Bangalore District Court
State By vs Sri. Ramanji on 19 April, 2022
1
SC.No.839/2020
KABC010184362020
Presented on : 19-10-2020
Registered on : 19-10-2020
Decided on : 19-04-2022
Duration : 1 year 5 months 20 days
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE; BANGALORE CITY [CCH-66]
PRESENT
SRI.SUBHASH SANKAD,
B.A.,LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 19 th day of April, 2022
S.C.No.839/2020
COMPLAINANT/S:- STATE BY,
Parappana Agrahara police station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED:- SRI. RAMANJI
s/o Gangadri,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.40/4, Gundu Thoppu,
Ambedkar Nagara, Doddanagamangala,
Electronic City Post, Bengaluru-100.
(By Sri. R.R., Advocate)
2
SC.No.839/2020
Date of Commencement of 18.02.2020
offences
Date of report of offences 17.02.2020
Name of complainant Sri. Ravi H.S., HC-8781
Date of recording of 28.10.2021
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 07.03.2022
Offence complained of U/s. 353, 307, 504 IPC.
Opinion of the judge Convicted
* * * *
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by Police Inspector, Parappana Agrahara police station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 504 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that .- On 17.02.2020 night at about 10.30 pm., on receipt of the information from PW4 he went to 2nd Phase Electronic City, Doddanagamangala near Gundu Thoppu lake, PW4 stated that the accused under the influence of alcohol are causing disturbance to the public. When PW1 along with his officials went to the house No.40/4 and knocked the door, the accused shouted and also abused him in a foul language. When PW1 again knocked the door the accused with an intention to kill PW1 and with the knowledge that by his act by going to cause the death of PW1 brought MO.1- long, iron rod and tried to assault PW1. PW1 somehow managed 3 SC.No.839/2020 to escape and he pushed PW1. With regard to this incident, PW1 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parappana Agrahara police station received the complaint and registered FIR No.57/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 504 of IPC. The investigation in this matter is held and charge sheet was submitted before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307, 504 of IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the same for trial. After committal, the case has been made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
3. Since the accused sought legal aid counsel, Sri. Rajesh Rao, standing counsel was appointed to the accused. The accused is on bail. The accused and his counsel were heard at the stage of hearing before the charge. Since there was prima facie material against the accused, benefit of Section 227 Cr.P.C., was not given to the accused. Thereafter, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 504 of IPC was framed and read over to the accused. The accused has denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the case was posted for trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all examined 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and material object was identified as MO.1. After conclusion of the trial, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. His statements 4 SC.No.839/2020 are recorded as he has stated.
...
5. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration are.-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 17.02.2020 night at about 10.30 p.m., near Gundu Thoppu lake at Ambedkarnagar, the accused with an intention and with the knowledge that by his act he is going to cause the death of PW1, tried to assault PW1 with MO.1-iron rod, thereby committed an offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place the accused intentionally insulted PW1 knowing that such provocation will causing to break the public peace thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC?
3 Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the
aforementioned date, time and place the accused assaulted PW1 knowing that he is a public servant in execution of his duty and deterred from discharging his duty as a public servant thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC?
4. What Order?
7. My findings on the above said points are as under.-
5
SC.No.839/2020
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- In the Affirmative
Point No.3:- In the Affirmative
Point No.4:- As per the final order
for the following
REASONS
8. Points Nos.1 to 4:- The argument of the learned
Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has placed sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution and there is no omission or contradictions whatsoever in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays to convict the accused.
9. The learned defense counsel submitted, by reading depositions of the prosecution witnesses that the police have falsely implicated the accused in this case. The material placed by the prosecution will not prove the prosecution's case. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays to acquit the accused.
