Bangalore District Court
State By Parappana Agrahara vs Nos.1 To 6 For The Offences Punishable ... on 20 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 20th day of April 2015
Present : Sri. J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.CC No 15299/2012
2.Date of Offence 6-12-2011
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara
Police Station
4.Accused 1.Francis S/o Swamidas, aged 29
years, residing at Hosaragigudda
Slum, J.P.Nagar II Phase, Bangalore
(UTP No.4854/2011)
2. Siddaraju @ Sidda S/o Dasapa,
aged 23 years, residing at behind
Shanimahatma temple,
Manjunathanagar, Bagalagunte,
Bangalore
3.Yallappa @ Thite S/o Nagarajappa,
aged 22 years, residing at
Kanakadasa road, near
Duggallamma temple,
Veerabhadrapalya, Doddaballapur,
Bangalore rural district (UTP
No.1100/11),
4. Mahesha @ Dasa S/o Mahadev,
aged 25 years, No.1,
Devanantharapura Street,
Venkataramanagar, Chamarajpet,
2 C.C.No.15299/2012
Bangalore,
5.Chappar Manja @ Manjunath S/o
Hanumanthappa, aged 26 years,
Gadimuddanna road,
Meenakshinagar, Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore (UTP No.2696/12)
6.Sathya @ Sathyavelu S/o
Chandrashekar, aged 24 years, 7th
cross, near Kurubarahalli bus stop,
Bangalore
(Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 split
up)
5. Offences complained U/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 323,
of 353 r/w 149 of IPC
6.Plea Accused No.3 pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused No.3 is acquitted
8.Date of Order 20-4-2015
REASONS
The Inspector of Police, Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the
accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 323, 353 r/w 149 of IPC. During the
pendency of this case, after enlarging the accused Nos.1, 2, 4
to 6 on bail, they absconded and as such vide order dated
22-12-2012 this case against accused Nos.1, 4 to 6 was split
3 C.C.No.15299/2012
up and registered separate case in C.C.No.8640/2013.
Subsequently, even accused No.2 remained absent before the
court and as such vide order dated 22-1-2014 this case
against accused No.2 was also split up and ordered to tie up
the case against accused No.2 in split up case registered
against accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 in C.C.No.8640/2013.
Therefore, the case against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 was
split up and registered separate case in C.C.No.8640/2013.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
6-12-2011 at 2.40 p.m., within the limits of Parappana
Agrahara Police Station, Bangalore in view of the order of
transfer of convicted prisoner No.11401 by name Krishna @
Korangu and nine others from Bangalore Central jail to Bellary
Central jail, when C.W.2 Lokesh Naika, C.W.3 Jogaiah, C.W.4
Rajan, C.W.5 Thimmaiah, C.W.6 Maurthi the D.A.R. police
staff and central prison staff were shifting the said ten
convicted prisoners in Government vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-01-G-3830 and when the said vehicle reached on
central road of said prison, this accused No.3 Yellappa @ Thite
UTP No.1100/11 and five other under trial prisoners formed
into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons that is
stones, with common object to assault the said Krishna @
Korangu and his followers, joined together and formed
unlawful assembly, committed rioting, pelted stones which
were stored by PWD Department inside the prison for contract
4 C.C.No.15299/2012
work, damaged the said bus and caused simple injuries to
driver of bus C.W.2 Lokesh Naika herein to deter him and
C.Ws.3 to 6 the police staff of DAR and staff of central prison,
from discharging their duties and thereby committed aforesaid
offences.
3. The accused No.3 is in judicial custody. On receipt of
chargesheet this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
No.3. After hearing on charges, this court framed the charge
for the offences punishable U/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 332
r/w.149 of IPC and questioned the accused No.3 regarding the
charge made against him, he denied the charge and claimed to
be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked three
documents at Exs.P1 to P3 and also marked two material
objects as per M.Os.1 and 2. C.Ws.4, 6, 8 to 15 did not turn
up before this court, hence by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP.,
this court dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused No.3 as
required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and submitted that he has no
defence evidence.
