Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1(In J.C.) : Ramesh @ Kulli @ Kulla on 20 September, 2019
1 SC 1031-2013
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH 52)
Dated this the 20th day of September 2019
PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R.Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
City.
S.C.No. 1031/2013
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Police Inspector,
Mahalakshmi Police
Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1(in J.C.) : Ramesh @ Kulli @ Kulla,
(Under Body Warrant) S/o. Late
Krishnamurthy, Aged: 23
years, R/o. No.77, 1st
Main Road, Cross,
M.G.Huts, Shankarmutt,
Bengaluru.
Accused No. 2 : Manikanta @ Larivaiah
(Abated)
(By Sri R.P. Advocate)(for A1)
2 SC 1031-2013
1 Date of commission of offence 26/07/2011
2 Date of report of offence 26/07/2011
3 Date of arrest of the accused In J.C.under B/W.
4 Date of release of accused on Earlier on bail on
bail 06/11/2013, Again
A1 is in J.C. under
Body Warrant
5 Date of commencement of 21/03/2017
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 30-08-2019
7 Name of the complainant Sri. Ashok @ Ashwath
@ Matthi
8 Offences complained of Section 307 R/W.
Section 34 of IPC.
9 Date of pronouncement of 20/09/2019
judgment
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused
No.1 not proved.
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by Assistent Commissioner of Police, Malleshwaram Sub Division, Bengaluru against Accused 1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. R/W. Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The facts of the case in brief is as under:-
That, on 26/07/2011 at about 7.30 A.M. both the accused having common intention to assault
3 SC 1031-2013 complainant Sri. M.Ashoki @ Ashwath @ Matthi and in furtherance of such common intention they went near Flag pole, Pipe Line Road, F.Cross, J.C.Nagar, Mahalakshmi Layout armed with deadly weapons (in their hands) with an intention to commit murder of Complainant M.Ashoki have wrongfully restrained Complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. Further both the accused have assaulted Complainant with wooden stick on his right hand and legs and at that time accused No.2 Manikanta @ Larivaiah has assaulted complainant with wicket on his left leg and caused grievous injury with an intention to commit murder of the complainant. Hence on the complaint given by Complainant M.Ashoki @ Ashwath as per Ex.P.8, a case was registered against both the accused in Cr.No. 232/2011 of Mahalakshmi Layout P.S. for the aforesaid offence and later after having conducted a detailed 4 SC 1031-2013 investigation of the case, A.C.P. Malleshwaram Sub Division has laid down the present charge sheet.
3. As the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence the Committal Court after complying the formalities as required U/S. 207 & 209 of I.P.C. has committed the case to this court for trial.
4. Initially both accused were granted bail. As they jumped the bail therefore they were secured under the body warrant. During the course of trial Accused No.2 Manikanta died, hence case against Accused No.2 is closed as abated. Accused No.1 is represented by Advocate.
5. After the compliance of preliminary formalities, charge against Accused No.1 was framed for the offence punishable U/S. 307 of I.P.C. R/W. Section 34 of I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to accused No.1. Accused No.1 5 SC 1031-2013 pleaded not guilty to the charge leveled against him and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all fifteen witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14. No material objects are marked during the course of evidence of the prosecution.
7. After the evidence of prosecution side is closed, the statement of accused No.1 under Section 313(b) of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused No.1 has denied every incriminating statements appearing against him. However, he has not led any evidence in his defence. Total denial of the case of prosecution and false implication is the defence of the accused.
8. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials placed on record.
9. The following points arise for my consideration:
6 SC 1031-2013 (1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 26/07/2011 at about 7.30 A.M. Accused No.1 along with deceased Accused No.2 went near Flag Pole, Pipe Line Road, F.Cross, J.C.Nagar, Mahalakshmi Layout are armed with deadly weapons with an intention to commit murder of Complainant M.Ashoki @ Ashwath @ Mathi (P.W.15) and in furtherance of such common intention both the accused by wrongfully restraining P.W.15 have threatened and assaulted him with a wooden stick on his vital parts of the body and deceased Accused No.2 assaulted P.W.15 with wicket on his vital parts of the body and thereby caused grievous injury with an intention to commit murder of P.W.15 M.Ashoki @ Ashwath and thereby Accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable U/S. 307 of I.P.C. R/W. Section 34 of I.P.C.?
7 SC 1031-2013 (2) What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. As per the final-order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1 & 2: As these points are
interconnected to each other, hence they have been taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence on record.
12. As noted above, it is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 Ramesh @ Kulli @ Kula and Accused No.2 Manikanta @ Larivaiah with a common intention to commit the murder of the complainant Sri.M.Ashoki @ Ashwath on 26/07/2011 at about 7.30 A.M. they wrongfully restrained Complainant Ashoki near Flag Pole, Pipe Line Road, F-Cross, J.C.Nagar, Mahalakshmi Layout and they assaulted the complainant with 8 SC 1031-2013 deadly weapons like wicket and wooden club and thereby caused grievous injury and thus they made an attempt to murder complainant M.Ashoki @ Ashwath. Hence they have committed the offence punishable U/S. 307 of I.P.C. R/W. Section 34 of l.P.C..