10. Before adverting to the points for consideration and the points of argument, it is necessary to refer the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
11. PW1- Ravikumar is the victim and the complainant. He state that on 17.02.2020 while he was in night duty he received message from the control room that one person under the influence 6 SC.No.839/2020 of alcohol causing disturbance to the public peace at Doddanagamangala near Gudu Thoppu. Immediately, he went to the place along with CW6-6- Thippanna PC-15248. When he reached the place CW4-Santhosh who had given information to control room told that, that person is in his house. Thereafter, the complainant knocked the door of the accused, the accused abused PW1 in a foul language from inside the house and brought one iron rod and tried to assault PW1 with an intention to kill him and he escaped the assault. Thereafter, with the help of CW4 and CW5 he apprehended the accused and took him to police station in Hoysala vehicle and produced him before CW7 and gave complaint as per Ex.P1. He has further stated that on 18.02.2020 CW7 took him to the place and asked to show the place, at his instance CW7 has prepared Ex.P2- the spot panchanama, in his presence and CW2- Elumalai and CW3-Muruga.
12. PW2-Elumalai, the pancha witness to Ex.P2- the spot panchanama. He examine to prove Ex.P2. He states that about 2 years back Parappana Agrahara police had came near Gundu Thoppu at Doddanagamangala. CW1 had summoned him and CW1 pointed the place to CW7 and in that place Ex.P2 was prepared in his presence. He has further stated that in his presence police recovered MO.1, CW1 told that in the said place the accused tried to assault him with rod. PW3-Muruga, is another pancha witness to Ex.P2 has also supported the version of PW2. Both these witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
13. PW4- Santhosh, it is he who actually saw the accused 7 SC.No.839/2020 breaking the public peace under the influence of alcohol. He has further stated that after seeing the accused he dialed control room 100 in five minutes the police came to the place. After seeing the police the accused went inside in his home. He further stated that the accused - Ramanji was shouting under the influence of alcohol in a naked state, he was causing disturbance to the public. He further stated that PW1 knocked the door to open the door Ramanji, Ramanji abused PW1 in a foul language and he opened the door tried to assault PW1 with MO.1.
14. PW5- Anand, hearsay witness, Bommanahalli police station. He has stated about receiving Ex.P1- the complaint and registered FIR No.57/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307, 504 of IPC. He has also spoken about preparing Ex.P2- the spot panchanama and has recovered MO.1 under Ex.P1. PW6-Thippanna, he has supported the version of PW1. He has been established to prove the actual incident. In his evidence he has supported the version of PW1.
15. PW7- Nandish. H.N., has spoken about completing the investigation and recording the statement of the witnesses and submitting the charge sheet before the court.
16. With regard to actual incident is concerned, it is the testimony of PW1, PW4 and PW6 which have to be considered. PW1 has stated that when he knocked the door, the accused abused him in a foul language from inside. When he again knocked the door the accused opened the door and tried to assault him with 8 SC.No.839/2020 MO.1-iron rod and he escaped from the place. He has further stated that the accused pushed him due to which he fell on the ground. Since he is an injured witness, his evidence has to be given utmost importance. PW4 is the eye witness to the incident. He has also stated that the accused was causing disturbance to the public under the influence of alcohol, at his call the police came, PW1 knocked the door of the accused. The accused started shouting from inside. When he opened the door he came with iron rod which he has identified as MO.1 and tried to assault him. In the cross-examination the defense counsel has suggested that though he is having I-Phone 7 plus he did not videographed the incident. The police did not ask to give the call details. He has stated that he cannot say with whom the accused was quarreling. However, he has stated that the accused by shouting on the road was causing disturbance to the public and the accused had entered his house before the arrival of the police. The defense tried to elicit from PW4 that due to personal grudge with the accused he has given false information to the police and he has deposed falsely before the court. This suggestion has been refuted by PW4.
17. PW1 is the injured witness. In his cross-examination the defense has tried to elicit that he has not taken treatment. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has caused serious injuries to PW1. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused pushed him due to which he fell on the ground. In his cross-examination the defense has tried to elicit that MO.1 has been falsely implicated. Again this suggestion has been refuted by this witness.
9SC.No.839/2020
18. So far as with regard to actual incident is concerned, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of eye witness
-PW4.
