Bangalore District Court
State By Koramangala vs 4. Praveenkumar Praveen @ Praveen on 3 January, 2023
KABC010145492014
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
S.C. No.30/2014
Complainant : State by Koramangala
police station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
Accused : 4. Praveenkumar Praveen @ Praveen
S/o Gajendran,
Aged about 19 years,
Rat.No.346, K.R.Garden,
Koramangala, 8th Block,
Banglaore- 560095.
5. Santhosh @ Simon
S/o Esurathinam,
Aged about 20 years,
Rat.No.26, Babu Reddy Building,
Koramangala, 8th Block,
Bangalore- 560095.
6. Magendra @ Maggi @ Magesha
S/o Soundar Raj,
Aged about 22 years,
Rat.No.Nil, Related To Srinivasa
Reddys Shed, K.R.Garden,
Koramangala, 8th Block,
Bangalore.
2
S.C.No.30/2014
Own Address- Grama,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Tamil Nadu State.
8. Mohan
S/o Mahesh,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.76, Near Anjaneya Temple,
Koramangala 8th Block,
Bangalore-560095.
(Accused No.1 to 3 and 7-Absconded)
(A.4 by Sri.D,R,S/K.S., Adv.
A.5 by Sri.V.A., Adv.
A.6 and 8 by K.M., Adv.)
1. Date of commission of offence 05.11.2012
2. Date of report of occurrence 05.11.2012
3. Date of commencement of evidence 06.11.2014
4. Date of closing of evidence 19.08.2022
5. Name of the complainant Sri.Nataraj D.N.
6. Offences complained of U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302,
307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149
of IPC
7. Opinion of the Judge As per final order
8. Order of sentence Offence not proved
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Koramangala police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 8 before learned 8 th ACMM Court, Bangalore, alleging the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
2. After filing of the charge sheet, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 8 and registered the criminal case bearing CC.No.2331/2013.
3S.C.No.30/2014
3. The accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 were in judicial custody when the charge sheet was filed. After securing the presence of the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 from judicial custody, the Learned Magistrate had complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., by furnishing the copy of charge sheet and other papers annexed with the charge sheet to the accused.
4. The accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have appeared before the trial court and they were enlarged on bail. Since the offences alleged against the accused No.1 and 2 punishable u/Sec.302, 307 of IPC are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Learned Magistrate had committed the case to Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru for trial by exercising the power u/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
5. After committal of the case, SC.No.30/2014 was registered against the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 and made over to this court. Thereafter, summons was issued to accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8. In pursuance to the service of summons, the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have appeared before the court and furnishe surety before the court. Then the matter was posted for hearing the accused on charge.
6. The Accused were heard on the charge. Since there are sufficient prima facie materials in the charge sheet to proceed with trial against the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149 of IPC, charge was framed for the said offences and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. The 4 S.C.No.30/2014 accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the matter was posted for evidence of the prosecution.
7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has got examined 19 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 19. The prosecution has produced 30 documents on its behalf and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.30. The prosecution has produced 17 material object and got them marked as M.O.1 to M.O.17 and closed its side. Thereafter, the matter was posted for recording the statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.
8. All the incriminating evidence appearing against accused in the evidence of P.W.1 to 19 were read over and explained to the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 in the language known to them. The accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 has submitted that they have no defence evidence. Hence, the matter was posted for arguments.
9. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 and Learned Public Prosecutor. The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed written arguments.
10. Perused the charge sheet, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, written arguments and other materials available on record.
11. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration :
5S.C.No.30/2014
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 05.11.2012, at about 7.00 p.m., near the house of one Krishnappa, situated at Anjaneya Temple Road, 8th Block, Koramangala, accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and other absconded accused No.1 to 3 and 7 were the members of unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder of Purushotham, Sharath Kumar and Karthik and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 143 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same day, time, place and circumstances, the accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and other absconded accused No.1 to 3 and 7 were the members of unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder of Purushotham, Sharath Kumar and Karthik were armed with deadly weapons like Knife, Hockey Stick and they have committed the offence punishable under section 144 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same day, time, place and circumstances, the accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and other absconded accused No.1 to 3 and 7 were the members of unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder of Purushotham, Sharath Kumar and Karthik and in prosecution of its common object. They have committed the offence by rioting and thereby they have committed the offence of rioting punishable under section 147 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same day, time, place and circumstances, the accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and other absconded accused No.1 to 3 and 7 were the members of unlawful assembly having common object and in prosecution of its common object, the accused No.4 has attempted to murder C.W.2/Sharath Kumar infront of Mookambika Electric Shop, with hockey stick has assaulted on his head 6 S.C.No.30/2014 and accused No.5 has assaulted with hockey stick on his face and accused No.6 has thrown flower pot on the head of the C.W.2 and accused No.8 has assaulted C.W.2 with hands and thereby the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have committed the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the same day, time, place and circumstances, the accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and other absconded accused No.1 to 3 and 7 were the members of unlawful assembly having common object, the accused No.1 with intention to commit the murder of Purushotham has stabbed Purushotham with knife on the right leg thigh and accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted Purushotham with hockey stick and accused No.7 had assaulted Purushotham with club, the said act was done by accused No.1, 2, 3 and 7 having knowledge that if they did not, it will result in death of Purushotham and thereby the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 05.11.2012, the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.1, 2, 3 and 7 to murder Purushotham and Sharath Kumar in view of quarrel that took place on 04.11.2012 in the entertainment program at the time of Annammadevi Temple pooja, when deceased Purushotham, Sharth Kumar and Karthik have objected for dancing on the stage by the accused No.1 to 8 and in view of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused No.1 to 8 have committed the murder of Purushotham and the accused No.1 to 8 have attempted to murder of Sharth Kumar and thereby the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.120(B) of IPC.
7. What order?7
S.C.No.30/2014
12. My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1 .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.2 .. In the Negative
(3) Point No.3 .. In the Negative
(4) Point No.4 .. In the Negative
(5) Point No.5 .. In the Negative
(6) Point No.6 .. In the Negative
(7) Point No.7 .. As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
13. Points No.1 to 6:- These six points are interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
14. The Police Inspector of Koramangala police station had filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 8, alleging the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149 of IPC, before learned 8th ACMM, Bengaluru. Only the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 have appeared before the trial court and the trial court has committed this case only with respect to accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8.
15. The gist of allegations made in the charge sheet against the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 is as follows:
There was a pooja function of Annammadevi Temple, situated at 8th Block, Koramangala, from 01.11.2012 to 04.11.2012. In view of the said Pooja, festival entertainment program was arranged on 04.11.2012. When the accused No.1 to 8 had gone to the said entertainment program and when they were about to dance on the 8 S.C.No.30/2014 stage in the said entertainment program, Purushotam, Sharath Kumar and Karthik have not allowed to accused to dance on the floor and accused No.1 to 8 keeping in the mind about the same have entered into a criminal conspiracy on 05.11.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. to murder Purushotham, Sharath Kumar and Karthik. In view of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused No.1 to 8 have formed an unlawful assembly in between 7.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. infront of the house of one Krishnappa, situated at Anjaneya Temple, 8 th Block and picked up quarrel with Purushotham, Sharath Kumar and Karthik for not allowing them to dance in the entertainment program. The accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention of unlawful assembly to murder Purushotham had stabbed Purushotham with knife on the right side leg thigh. The accused No.2 and 3 have assaulted with hockey stick all over the body and accused No.7 assaulted Purushotham with clubs and thereby committed the murder of Purushotham. At the distance of 80 feet, infront of Mookambika Electric Shop, the accused No.4 has assaulted C.W.2 with hockey stick on his head, accused No.5 has assaulted C.W.2 Sharath Kumar with hockey stick on his face, accused No.6 has thrown flower pot on the head of C.W.2 and accused No.8 has assaulted to C.W.2 with hands and thereby they have attempted to murder C.W.2 and hence, it is alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
16. The prosecution in order to prove the aforesaid allegations made against the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 has adduced the evidence of 19 witnesses as P.W.1 to 19. Among them P.W.11 is the first informant. P.W.3 is the injured. P.W.7, 8, 14 and 15 are the 9 S.C.No.30/2014 eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W.1 and 2 are the spot mahazar witnesses. P.W.9 and 13 are the inquest witnesses. P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer and other witnesses are the police witnesses. Now let us examine the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses and documents produced on behalf of the prosecution in order to adjudicate whether the said evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 beyond reasonable doubts or not.
