesses/P.W2 and 3 were treated as hostile witnesses by the Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor and cross examined at length. In the cross examination also nothing worth could be elicited from their mouth to support the case of the prosecution. They denied the suggestion that they have compromised the matter with the accused and that they have given statement before the police as per Ex.P.3 and 4.
9 C.C.16649/2015
15. Now the question which arises before the court is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. As I have above stated, the prime witnesses P.W.1 to 3 fully turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 is not inspiring confidence to act upon and to hold that the accused persons committed the alleged offences.
16. Now on overall perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is to be noted that the complainant and wife of deceased denied the entire case of the prosecution and also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The PW-1 to 3 during the course of their evidence have not at all stated in respect of negligence of the accused in providing safety measures and they have denied the involvement of the accused and at the out set they have denied the entire case of the prosecution.
17. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to issue summons to other witnesses. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this court was of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined, it would be a futile excise and no lawful purpose would have been served. As such examination of the 10 C.C.16649/2015 prosecution witnesses only for the purpose of completing the procedural aspect and will not serve any judicial purpose and it is sheer waste of the precious time of the court. Therefore, the prayer of the learned APP to issue summons to other witnesses was rejected. At this stage this court relied upon judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 (3) Crimes 84 Sathish Mehra V/s Delhi Administration & another: wherein at page No.13 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applicable in this case also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the 'NEGATIVE'. 11 C.C.16649/2015
18. Point No.3: - In view of the findings of point No.1 and 2, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORD ER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec. 304(A) and 427 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bonds of the accused and Surety bonds shall stand canceled.
The bail bond executed U/s 437(A) of Cr.P.C shall be continued.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online and typed by her, judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 02nd day of January, 2024).
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 S.Ramachandra C.W.1 23.11.2023 PW-2 Shekhar C.W.2 23.11.2023 PW-3 Sujatha C.W.7 23.11.2023
List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.3 & 4 : Statements of P.W2 and 3
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
--Nil--12 C.C.16649/2015
List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
Digitally signed by
--Nil--
LATHA LATHA Date:
J
J 2024.01.02
17:44:23
+0530
(Latha. J)
XXXII Addl.C.M.M,
Bengaluru