13. As noted supra, during the course of trial Accused No.2 Manikanta @ Larivaiah has passed away, therefore the case against the Accused No.2 is closed as abated. Consequently Accused No.1 Ramesh @ Kulli @ Kulla alone has faced the trial.
14. To prove the above allegations made against accused, prosecution at the outset has examined the very complainant M.Ashoki @ Ashwath as P.W.15. It is to be noted that at the relevant point of time P.W. 15 was in custody in another case. Therefore, he is summoned from the Central Prison and examined as P.W.15. In his evidence before the Court, P.W.15 has deposed that during the year 9 SC 1031-2013 2011 he was staying at Nataraja Choultry with his mother in Basaveshwara Nagara and he was doing electrician work. He has stated that he do not know Accused No.1 Ramesh and deceased Accused No.2 Manikanta @ Larivaiah. It is further stated by P.W.15 that one day in the month of September 2011 he met with the road accident and got injured. In that background he was shifted to K.C.General Hospital for treatment. At that time police came there and obtained his signature on a paper. However he never stated before the police that he was assaulted by Accused persons in the above place. It is further deposed by P.W.15 that he took treatment in K.C.General Hospital for about 20 days. At that time police have obtained his signature at Ex.P.8 complaint. But he was not inquired by the police with regard to any incident. Going one step ahead P.W.15 has denied having given complaint against accused as per Ex.P.8 and 10 SC 1031-2013 further statement as per Ex.P. 12 before the police. Thus he has failed to support the prosecution case. He turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, he has been cross examined by the Learned Public Prosecutor. Unfortunately, in the cross examination of the complainant nothing could be elicited from his mouth to indicate that both accused had assaulted him on the above date near the above place with deadly weapons and attempted to commit his murder. Very strangely P.W.15 has stated that no incident as suggested by the Prosecutor has taken place on any day nor any of the accused has assaulted him. Thus the very complainant has failed to speak in support of the case of the prosecution.
15. The prosecution has examined P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 as the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. Unfortunately they have also failed to support the case of the prosecution. According to 11 SC 1031-2013 them they have never seen any of the accused assaulting the complainant. They have not given any statements before the police regarding witnessing the alleged incident. Thus they have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. They have been cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even in the cross examinations of P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P,.W.4 nothing material worth the name could be elicited from their mouth to indicate that they have seen accused assaulting the complainant Ashoki near the aforesaid place with an intention to commit his murder. They have denied having given their statements before the police as per Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5 respectively. Thus, the independent eye witnesses have also failed to speak in support of the case of the prosecution.
16. As mentioned above, the very complainant and eye-witnesses to the incident have given 12 SC 1031-2013 evidence against the case of prosecution. Except the above witnesses, the prosecution has not examined any other witnesses who could speak about the alleged incident. Thus at the threshold itself prosecution has failed to prove its case with cogent evidence.
17. P.W.2 Rajesh is an attesting witness to the Ex.P.2 spot mahazar. According to him one day in the year 2011 police summoned him and P.W.4 Raghu Poojari, near Pipe Line of J.C.Nagar and they conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 between 1.00 P.M. to 2.15 P.M., thereafter he signed the mahazar on the spot as per Ex.P.2(a). In his cross examination by the Learned advocate for accused except some suggestions in the form of general denial nothing is made out to say the evidence of P.W.2 is false. However, the prosecution has examined another attesting witness Raghu Gowda as P.W.4. According to him the police have never 13 SC 1031-2013 conducted any mahazar in his presence and in the presence of P.W.2 Rajesh anywhere. According to him the police have obtained his signature and signature of P.W.2 in the police station. Thus he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the cross examination by the Learned Public Prosecutor nothing material could be elicited from the mouth of P.W.4 to show that the I.O. has conducted spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 in his presence. Thus the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 are contradictory to each other. They do not inspire confidence in the mind of Court to hold that I.O. has conducted spot mahazar in the presence of these two witnesses.
18. P.W.5 N.T.Ramakrishnaiah was working as A.S.I. in Mahalakshmi P.S. at the relevant point of time. According to him he was on petrolling duty on 25/07/2011, and in the morning of 26/07/2011 at about 7.15 A.M. he was asked to go 14 SC 1031-2013 near Pipe Line Road, F-Cross where the accused were fighting with complainant Ashoki. By the time he went to the spot, the complainant was lying on the ground sustaining grievous injury. On enquiry complainant has informed that Accused No.1 Ramesh and Accused No.2 Manikanta have assaulted him with weapons with an intention to murder him. Immediately they shifted complainant to K.C.General Hospital in the Hoysala vehicle.