5 C.C.No.15299/2012
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
No.3 has examined five witnesses. P.W.1
Lakshminarayana.T.H is the complainant and eyewitness to
the alleged incident. P.W.2 Krishnakumar is the Jail
Superintendent, P.W.3 Jogaiah is the Police Sub Inspector of
CAR(south), P.W.4 Lokesh Naika the driver of the bus bearing
registration No.KA-01-G-3830 and P.W.5 M.G.Thimmaiah the
Head Constable of DAR, are the eyewitnesses to the alleged
incident. It appears, the learned Sr.APP., has given up the
examination of C.W.4. Since C.Ws.13 and 14 the spot
mahazar witnesses have left the given address, my learned
predecessor in office has dropped the examination of said
witnesses. Further inspite of giving sufficient opportunities,
the prosecution has not examined C.Ws.1, 8 to 12 the other
eyewitnesses and C.W.15 the Investigating Officer.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence on record. As
stated above, P.W.1 T.H.Lakshminarayana, P.W.2
Krishnakumar, P.W.3 Jogaiah, P.W.4 Lokesh Naika and P.W.5
Thimmaiah are the eyewitnesses to the said incident. The
testimony of P.W.2 the Jail Superintendent indicating that due
to administration problem order has been passed to shift the
convicted prisoner Krishna and nine others from his jail to
6 C.C.No.15299/2012
Bellary jail. Accordingly, he sought the escort from DAR to
shift the said under trial prisoners to the Bellary jail. In this
regard, on 16-2-2011 the escort police visited the central
prison. Due to transfer of said convicted prisoners there was
heat atmosphere inside the jail premises.
9. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 further indicating that on
the same day at 4-40 p.m. they boarded the said convicted
prisoner Krishna and nine others to Government bus bearing
No.KA-01-G-3830 and were coming towards main gate. When
the said bus reached on the central road of jail premise, the
present accused and five others took the stones stored by
P.W.D. Department inside the jail premises to conduct repair
work and pelted to the said bus. As a result of which, the
front and left side glasses of said bus was broken into pieces
and left side chassis and door were also damaged. Further
P.W.4 the driver of the said bus has sustained simple injuries.
Their evidence further indicating that due to said incident
there was obstruction to them from discharging their duties.
10. As stated above, P.W.5 is also the eyewitness to the
said incident. His testimony indicating that on 6-12-2011 he
visited central jail premise in jail bus bearing No.KA-01-G-
3830, got boarded ten prisoners to shift them to the Bellary
jail. At about 2-40 p.m., when the said bus was proceeding
towards main gate of said prison, the opposite parties of
7 C.C.No.15299/2012
prisoners who were boarded in the bus, pelted stones to the
bus. Since he was inside the bus, he has not noticed the
persons who pelted the stones. Since P.W.5 has not explained
the incident as per his statement recorded by the Investigating
Officer, the Learned Sr.APP treated this witness as hostile and
further cross-examined him. In the cross examination of
learned Sr.APP., P.W.5 has admitted the suggestion that on 8-
12-2011 the accused persons with an intention to assault the
prisoners Krishna and his nine followers, formed into an
unlawful assembly, restrained the bus in which said Krishna
and nine others boarded, pelted stones to the said bus, caused
damages to the said bus and also injury to driver of said bus.
Further he admitted the suggestion that due to restrain of the
bus and pelting of stones by accused persons, there was an
obstruction to discharge his duty. But he denied the
suggestion that even though he noticed the act of accused
Nos.1 to 6 in causing obstruction to discharge his duty as
public servant, he is deposing falsely.
11. It is to be noted here that for want of production of
documents, the further examination of P.W.2 the Jail
Superintendent was deferred at the request of learned Sr.APP.