17. P.W.11 is not eyewitness to the incident. He in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 05.11.2012 in the evening at about 7.30 p.m., he had received information from the police control room stating that some galata is taking place near Anjaneya temple of Koramangala, 8th Block. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that thereafter he went to the said spot and found that one person had sustained injury all over the body and he was found dead. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he found P.W.3 injured infront of Mookambika Electric shop. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that Shrath Kumar told that deceased person is Purushotham. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he sent Sharath Kumar in Ambulance to Nimhans hospital for treatment and sent Purushotham to Victoria hospital for postmortem. He came to know that on 05.11.2012 in between 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. quarrel took place between Rajendranagar slum boys and Koramangala boys and Koramangala boys have assaulted Rajendranagar boys with hockey stick, clubs, flower pot and also assaulted Sharath Kumar and Purushotham and Purushotham was died at spot. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was not aware about the whereabouts of the persons who has assaulted Purushotham and Sharath Kumar 10 S.C.No.30/2014 at the time of giving complaint as per Ex.P.11. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that mahazar was conducted in his presence at the place of incident and M.O.1 to 6 were seized by conducting mahazar. P.W.11 in his examination-in-chief has not deposed anything about accused committing alleged offences and accused assaulting Purushotham and Sharath Kumar with hockey stick, club and flower pot. Hence, the evidence of P.W.11 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the commission of alleged offence by the accused No.4 5, 6 and 8.
18. P.W.3 is the material witness and he is injured witness. P.W.3 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that about two years back on 5th November, deceased and C.W.3 were drinking tea near tea shop situated at some distance from his house. P.W.3 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has received information stating that some persons were assaulting Purushotham and as such, he went near tea shop. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused No.4, 5 and 8 were assaulting the deceased with stones, hockey stick , knife and flower pot. He has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that when he asked those persons why they were assaulting Purushotham, accused No.4, 5 and 8 have also started to beat him and they have assaulted him with hands, stones, clubs. P.W.3 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that at that time police came to the spot and police took him to Koramangala police station and thereafter they have sent him to the hospital in the ambulance. P.W.3 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he do not know the reasons for the incident and he do not know why the accused have assaulted him and Purushotham. The evidence of P.W.3 in the chief- examination about the incident is not corroborated with the incident 11 S.C.No.30/2014 as stated in Ex.P.1 compliant or it is not in accordance with statement given by P.W.3 before Investigating Officer. As such, he was partly treated as hostile and he was cross-examined by Learned Public Prosecutor.
19. PW.3 in his cross examination by learned PP has denied the suggestion put to him that some boys have objected for him, deceased Purushotham and Karthik from dancing on the stage and sent back them. He has also denied the suggestion put to him that on 05/11/2012 at about 7.00 p.m near Anjaneya Temple, 3 persons have started to beat deceased Purushotham and Karthik ran away from the said place towards Rajendranagar. PW.3 has further stated in his cross-examination that he do not know whether the names of the persons who have assaulted is Praveen, Santhosh, Maggi, Babu and Mohan. He also denied the suggestion to put to him that said 5 persons assaulted him with hockey stick. PW.3 in his cross-examination also deposed that only accused No.4, 5 and 8 have beaten him. When it is suggested to him that the police have came to spot and police have sent him to hospital in the ambulance, PW.3 has stated that the police have 1st took him to police station and thereafter police have sent him to the hospital. PW.3 in his cross-examination has not identified MO.4 flower part and hockey sticks seized in this case as the material objects used for assaulting Purushotham. He has also denied the suggestion put him that the police have took his statement as per Ex.P.3. PW.3 in his cross-examination by accused side has admitted the fact that he had not gone to police station after he was discharged from the hospital. PW.3 in his cross examination has also clearly admitted that since it was dark at the time of the alleged incident, he cannot 12 S.C.No.30/2014 say exactly who has assaulted at the time. PW.3 in his cross- examination has also clearly admitted that he has deposed in the court as per the information given by the police. He has also admitted that he is seeing accused No.2, 4 and 8 for the 1 st time before the court at the time of his chief examination. He has also deposed in his cross-examination that he do not know how the accused No.6 is connected with the alleged incident. Under these facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that evidence of P.W.2 cannot be believable one to order to come to conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offence. The evidence of P.W.2 requires corroboration.
