Bangalore District Court
State By K.S. Layout Police Station vs No. : 1. Avinash on 25 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 25th day of OCTOBER 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.2163/2017
Complainant : State by K.S. Layout Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Avinash,
S/o Naganna,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.232, Anjaneya Temple road,
Avalahalli, Girinagara,
Bengaluru.
2. Suresh Gowda,
S/o Rajugowda,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.16, 3rd Main,
Dattatreya Nagara,
Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. A.R. Pawar, advocate )
2 C.C. No.2163/2017
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.S. Layout Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.448 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, C.W. 1 Smt. Rukmini Bai along with her husband C.W. 2 Sri. Hanuman Singh and her son C.W. 3 Sri. Anil Singh are residing at house bearing No.757, situated at 5 th Main Road, ISRO Layout, within the limits of K.S. Layout police station, C.W. 3 Sri. Anil Singh being a civil engineer, purchased a vehicle bearing No.KA-05-JJ-
3718 of TM company through Bajaj Finance and used to pay installment every month. In the month of April 2016, C.W. 3 delayed the payment of installment, as such, accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, illegally trespassed into the house of C.W. 1, abused C.W. 1 and 2 in filthy language and thereby committed aforesaid offences. Therefore, C.W.1 Smt. Rukmini Bai has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, recorded the statement of 3 C.C. No.2163/2017 witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 and 2 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused persons as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 504 r/w 34 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined the C.W. 1 and 2 of this case as P.W. 1 and 2 and got marked three documents at Ex.P1 to P.3. At this stage, it is brought to court notice that the complainant being known person to accused persons, have compromised the matter among themselves, as such, complainant is not intending to prosecute this case against them. Therefore, in order to promote harmonious relationship among themselves evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required by rejecting the 4 C.C. No.2163/2017 prayer of learned A.P.P. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, recording of accused statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
8.The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, C.W. 1 Smt. Rukmini Bai along with her husband C.W. 2 Sri. Hanuman Singh and her son C.W. 3 Sri. Anil Singh are residing at house bearing No.757, situated at 5 th Main Road, ISRO Layout, within the limits of K.S. Layout police station, C.W. 3 Sri. Anil Singh being a civil engineer, purchased a vehicle bearing No.KA-05-JJ-3718 of TM company through Bajaj Finance and used to pay installment every month. In the month of April 2016, C.W. 3 delayed the payment of installment, as such, accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, illegally trespassed into the house of C.W. 1 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.448 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of common intention, illegally trespassed into the house of C.W. 1, abused C.W. 1 and 2 in filthy language and and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.504 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. What Order?5 C.C. No.2163/2017
9.My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3: As per final order for the following REASONS
10.Points No.1 and 2: Both these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
11. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 08 witnesses and successful in examining only two witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 and 2. This case has been registered on the back ground of illegal trespass into the house of C.W. 1 and abusing them in filthy language by the accused persons. In this connection the complainant Smt. Rukmini Bai is examined as P.W.1. During the course of trial, P.W.1 has completely turned hostile, has not deposed anything against the accused persons. So also, P.W. 2 who is the husband of complainant has also turned hostile, not supported the case of prosecution. As such, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses. Later, it is brought to the court notice that, complainant being the known person of accused 6 C.C. No.2163/2017 persons, have compromised the matter among themselves and are living harmoniously in their respective places. Therefore, in order to promote harmonious relationship among the complainant and accused persons, the evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
12.Point No.3: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 448 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of October 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
7 C.C. No.2163/2017ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Smt. Rukmini Bai P.W. 2: Hanuman Singh
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P. 2 : Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.3 : Statement of P.W. 2
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
8 C.C. No.2163/2017
Judgment pronounced in Open
Court vide separate:-
ORDER
Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 448 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
9 C.C. No.2163/2017