19. Though nothing could be elicited in his cross examination except some suggestions in the form of denial, in my opinion his evidence alone is not much helpful to prove the allegations made against the accused as the very complainant has denied that the accused have assaulted him and caused grievous hurt to him. As mentioned supra complainant has stated that he was admitted to K.C.General Hospital with the history of injury in the road traffic accident. Thus according to me 15 SC 1031-2013 evidence of P.W.5 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
20. P.W.6 Mohammed Khasim was working as A.S.I. in Mahalakshmi Layout P.S. at the relevant point of time. According to him based on the complaint given by injured complainant which was produced by C.W. 13, he registered a case in Cr.No. 232/2011 for the above offence and sent the complaint and F.I.R. as per Ex.P.7 & 8 to the jurisdictional Court. The same is the evidence given by P.W.6. Except some general denial nothing is made out in the cross examination of P.W.6 to disbelieve his evidence. However as the very complainant has stated that he has never given any complaint of assault and attempt to commit murder, therefore, evidence of P.W.6 is also not much helpful to the prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused.
21. P.W.7 and P.W.9 are the Investigation 16 SC 1031-2013 Officers. They have spoken about the investigational aspect of the case. In detail they have stated regarding the recording of statements of witnesses, conducting of spot mahazar, recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused and collecting wound certificate of the injured etc., Their evidence are not much helpful to the prosecution as the very complainant and eye witnesses have turned hostile. Prosecution has failed to produce the weapons of the offence before the court. They are not marked as material objects. Hence, based on the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.9 it is not possible to hold Accused No.1 guilty of the offence as alleged against him.
22. In the similar way evidence of P.W.8 Bangarappa B., P.W.11 H.S.Chandrashekaraiah and P.W.14 Ninganagowda Patil are also not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
23. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer working in 17 SC 1031-2013 K.C.General Hospital who certified that complainant was mentally and physically fit to give further statement as per Ex.P.12. As noted above the very complainant in his evidence as P.W.15 has denied having given the further statement to the police as per Ex.P.12. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.10 which is not corroborated by the evidence of complainant is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
24. P.W.13 is the Medical Officer who has examined the complainant and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P. 9. In her evidence she has explained the injuries found on the body of the complainant. According to the very complainant he suffered those injuries not because of any assault made by the accused, but because of road traffic accident. In her cross examination P.W.13 has admitted that injuries mentioned in Ex.P.9 can be caused to a person if he fall down on a rough 18 SC 1031-2013 surface. She has further stated that police have not produced any weapons for her examination and opinion. Therefore, even if the evidence of P.W.13 is accepted as it is, it will not prove the allegations made against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. P.W.12 Manjunath J.H. is said to be an attesting witness to Ex.P.14 seizure mahazar, a wooden club and wicket was recovered from the spot. He has failed to support the case of prosecution. According to him he signed Ex.P.14 in the police station and nothing was recovered in his presence by the police. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of Ex.P.12 seizure mahazar and recovery of material objects.
26. From the discussions of the evidence of prosecution witnesses it becomes very clear that the very complainant and eye-witnesses have failed to support the case of prosecution. The attesting 19 SC 1031-2013 witnesses to the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar have also failed to support the case of prosecution. So based on the evidence of the official witnesses which are not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has proved it's case against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. Thus I am of the opinion that accused No.1 is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Thus for the reasons and discussions made above, I answer Point No.1 in the "Negative".
27. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No. 1 Ramesh @ Kulli Ramesha, S/o. Late Krishnamurthy is hereby acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/S. 307 of I.P.C. R/W. Section 34 of I.P.C.
As the accused is in Judicial
20 SC 1031-2013
Custody, he shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
Accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as required U/s. 437(A) of Cr.P.C. before he is released from the jail.
(Dictated to the Judgmentwriter, transcribed and typed by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 20th day of September, 2019) (Venkatesh R.Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution- side:
PW.1 Prabhu
PW.2 Rajesh
PW.3 Govindaraju T.
PW.4 Raghu Poojari
PW.5 N.T. Ramakrishnaiah, Retd.ASI
PW.6 Mohammed Khasim Retd.ASI
PW.7 H.R. Anil Kumar P.I.
PW.8 Bangarappa P.C.11276
PW.9 AS.N.Gangadhara
PW.10 Dr. Ramesh
PW.11 H.S. Chandrashekaraiah
PW.12 Manjunath J.H.
PW.13 Dr. K.R.Rekha
21 SC 1031-2013
PW.14 Ninganagowda Annesh Gowda
PW.15 M.Ashok @ Ashwath
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution- side:
Ex.P.1 Statement of lPW1 Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the PW.2. Ex.P.2(b) Signature of the PW.4 Ex.P.3&4 Statements of P.W.3 Ex.P. 5 & 6 Statement & Addition statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.7 F.I.R. Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.8 Statement/Complainant Copy Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.9 Wound Certificate Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.10 Statement of Accused No.2 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W. 9 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of Accused No.2 Ex.P.11 Panchanama Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.12 Further Statement Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.13 Requisition letter Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.14 Document Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.12.
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution- side:
-NIL-
22 SC 1031-2013 List of witnesses examined for the defence-side:
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side:
- NIL -
(Venkatesh R.Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City 23 SC 1031-2013 24 SC 1031-2013