But subsequently, said P.W.2 has not at all tendered for
further-examination. As per well-settled law if the evidence of
any witness recorded in part, for some reason his further
evidence has been deferred, subsequently if the said witness
8 C.C.No.15299/2012
did not tendered for further examination, in such
circumstances whatever the part of evidence of said witness
cannot be looked into. In the instant case, though P.W.2 has
given his part of evidence, subsequently he has not tendered
for further examination. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.2
cannot be looked into.
12. It appears P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination
by the learned counsel for the accused No.2. In the cross-
examination P.W.1 has admitted that he has not affixed the
copy of order of shifting the prisoner Krishna and nine others
to Bellary jail, along with compliant. In my opinion, merely
because the said copy is not annexed with the complaint, no
inference can be drawn that no order was passed shifting the
under trial prisoners Krishna and nine others to Bellary jail.
On the contrary, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 clearly
indicating that since the order was passed to shift the said
Krishna and nine other prisoners to Bellary jail, these P.Ws.1,
3 to 5 boarded them to the bus bearing No.KA-01-G-3830 and
when they were proceeding towards main gate, the incident
was taken place. In the further cross-examination, P.W.1 has
further admitted that no injuries caused to jail staff and police
staffs who were inside the bus. In my opinion, merely because
no injuries caused to jail staffs and police staffs in the said
incident, no inference can be drawn that no such incident was
taken place. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5
9 C.C.No.15299/2012
clearly indicating that due to pelting of stones by present
accused and five others, there was damages to bus and injury
to the driver of the said bus P.W.4 herein. P.W.1 has further
admitted that he has not mentioned the storage of one load
small stones inside the jail premises. On the basis of this
admission it was submitted that no stones were available
inside the jail premises to cause damages to the bus. In my
opinion, merely because no mention in the complaint that
PWD Department has stored small stones inside the jail
premises to carry contract work, no inference can be drawn
that no such small stones were stored and available to the
accused persons to damage the bus and to cause injury to
P.W.4. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is very much clear that
after lodging of the complaint, the Investigating Officer visited
the spot, prepared the mahazar and seized the broken glass
pieces of the bus and also four small stones used for the
commission of the offences. Apart from this, P.W.1 has
identified the seized stones and also broken glass pieces as per
M.O.1 and 2. Absolutely, nothing worth is elicited from P.W.1
to doubt his testimony in the matter of seizure of stones as
well as the broken glass pieces by the Investigating Officer
during the course of investigation. Further the evidence of
P.W. 3 to 5 clearly indicating that when the bus was
proceeding towards main gate, this accused and five others
took the stones, stored inside the jail premises, pelted to the
bus and caused damages.
10 C.C.No.15299/2012
13. In the further cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted
that he got provided treatment to the injured driver of the said
bus. It is to be noted here that the Investigating Officer has
not filed the wound certificate of P.W.4. P.W.4 in his evidence
has stated that since there was only some minor injury on his
neck, to proceed to the Bellary on the same day, he on his own
treated by using the medicines available inside the first aid
box in the said bus. In view of admission of P.W.4, since P.W.4
has obtained treatment on his own by using the medical
materials in the first aid box and not obtained any treatment
in any hospital, that is the reason why, the Investigating
Officer has not collected any medical certificate of PW 4.
Therefore, merely because P.W.1 has admitted that he
provided treatment to the injured and since the Investigating
Officer has not produced medical certificate, no inference can
be drawn that P.W.4 has not sustained any injuries in the said
incident.
14. P.W.1 has further admitted that the Police Station of
Parappana Agrahara is about 200 feet from his jail premises.