20. PW.4 is also one of the material witness to the prosecution case. According to the prosecution, he was also present along with the PW.3 and PW.11 at the time of the alleged incident. But PW.3 has completely turned hostile to the prosecution case and he has not deposed anything about the accused committing the alleged offences on PW.3 and P.W.11 and about he witnessing the same. Hence, PW.4 was treated as hostile and he was cross examined the Learned Public Prosecutor. But nothing has been elicited during the course of his cross examination to prove that he was present at the time of alleged incident and he has witnessed the accused committing the alleged offence on PW.3 and PW.11.
21. PW.7, PW.8, PW.14 and PW.15 are the eyewitness to the alleged incident. They have also not supported the prosecution case. They have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. They have not deposed anything about they witnessing the accused assaulting Purushotham and PW.3 and about they 13 S.C.No.30/2014 witnessing accused committing the murder of Purushotham. Hence, all these 4 eyewitness were treated as hostile and they were cross examine by Learned Public Prosecutor. But nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross examination to prove that they were present at the time of alleged incident and they have seen the accused committing the alleged offence of murder of Purushotham and the accused attempting to murder of PW.3 Sharath Kumar. Further nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross-examination to prove that they have given statements before the police by stating that they have seen the accused committing the alleged offences. Hence the evidence of these 4 witnesses is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged charge against the accused.
22. PW.5 the doctor in his examination in chief has deposed about he examining PW.3 at Mento Hospital, Bangalore and he issuing wound certificate of PW.3 as per Ex.P.5. Ex.P.5 in his cross examination has admitted the suggestion put to him that if person fall on ground or on the rough surface, injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.5 might occur.
23. PW.6 Seizer mahazar has also not supported the prosecution case and he has not deposed anything about conduct of Ex.P.6 mahazar in his presence and seizure of hockey sticks in his presence. Hence PW.6 was treated as hostile and he was cross examine by Learned Public Prosecutor. But nothing material has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.6 to prove that mahazar as per Ex.P.6 conducted in his presence and seizure of 3 hockey sticks by conducting the mahazar as per Ex.P.6. Further nothing material has been elicited during the course of cross 14 S.C.No.30/2014 examination to prove that he gave statement before the police as per Ex.P.7.
24. PW.9 and 13 are inquest mahazar witness have also not supported to the prosecution case and they have not anything about conduct of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in their presence. Nothing has been elicited during the course of their cross- examination by learned PP to prove that in their presence mahazar as per Ex.P.2 was conducted. Hence the evidence of PW.9 and 13 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the conduct of the Ex.P.9 inquest mahazar.
25. PW.10 is the Police constable who brought the clothes of deceased from the Victoria Hospital to the police station and who has produced those clothes before the IO along with this report. Evidence of PW.10 is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged charge against the accused .
26. PW.12, the doctor in his examination in chief has deposed that on 05/11/2012 at about 6.00 p.m he has examined CW.2 with the history of assault who was brought by PC.No.3194 of Koramangala police station. He has also deposed that he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.12. P.W.12 in his cross-examination has stated that C.W.2 has not stated the names of persons assaulted him. He has also committed in his cross-examination that injuries mentioned in Ex.P.12 might have occur if any person met with motor accident.
27. PW.16 Police constable in his chief examination has deposed that he took the seized articles from the police station to 15 S.C.No.30/2014 FSL department as per the direction of inspector and handed over the same FSL authorities to took acknowledgement from them and gave it Investigating Officer along with his report produced at Ex.P.15. His evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged charge sheet against the accused.
