Bangalore District Court
Station vs Persons Have Compromised The Matter. ... on 19 January, 2023
1 C.C.No.19816/2015
KABC030557092015
Presented on : 14-08-2015
Registered on : 14-08-2015
Decided on : 19-01-2023
Duration : 7 years, 5 months, 5 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 19th day of January 2023
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.19816/2015 Date of commission of the
2. 01.02.2015 offence (As per F.I.R.) Subramanyapura Police
3. Name of the complainant Station, Bengaluru City
4. Name of the accused 1. Smt.Vanaja, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.2, Behind Matha School, Mico Layout, J.B.Palya, Bengaluru City.
2. Smt.Girija, W/o Vijayan, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.2, D5, 2 C.C.No.19816/2015 Prai Hill Rose Apartment, 2nd Floor, Gottigere, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru.
Sections 323, 325 and 341 The offences complained
5. R/w Section 34 of the Indian of Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty The accused persons are
7. Final order acquitted
8. Date of order 19.01.2023 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City has filed Police Report against the above named accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 341 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that the accused persons being the daughters of CW1 were quarreling often with CW1 to divide the house property belongs to her bearing No.531, 4th Cross, RBI Layout, J.P.Nagara 7th Phase, Bengaluru within the territorial jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City. On 01.02.2015 also, the accused persons in furtherance of their 3 C.C.No.19816/2015 common intention have picked up quarrel with CW1 to give share in her house property; wrongfully restrained her and voluntarily caused simple hurt and grievous hurt to CW1 by bearing on her face, body and breaking her teeth. Thereby, the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 341 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.186/2015 at Subramanyapura Police Station. On completion of the investigation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 341 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to the accused persons. They have appeared before this Court and enlarged on bail. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to the accused persons under Section 207 of 4 C.C.No.19816/2015 Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that the accused persons have committed offences triable by this Court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 341 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to them in Kannada language. They have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused persons, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW4 and the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Since, there were no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses against the accused persons, the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are; 5 C.C.No.19816/2015
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 341 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons, out of 9 witnesses cited in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of only four witness before this Court as PW1 to PW4. PW2 Vijayalakshmiyamma is the first informant, injured and the mahazar witness, PW1 Radha, PW3 Latha and PW4 Geetha are the eyewitnesses of the incident. The prosecution has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Among them, Ex.P1 is the Witness Statement of PW1, Ex.P2 is the First 6 C.C.No.19816/2015 Information, Ex.P3 is the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the Witness Statements of PW3 and PW4 respectively.
8. As per the case of the prosecution, based on Ex.P2 given by PW2, the crime has been registered in Crime No.186/2015 and on investigation, since, there are evidences collected by the Investigation Officer to prosecute the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 341 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Police Report was filed. In the First Information - Ex.P2, there are statements of PW2 with regard to the alleged incident committed by the accused persons. She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that the accused persons, PW1, PW3 and PW4 are her daughters; no quarrel was taken place between her and the accused persons; as there were some petty differences between her and the accused persons, she gave First Information to the police as per Ex.P2; she does not know its contents; she has not obtained any treatment stating that she has sustained injuries as a result of incident in question; the police have not conducted any mahazar at 7 C.C.No.19816/2015 the place of incident in her presence as per Ex.P3; she does not know the contents of Ex.P3 and she signed Ex.P3 at Police Station. She has been considered as hostile witness and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. During cross-examination, she has denied the contents of Ex.P2; she gave it; she obtained treatment for the injuries sustained as a result of the incident in question and the mahazar conducted at the place of incident as per Ex.P3 in her presence. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination supporting the case of the prosecution.
9. As per the case of the prosecution, PW1, PW3 and PW4 are the eyewitnesses of the incident. They have also deposed in their examination-in-chief that no quarrel was taken place between the accused persons and PW2. They have also been considered as hostile witnesses and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. During their cross-examination, they denied the contents of their Witness Statements recorded by the Investigation officer. The denied portion of their Witness Statement are marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P4 and 8 C.C.No.19816/2015 Ex.P5 respectively. Nothing has been elicited in their cross- examination supporting the case of the prosecution.
10. On perusal of the above evidences of PW1 to PW4 and the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, it appears that the First Informant and the eyewitnesses PW1 to PW4 have deposed not supporting the case of the prosecution. They have deposed in their cross-examination that they and the accused persons have compromised the matter. Therefore, if the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are recorded, no purpose will be served. For this reason, the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are dropped. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 325 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
11. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons 9 C.C.No.19816/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 325 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against them. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 325 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds executed and cash surety furnished under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled. (Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 19.01.2023) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
10 C.C.No.19816/2015ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Radha, PW2 : Vijayalakshmamma, PW3 : Latha, PW4 : Geetha.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : Witness Statement of PW1, Ex.P2 : First Information, Ex.P1(a) : Signature, Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3(a) : Signature, Ex.P4 and 5 : Witness Statements.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.11 C.C.No.19816/2015
19.01.2023 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 325 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds executed and cash surety furnished under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.