Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Nos. 1 Srinivas Murthy S/O Rachaiah on 12 July, 2022
KABC030570582016
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2022.
Present : Sri.Umesha H.K. B.A, LL.B.
VII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 of Cr.P.C.
C.C.No.21128/2016
Complainant : The State by
Rajgopalnagar Police Station.
(By Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused Nos. 1 Srinivas Murthy S/o Rachaiah,
39 years, (ABATED)
As per Order dated : 12.11.2021.
2 Ramu S/o Rachaiah,42 years
3 Lakshman S/o Rachaiah, 40 years,
4 Srinivas @ Seena S/o Shivaiah,
All are R/at No.6, Back to Markandaiah
Temple, Srigandnagar, Hegganahalli,
Bengaluru,
(By Sri.G.M.Nagesh Kumar M.B, Advocate)
CC No. 21128/2016
2
Date of occurrence of offence 03.10.2015
Date of report of offence 03.10.2015
Name of the Complainant Smt.Geetha W/o Manjunath Naik
Date of commencement of recording evidence 13.03.2020
Date of closing of evidence 07.12.2021
Offences complained of U/s 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w
34 IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.2 to 4 found not
guilty.
CW10 P.S.I.of Rajgopalnagar Police Station has filed
charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable U/s 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.
During the pendency accused No.1 reported as Dead
and case against accused No.1 was ordered as abated on
12.11.2021.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under :
It is alleged in the chargesheet that on 03.10.2015 at
about 8.00 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Rajgopalnagar
Police Station, near Markandaiah Temple, 6th Cross,
accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention to commit an
offence have illegally restrained the CW1 in connection
with lodging of complaint against accused No.1 and abused
CC No. 21128/2016
3
her in filthy language outraged her modesty and
threatened to take away her life and thereby accused have
committed offences punishable U/s 341, 323, 354, 504 ,
506 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. After receipt of First Information by CW1, Crime
was registered in Crime No.710/2015 dated 03.10.2015
and thereafter I.O investigated the matter and filed
chargesheet for the aforementioned offences.
4. This Court by perusing the chargesheet
materials has taken cognizance of the offences U/s 341,
323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and registered the case
as CC and issued summons to the accused Nos.1 to 4.
5. In pursuance of summons accused Nos.1 to 4
appeared through their counsel and they are on Court
bail. After hearing on bothsides Charge was framed
against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for which they pleaded not
guilty and claims to be tried.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case out of
10 witnesses has examined PW1 to PW5 and got
CC No. 21128/2016
4
marked Ex.P1 to P4 on its behalf. Since, CW2, 3, 5 and
7 remained absent and their presence was not secured
inspite of summons, warrant and Proclamation. Hence,
prayer of Ld.Sr.APP rejected and the evidence of CW2, 3, 5
and 7 was dropped. The Statement of accused U/s 313
of Cr.P.C is recorded, accused Nos.2 to 4 denied the
material evidence appeared against them and submitted
no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
7. Heard the arguments. Perused the documents
placed on record.
8. The points that arise for consideration is :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.2 to
4 have committed an offences punishable
U/s 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C ?
2. What order ?
9. The above points are answered as under :
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :
CC No. 21128/2016
5
REASONS
10. Point No.1 : The prosecution has examined
material witness i.e., CW1, PW1 who is the victim and
she deposed before the Court she knows the accused and
they are neighbourers and CW4 is her husband and she
knows CW2, 3, 5 and 6. She further deposed that on
06.10.2015 accused No.1 has sent SMS to her mobile and
also missed call. She further deposed after lodging
complaint against accused No.1, accused Nos.1 to 3 by
consuming alcohol came and made galata questioning the
lodging of complaint against them and also abused her in
filthy language and torned her clothes and threatened her
to take away her life. She further deposed in this regard
she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. She further
deposed after the complaint police have came to the spot
on the next day and drawn mahazar in her presence as
per Ex.P2.
11. PW1 was thoroughly crossexamined by the
learned counsel for accused and during the cross
CC No. 21128/2016
6
examination she admitted she does not know the exact
dates of incident and she is unable to remember the exact
date. She has not given any document with regard to SMS
and missed calls given by accused No.1 to the police and
she denied other material suggestions.
12. PW2 is the Police official he deposed before the
Court on 28.01.2016 CW9 has handover the case file and
after taking over charge of investigation of this case he
appointed CW8 to search the accused and CW8 has
given report as per Ex.P3 and thereafter after completing
the investigation filed chargesheet etc. During the cross
examination he has denied the material suggestions that
false charge sheet has been filed against the accused.
13. PW3 who is also Investigation Officer has
deposed before the Court on 03.10.2015 when he was
working as Station House Officer at about 10.30 p.m. CW
1 came to Police Station and lodged the Complaint as per
Ex.P1 and he registered the case in Crime No.710/2015
and forwarded FIR to the Magistrate. He further deposed
CC No. 21128/2016
7
he conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of
Complainant, Cw2 and 3 and he recorded the Statement
of witnesses and thereafter handed over further
investigation to CW10. During crossexamination he also
denied material suggestions of Ld.Counsel for accused.
