Bangalore District Court
4. Name Of The Accused Vidyashankar.K.L vs Is Acquitted on 4 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLV ADDL. C.M.M.,BANGALORE.
Dated this the 4th Day of May, 2018
Present : Sri.Chandrashekara.P.S
XLV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
C.C. No.12885/11
1. Sl. No. of the Case 12885/11
2. The date of 04/08/2010
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the State by Peenya Police station.
complainant
4. Name of the accused Vidyashankar.K.L,
s/o.K.L.Narayanaswamy, 48
yrs,No.3332, 3rd block, 3rd floor,
Janapriya Heights, Mallasandra,
T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore.
5. The offence U/sec.504, 354 and 509 of IPC.
complained of or
proved
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
8. Date of such order 04/05/2018
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
2 CC.No.12885/11 The PSI of Peenya Police Station has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.504, 354 and 509 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:
That on 5/8/10 at about 8.30 am., accused abused the CW 1 in filthy language and dragged her by holding her cloth and tried to outrage her modesty infront of inmates of Janapriya Heights Apartments situated at Mallasandra. In furtherance of the said act, accused picked up a quarrel with neighbours of the Apartment and abused them in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.504, 354, 509 IPC.
3. Immediately after the incident, CW 1 has lodged the complaint to the Peenya police and police have registered the case in Cr.No.545/10 against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.504, 354 and 509 of IPC and submitted the FIR to the court. Accused has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail. That after completion of investigation, the PSI of Peenya Police Station has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. On the basis of the charge sheet, cognizance for the above said offences is taken and secured the presence of accused and 3 CC.No.12885/11 furnished the copy of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,
4. After hearing, the charges are framed and contents of the charges are read over to the accused in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, prosecution was called upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. Accordingly, in order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined the 11 witnesses out of 13 witnesses cited in the charge sheet as PW 1 to 11 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P3. PW1 is the complainant, PW 2 to 10 are the inmates of Janapriya Apartments and PW 11 is the Investigating officer. After recording the evidence, accused statement was recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., Accused has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him and has chosen to lead defence evidence. Accordingly accused himself examined as DW 1 and produced 19 documents and got them marked as per Ex.D1 to D19.
4 CC.No.12885/116. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for accused and Learned APP.
7. Having heard and perused the records the following points that would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 5/8/10 at about
8.30 am., accused abused the CW 1 in filthy language and dragged her by holding her cloth and tried to outrage her modesty infront of inmates of Janapriya Heights Apartments situated at Mallasandra and in furtherance of the said act, accused picked up a quarrel with neighbours of the Apartment and abused them in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.504, 354, 509 IPC ?
2) What order ?
8. My answer to the above said points are as follows :
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined the CW 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 8, 11, 10, 5, 12 and 13 as PW 1 to 11 respectively.
10. PW 1 is the complainant, PW 2 to 10 are the inmates of the Janapriya Apartments, where PW 1 is 5 CC.No.12885/11 residing. PW 1, who is the complainant, has stated in her evidence that about 2 years back on one day when she was in house, accused abused her in filthy language. Hence she has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1. According to the prosecution on 5/8/10 at about 8.30 am., accused abused the CW 1 in filthy language and dragged by holding her cloth and tried to outrage her modesty infront of the inmates of the apartments. But PW 1, who is the complainant and victim has not stated in her evidence that accused has outraged her modesty by holding her cloth. When PW 1 herself has not stated regarding outraging her modesty, the story of the prosecution that accused has outraged the modesty of PW 1 by holding her cloth infront of inmates of the Apartments cannot be believed. In view of this the evidence of PW 1 would not help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
11. PW 2 has stated in his evidence that on 5/8/10 at about 8.30 am., there was a quarrel infront of CW 1's house, accused was abusing the CW 1 in filthy language by touching her body. But, PW 1 herself has not stated that accused touched her body, under the circumstances there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW 1 and 2 regarding the outraging the modesty of PW 1. In view of 6 CC.No.12885/11 this, the evidence of PW 2 would not help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
12. PW 3 who is the husband of the PW 1 has stated in his evidence that on 4/8/10 when he came to the house after finishing his work, PW 1 told that when she was harvesting the cloth, accused came and touched her. He has further stated that when the incident has taken place, he was not present. When he was not present at the time of incident, his evidence is only a hearsay evidence and it would not help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreso, he has stated earlier incident in his evidence.