He further admitted that on the same day he has not lodged
the complaint to the police. As per the case of the prosecution,
the incident was taken place on 6-12-2011 and the complaint
was lodged to the police on 7-12-2011 at 1-30 p.m. Therefore,
there is delay in lodging of the complaint. Ex.P1 is the
11 C.C.No.15299/2012
complaint. It appears P.W.1 has not assigned any reason for
delay in lodging of the complaint. However, in the further
chief examination, P.W.1 has assigned the reason that since
there was serious quarrel inside the jail premises, he was busy
in maintaining the law and order problem, that is the reason
why he has not lodged the complaint on the same day. In the
cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that immediately after
the incident in order to avoid further untoward incident inside
the jail premises, though the bus to some extent damaged,
P.W.4 has sustained some minor injuries, by providing first
aid treatment to P.W.4, he shifted the said ten persons to the
Bellary jail on the same day. From the said evidence of P.W.1
an inference can be drawn that due to heat movement in
shifting the ten prisoners to Bellary jail, this P.W.1 being the
head of the central prison was expected to maintain law and
order problem inside the jail premises. Since there was a
serious incident inside the jail premises and this P.W.1 was in
the process of maintaining the law and order problem, and
was in the process of shifting the said ten prisoners to the
Bellary jail, naturally he was not free to approach the police
and to lodge the complaint. Therefore, I find there is bonafide
reason on the part of P.W.1 in not lodging the complaint
immediately after the incident. Therefore, whatever the delay
in lodging the complaint cannot be given much importance
and cannot be based to doubt the testimony of P.W.1 and the
case of the prosecution.
12 C.C.No.15299/2012
15. In the further examination P.W.1 has admitted that
when the Investigating Officer visited the said central jail to
prepare mahazar, only four stones used for the commission of
the offence were available. He further stated that stones
pelted to the bus were outside the jail premises. Admittedly,
the Investigating Officer has seized only four stones used for
the commission of the offence. Therefore, merely because the
Investigating Officer has seized only four stones, which were
available on the spot, no inference can be drawn that this
accused has not committed any offences. In my opinion, any
defect in the investigation cannot be based to discard the
trustworthy evidence. Absolutely nothing worth is elicited
from P.W.1 to doubt his testimony.
16. P.W.3 is also subjected to cross-examination. It
appears, except denying his testimony absolutely nothing
worth is elicited from him to doubt his testimony. However, in
the further examination, P.W.1 has admitted that on the same
day they took the said ten prisoners in the said bus and
reached to Bellary. It is no doubt true that on the same day
this P.W.3 and others shifted the said ten prisoners to the
Bellary jail in the same bus. In my opinion, merely because on
the same day this P.W.3 and others shifted ten prisoners to
the Bellary jail, no inference can be drawn that no such
incident was taken place. As stated above, the evidence of
P.W.1 indicating that due to shifting of ten prisoners there was
13 C.C.No.15299/2012
heat movement inside the jail premises and there was also an
incident of pelting stones. In order to avoid further untoward
incident inside the jail premises, this P.W.3 and others
proceeded towards Bellary even though the said bus was
damaged. Therefore, no inference can be drawn basing upon
the admission of P.W.3 that no incident taken place as
narrated by P.W.3.
17. From the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 it is very
much clear that on 6-12-2011 the officers of Central prison
due to administrative problem have decided to shift the
convicted prisoner Krishna @ Korangu and nine others from
central prison Bangalore to Bellary prison. Accordingly, they
sought police help, in turn the police officers and staffs
working in DAR were deputed to take the said prisoners from
Bangalore central jail to Bellary. When the police officer and
staff of DAR along with the jail staff boarded the said ten
prisoners into Government bus bearing No.KA-01-G-3830 and
when the said bus reached on the center of the road of the
said prison this accused and five others with an intention to
assault the said persons formed into unlawful assembly took
the small stones stored inside the jail premises by the P.W.D.