14. PW4 who is an Independent Witness has
deposed before the Court, he knows accused Nos.2 to 4
and CW1 to 4. He further deposed about 34 years back
he came to know near his house there was some galata,
he has not witnessed the incident personally and police
have not recorded his statement. Even during the cross
examination by Ld.Sr.APP he has not supported the case of
Prosecution and he specifically denied that he has not
given Statement as per Ex.P5.
15. PW5 who is also an Independent witness has
deposed before the Court. He knows accused and CW1 to
7 and he further deposed he came to know about lodging of
complaint by CW1 regarding missed call and SMS given
by accused No.1. He further deposed on 03.10.2015 at
CC No. 21128/2016
8
about 8.00 p.m. when he himself and CW1 were in house
accused came and picked up quarrel with CW1 and
abused her in filthy language and accused No.1 outraged
the modesty of CW1 and pushed her when he tried to
pacify the incident. Accused have threatened him to take
away his life. He further deposed CW1 has lodged the
Complaint against accused and he identified accused Nos.2
to 4. During the crossexamination of learned counsel for
accused he stated he has given statement to the police in
the police station and he signed the statement and he has
not given the mobile number while giving his statement to
which the missed call was given and SMS was sent by
accused and they have not produced any documents
regarding said missed calls and SMS to the police and he
denied other material suggestions.
16. The Ld.Sr.APP for the State has vehmently
argued that PW1 and PW5 who are the material witness
have completely supported the case of Prosecution. So, the
evidence of PW1 and 5 is sufficient to consider the case of
CC No. 21128/2016
9
prosecution and convict the accused. In addition to that
PW2 and 3 who are the Investigation Officers have also
supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence
available on record is sufficient to convict the accused and
prays to convict the accused by imposing maximum
sentence.
17. On the other hand Ld.counsel for accused has
vehmently argued with PW1 and 5 are husband and wife
and they are interested witnesses. Except the evidence of
PW1 and 5 the other independent witness i.e., PW4 has
not supported the case of Prosecution. PW2 and 3 being
the Official witness and Investigation Officers have
naturally supported the case of prosecution. So, only on
the basis of interested testimony of PW1 and 5 accused
cannot be convicted even the evidence of PW1 and 5 is not
corroborated each other and their evidence clearly
establishes their interestedness in convicting the accused.
Therefore, the Prosecution has entirely failed to prove the
CC No. 21128/2016
10
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prays
to acquit the accused.
18. In the light of the above submission and the
evidence available on record once again, I have carefully
scrutnized the evidence. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for accused, except the evidence of PW1
and 5 other independent witnesses have not supported the
case of Prosecution. PW1 and 5 are husband and wife and
their evidence is not corroboratted by independent eye
witness. Even otherwise, on perusal of evidence of PW1
and 5 their evidence is not corroborated each other and
there are so many omissions and contradictions in their
evidence. They being the interested witnesses naturally
supported the case of Prosecution. Admittedly, PW4 who
is an independent witness and Eyewitness to the incident
has completely turned hostile.
19. PW2 and 3 who are Investigation Officers have
naturally supported the case of Prosecution and they being
Investigation Officers have deposed regarding registration
CC No. 21128/2016
11
of case and filing of chargesheet etc., So, the interested
testimony of PW1 and 5 is not acceptable one and their
evidence clearly establishes the interestedness in
convicting the accused. Except the above said evidence
there is nothing on record to show that accused have
committed the above said offences. If really the story
narrated by PW1 is genuine one she could have placed
documents regarding alleged missed call and SMS sent by
accused No.1 to the police, but she has not placed such
documents either before Court or before the I.O. The non
production of documents itself clearly establishes that it is
a concocted story of CW1/PW1 just to file a complaint
against accused. Considering overall evidence, this Court is
of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of
accused. I answer this point in the Negative.
20. Point No.2 : In view of the discussion made
above, I proceed to pass the following :
CC No. 21128/2016
12
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.2 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 341, 504, 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds and surety shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 12th day of July, 2022).
( UMESHA H.K ) VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the Complainant :
PW.1 : Geetha.T, PW.2 : Santhoshram, PW.3 : Mahadevaiah, PW.4 : Madhu.H.N, PW.5 : Manjunathnaik, CC No. 21128/2016 13 List of documents marked for the Complainant :
Ex.P.1 : Complaint, Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW2, Ex.P.4 : F.I.R, Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW4.
List of witnesses examined for the Accused : NIL.
List of documents exhibited for the Accused : NIL.
List of Material Object marked for prosecution : NIL.
VII Addl. C.M.M.,Bengaluru. CC No. 21128/2016 14