28. PW.17 in his examination in chief has stated that he is the president to Koramangala, Kannada Yuvakara Sangha and deposed that they have organized Kannada Rajosthava and Annamma Devi Jatra from their association and all functions were conducted smoothly and no untruly incident took place in the said jatra or Kannada Rajostava. He has not deposed anything about quarrel took place between Rajendranagar slum boys and the Koramangala boys. Hence, he was treated as hostile and he was cross-examined by learned PP. But nothing has been elicited during the course of his cross-examination to prove the occurrence of the alleged incident during Annamma Devi Jatra between the accused and Rajendranagar Slum boys and about he witnessing the same and giving statement before the police about the same.
28. PW.18 in his examination in chief has deposed abut he apprehending accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 and producing them before the IO along with report. PW.18 is not the eyewitness to the incident and his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the commission of alleged offence by the accused.
29. PW.19, Investigating Officer in his examination in chief has deposed about the he receiving 1st information from CW.1 on 05/11/2012 at about 9.00 p.m and deposed about he registering Cr.No.501/12 against the accused. P.W.19 has further deposed in 16 S.C.No.30/2014 his chief-examination about he conducting of spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 in the place of allege incident and seizure of MO.1 to 6 at the time of conducting the spot mahazar. PW.19 further deposed in his examination in chief that he has conducted inquest mahazar of deceased Purushotham as per Ex.P.2 in Victoria hospital, Bangalore. PW.19 in his examination in chief has deposed that he has recorded statement all the witnesses and he has received PM report of deceased Purushotham and recorded the voluntarily statement of the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8. PW.19 has further deposed in his examination in chief that the accused have hold him that they will produce the hockey sticks alleged to have been used by them from the alleged offences and they have shown 3 hockey sticks in the open space situated near Halledoddamma temple of Koramangala. PW.19 has further deposed that he has conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.6 in the said place and seized MO.1 to 3 in the said place as shown by the accused. PW.19 has further deposed in his examination in chief that he has sent the seized article to the FSL department for scientific examination and further deposed that he has received wound certificate of CW.2 as per Ex.P. 5 and P.12 and received acknowledgement from FSL about receipt of the seized article. Ex.P.19 has further deposed in his examination in chief that he after conducting the entire investigation of the case has filed the charge sheet against the accused on the basis of this statements recorded by him and on the basis of the documents collected by him.
30. The evidence of Investigating Officer about conduct of mahazar and about giving of complaint as per Ex.P.1 and about seizure of MO.1 to 6 is not supported by the evidence of PW.1.
17S.C.No.30/2014 Further the evidence of IO about seizure mahazar, the inquest mahazar and spot mahazar is also not supported by the evidence any of the mahazar witnesses. Further if any of the eyewitness have not deposed anything about they giving statement before PW.19 regarding the alleged incident. Further evidence of P.W.3 is also not corroborated by the evidence of the PW.1 or by the evidence of any of the independent eyewitness. The inconsistence and uncorroborated testimony of PW.3 alone cannot be believed in order to come to the conclusion of the accused have committed the alleged offence murder of Purushotham and they have attempted to commit murder of PW.3. Further only on the basis of evidence of IO and the doctor, it can be held that the accused have committed the alleged offence of murder of Purushotham and accused have attempted to commit murder of PW.3. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt about the involvement of accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 in commission of alleged offence attempt of murder of Purushotham and alleged offence murder of PW.3. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, place and time and alleged chargesheet the accused No.4, 5,6 and 8 were the members of unlawful assembly along with other accused with common intention of committing murder of Purushotham and PW.3 and accused No.4,5,6 and 8 with the said common intention have murdered Purushotham and attempted to murder PW.3. For the discussion made above, the evidence of PW.1 to 19 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused have 18 S.C.No.30/2014 committed all the offences as alleged in Point No.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubts. As such, I am of the opinion that benefits of doubts should go in favour of accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 regarding commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in points No.1 to
6. Accordingly, I answer the Points No.1 to 6 in negative.
31. Point No.7: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149 of IPC .
The bail bond of accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 and their surety bond shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 are set at liberty.