13. PW 4 has stated in his evidence that on 5/8/10 at 8.30 am., CW 7 came and asked him to come to near 3rd block of Apartment. When he went to there and was talking with CW 7, there was a quarrel in passage between the house of accused and CW 1. He has further stated that quarrel had been taken place regarding the touching of body of the CW 1 and dragged her saree. The evidence of PW 4 itself goes to show that he was not present at the time of incident. Moreso he himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the incident personally. When that is so, his evidence is 7 CC.No.12885/11 not believable to hold the guilt of the accused. His evidence is only hearsay evidence.
14. PW 5 and 6 have stated in their evidence that accused has dragged the CW1 by holding her saree and abused in filthy language. But during the course of cross-examination, PW 6 has stated that DgÉÆæ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ §mÉÖ »rzɼÉzÁrzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉ ¤Ãr®è. DgÉÆæ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀzÀUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ YõÁÕ¥ÀPÀ E®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÅÁðøÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉ ¤Ãr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ oÁuÉÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV®è. When he has admitted that he has not given any statement about the dragging of CW 1 by holding cloth, his evidence would not help the prosecution to prove that accused abused the CW 1 in filthy language and outraged her modesty by holding her cloth.
15. PW 7 and 8 have not stated about the incident that has been taken place on 5/8/10 but they have stated the earlier incident which took place in the Janapriya Apartment. When PW 7 and 8 have not stated about the incident that has been taken place on 5/8/10, their evidence would not help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreso, PW 8 has stated in his cross-examination that he does not know anything except the galata.
8 CC.No.12885/1116. PW 9 has stated in his evidence that the incident occurred on 5/8/10 at 8.00 am., CW 1 has telephoned to his wife and his wife went to the house of CW 1. Then, they called me in phone, he went to the house of CW 1. When he went to the spot, accused was there and abusing the CW 1 in filthy language and was going to hold the cloth of CW 1. As I said above, it is the story of the prosecution that accused dragged the CW 1 by holding her cloth and thereby outraged her modesty. But PW 9 has stated that accused was going to hold the cloth of the CW 1. This evidence is very much contrary to the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, his evidence is not believable to come to a conclusion that accused has committed an offence as alleged by the prosecution. As I said above, the evidence of PW 1 to 9 would not help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and there is lot of inconsistency in their evidence. Under the circumstances, the evidence of PW10 also would not support the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of PW 1 to 10, there is a lot of inconsistency regarding the incident and their evidence is not corroborated with each other regarding the incident. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
9 CC.No.12885/1117. In the instant case, accused himself examined as DW 1 and produced 19 documents as per Ex.D1 to D19. In his evidence he has stated that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. But the inmates of the Janapriya Apartments instigating the CW 1 to lodge a false complaint against him. In support of his evidence, he has produced 19 documents as per Ex.D1 to D19. Though the Learned APP has cross- examined the DW 1, nothing has been elicited to disprove the evidence of DW 1. In view of the above discussion, I am of the firmed opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused. When the evidence of PW 1 to 10 are not corroborated with each other and there is a lot of inconsistency in their evidence regarding the commission of the offence by the accused, their evidence is not believable to hold the guilt of the accused and their evidence would not suffice to come to a conclusion that accused has committed an offence as alleged by the prosecution. In view of this, I answered this point in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of the findings given on the above said point and reasons thereon, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER 10 CC.No.12885/11 Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/sec.504, 354, 509 of IPC.
His bail bonds stand cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed, computerized & print out taken by her, and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court this the 4th day of May 2018.) (Chandrashekar.P.S) XLV Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 Anitha PW 2 Shashidhar Patil PW 3 Sudhindra Joshi PW 4 Benson PW 5 Meera Thikare PW 6 Deepa PW 7 Padma PW 8 Manimala PW 9 Gururaja PW 10 Neha Raichur PW 11 Manjunath.M.N
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.4 FIR
11 CC.No.12885/11
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- NIL
4.List of witnesses on behalf of the Defence:
DW1 Vidyashankar
5.List of Documents marked on behalf of the Defence:-
Ex.D.1 Complaint
Ex.D.2 N.C.R
Ex.D.3 Letter given to Director, Janapriya
Apartments
Ex.D.4 Letter given to Director
Ex.D.5 Letter given to ACP
Ex.D6 Letter given IGDG
Ex.D7 Application under R.T.I.
Ex.D8 Acknowledgement
Ex.D9 Letter to Human Rights Commission
Ex.D10 Judgement in CC.714/09
Ex.D11 Letter given to Commissioner
Ex.D12 Letter given to DG
Ex.D13-15 Letters given to Dy.Commissioner Ex.D16 Bylaw rules Ex.D17 Receipt Ex.D18-19 Hospital records
6.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the Defence:- NIL XLV Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.12 CC.No.12885/11 13 CC.No.12885/11