Department for contract work, in order to prevent the said jail
staff and police officers from shifting the said ten persons to
Bellary jail pelted the stones on the bus and as a result of
which the glasses of bus broken and the driver of the said bus
14 C.C.No.15299/2012
P.W.4 herein has sustained injury and thereby this accused
and five others have caused obstruction from discharging the
duty as public servant. The testimony of P.W.1 further
indicating that after the said incident he lodged the complaint
to the Parappana Agrahara Police station. Inturn the Inspector
of Parappana Agrahara Police station registered the case
visited the spot, prepared the mahazar and seized the stones
used for the commission of the offences and also seized the
broken glass piece of bus. In my opinion, the act of this
accused and five others amounts to cause of loss to the
Government by way of damaging the Government bus, the act
of causing hurt to P.W.4 amounts to voluntarily causing hurt
to public servant while discharging his duty as a public
servant. Further, the act of this accused and others in
obstructing P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 amounts to use of criminal force
to deter them from discharging their duty. Accordingly, this
court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully
proved the guilt against this accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, this court found guilt of this accused for the
offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 332 r/w 149
of IPC. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court found guilt of accused No.3 for the offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 332 r/w 149 of IPC.
Call on, to hear regarding sentence.
15 C.C.No.15299/2012I have heard the accused and also his learned standing counsel on sentence. The accused has submitted that he is in judicial custody from 21-12-2011 continuously till this date. Therefore, the period in which he has been in judicial custody continuously may be treated as sentenced period and he may be set at liberty. He has further submitted that no other cases are pending against him and no court has convicted him for any of the offences. Due to spur of movement he involved in the said rioting and he had no intention to cause assault either to Krishna or any others prisoners. He hails from poor family and he has no any permanent source of income to maintain his family members. Since he is unable to bear the expenses in obtaining bail he has not made any attempt. He has realised his mistake and in future he will not give any scope to commit this type of mistake. In order to rectify himself, a chance may be given and he may be set at liberty by treating his period in the judicial custody as sentenced period.
On the other hand, the Learned Sr.APP has submitted that due to act of this accused and five others, it was very difficulty to the jail authorities to maintain the law and order problem inside the jail premises. If any prisoner commits criminal act the other prisoners naturally would follow and it would very difficult to the jail authorities to control the criminal act of each prisoner as thousands of prisoners are lodged. In order to give message to other prisoners and also 16 C.C.No.15299/2012 the general public it is just and necessary to pass maximum sentence.
I have perused the entire file. The order sheet indicating that for the first time on 21-12-2011 this accused has been produced before the court and from the said date till this date he has been in judicial custody continuously. In all this accused is in judicial custody for total period of three years five months. In my opinion, the accused is entitled to set off the said period out of the sentence period to be passed by this court. Moreover, no previous conviction is proved against this accused. Since this accused is continuously in judicial custody for more than three years and no previous conviction is proved against him, it is just and necessary to take some lenient view while passing the sentence. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is convicted for the offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 332 r/w 149 of IPC.
Consequently, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 143 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence u/s 144 of IPC.17 C.C.No.15299/2012
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence u/s 147 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 148 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence u/s 427 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 332 of IPC.
The accused is in judicial custody for a period of 3 years 5 months. Since the accused is entitled to set off the said period, the accused has already suffered sentence for a period of 3 years 5 months.
Since the accused has already suffered sentence, office to issue intimation to jail authority to release the accused No.3 forth with if he is not required in any other case.
M.O.1 and 2 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
18 C.C.No.15299/2012ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, T.H.Lakshminarayana, P.W.2, Krishnakumar, P.W.3, Jogaiah, P.W.4, Lokesh Naik, P.W.5, M.G.Thimmappa;
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Complaint, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2, Mahazar, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P3, Statement of P.W.5;
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 Glass pieces, M.O.2, Four stones; LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS &
MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.
19 C.C.No.15299/2012Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER Acting under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is convicted for the offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 332 r/w 149 of IPC.
Consequently, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 143 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence u/s 144 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence u/s 147 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 148 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence u/s 427 of IPC.
Further, the accused No.3 shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 332 of IPC.
The accused is in judicial custody for a period of 3 years 5 months. Since the accused is entitled to set off the said period, the accused has already suffered sentence for a period of 3 years 5 months.
Since the accused has already suffered sentence, office to issue intimation to jail authority to release the accused No.3 forth with if he is not required in any other case.
M.O.1 and 2 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.