The case against the other accused is not yet committed by the 8th ACMM court, Bengaluru in CC.No.2331/2013. Only case against accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 is committed. As such, MO.1 to 17 are order to be kept intact till disposal of the said case against the other accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of January, 2023).
PRAMODA Digitally signed by
PRAMODA B G
BG Date: 2023.01.16 17:42:24
+0000
(B.G.Pramoda)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 : Shivananda P.W.2 : Mohan S. P.W.3 : Sharath Kumar 19 S.C.No.30/2014 P.W.4 : Karthik P.W.5 : Dr.Vidyadevi P.W.6 : Alam P.W.7 : Janardhana P.W.8 : Pramod P.W.9 : Elango P.W.10 : Chikkanna P.W.11 : D.N.Nataraj P.W.12 : Dr.Thyagaraju P.W.13 : Narayana S. P.W.14 : Krishappa P.W.15 : Palani P.W.16 : Muniraju P.W.17 : Venugopala P.W.18 : Rajashekar P.W.19 : Prashanth Babu D. Documents marked for the prosecution : Ex.P.1 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 : Inquest mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2(b &c) : Signatures of P.W.2 and P.W.9 Ex.P.3 : Portion in statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4 : Portion in statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.3(a) : Portion in statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5 : Wound certificate Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P.6 : Mahazar Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.7 : Portion in statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.8 : Portion in statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.9 : Portion in statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.10 : Report of P.W.10 Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.11 : Complaint Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.12 : Wound certificate Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.13 : Portion of statement of P.W.14 Ex.P.14 : Portion of statement of P.W.15 Ex.P.15 : Report given by P.W.16 20 S.C.No.30/2014 Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.16 : Portion of statement of P.W.17 Ex.P.17 : Report Ex.P.17 (a) : Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.18 : FSL report Ex.P.19 : FIR Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.20 & 20(a) : P.F.No.206/2012 and dignature Ex.P.21 & 21(a) : Mahazar and signature Ex.P.22 : P.F.No.209/2012 Ex.P.23 & 23(a) : P.M. report and signature Ex.P.24 & 24(a) : Report and signature Ex.P.25 & 25(a) : Voluntary statement and signature Ex.P.26 & 26(a) : Voluntary statement and signature Ex.P.27 & 27(a) : Voluntary statement of accused and signature Ex.P.28 & 28(a) : P.F.No.211/2012 and signature Ex.P.29 & 29(a) : P.F.No.214/2012 and signature Ex.P.30 and 30(a) : Endorsement and signature Witnesses examined for the Accused: NIL Documents marked for the Accused: NIL
Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
M.O.1 : Blood stained cotton M.O.2 : Hockey stick piece M.O.3 : Another blood stained cotton M.O.4 : Plastic pot M.O.1(a) to 4(a) : Signature of P.W.1 M.O.5 : Chappal (left leg) M.O.6 : Chappal (right leg) M.O.1(b) to 4(b) : Signature of P.W.2 M.O.7 : Blue colour T-shirt M.O.8 : Blue colour jeans pant M.O.9 to 11 : Hockey sticks M.O.12 : Blue colour full shirt M.O.13 : Black colour full shirt M.O.14 : Green colour shirt M.O.15 : Green colour inner wear 21 S.C.No.30/2014 M.O.16 : One pair of shoe and socks M.O.17 : Blood stained glass. Digitally signed by PRAMODA PRAMODA B G BG Date: 2023.01.16 17:42:41 +0000 LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bangalore. 22 S.C.No.30/2014 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER
Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 302, 307, 120(B) R/w Sec.149 of IPC .
The bail bond of accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 and their surety bond shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 are set at liberty.
The case against the other accused is not yet committed by the 8th ACMM court, Bengaluru in CC.No.2331/2013. Only case against accused No.4, 5, 6 and 8 is committed. As such, MO.1 to 17 are order to be kept intact till disposal of the said case against the other accused.
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.