19. More over, in his 313 Cr.P.C., statement though the accused has denied the incriminating circumstance, he has not disputed the fact that the police came to his house, knocked the door and at that time he was inside the house. He has further admitted that when he tried to assault PW1 another police official pulled PW1. Thereafter, he was taken to police station in Hoysala vehicle. He further admits that PW1 has knocked the door and he denied of abusing him in a foul language. When this is the situation it has to be held that the prosecution has proved the actual incident.
20. Further, immediately after the incident the accused was apprehended and he was taken to police station and produced before PW5. Again the accused in his 313 Cr.P.C., statement has admitted that he was apprehended on the same day. It is further case of the prosecution that on the same day PW5 went to the spot along with PW1 and prepared spot panchanama in presence of PW2 and PW3 and MO.1 was seized under Ex.P2. PW2 and PW3 are the pancha witnesses to Ex.P2-the spot panchanama. Both these witnesses have stated about participating in the panchanama proceedings and witnessing the same and attesting their signature. The defense has disputed the presence of pancha witnesses in the cross-examination. However, the same could not be done and both PW2 and PW3 have stated about in their presence. The police have seized MO.1. Again with this it has to be held that 10 SC.No.839/2020 Ex.P2- the spot panchanama is proved. PW6 is the another police official who accompanied PW1. PW1 go to the house of the accused. This witness also supported the version of PW1. Though the defense has cross-examined this witness, his version could not be falsified. With regard to actual incident is concerned, all the prosecution witnesses have supported. Hence, it has to be held that the prosecution has proved the occurrence of the incident.
21. One of the offences alleged against the accused is one under Section 307 of IPC. Since the accused has been charged with the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the presence of intention and knowledge on the part of the accused to murder PW1. So far as the intention is concerned, it is relevant to mention an observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Krishna Vs. State of Hariyana, reported in AIR 1988 SCC 2127, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that.-
'Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established there can be no offence of attempt to murder. Under Section 307 IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely 11 SC.No.839/2020 from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used. motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration it, determine the intention'.
22. Applying this observation to the present case, I would like to mention here that PW1 and his officials came to the house of the accused at the call of PW4. The circumstance of the case is that the accused was causing disturbance to the public by consuming alcohol. The evidence placed by the prosecution show that after knocking the door of the accused, the accused came out and tried to assault PW1 with MO.1. That the burden cast on the prosecution to prove that the accused tried to assault PW1 with MO.1 with an intention or knowledge to murder PW1. Here PW1 reached the place only at the call of PW4. There is no prior meeting and there is no previous altercations between PW1 and the accused. Immediately, after knocking the door the accused came and tried to assault PW1. Here the incident took place at the spur of the moment. Further, it is evident that before getting assaulted PW1 was pulled by his official. No injuries are sustained by PW1 and there is no evidence to prove premeditation on the part of the accused to commit the crime. When this is the situation it cannot be held that the accused was having intention to commit the murder of PW1. So far as the knowledge is concerned, it has to be held that the accused was under the influence of alcohol and in his 313 Cr.P.C., statement the accused denied the use of MO.1. Since the 12 SC.No.839/2020 intention of accused to murder PW1 cannot be gathered from the testimony of the witnesses it is difficult to hold that the accused has done the act with an intention to murder PW1. Since the ingredient of Section 307 of IPC are not present in the case it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'Negative'.
23. Point Nos.2 & 3:- Another charging provision is under Section 353 of IPC. Section 353 of IPC is complete, when one person assault or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, by act is committed with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. Immediately, after PW1 knocked the door the accused opened the door and tried to assault PW1, some how PW1 was escaped. This is evident from the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5. This shows that the accused has used to criminal force and another essential ingredient is that the person assaulted must be a public servant. Here PW1 is a public servant and he came to the place to prevent the accused from causing disturbance to the public, he has done in execution of his duty as a public servant. There is no specific denial by the defense about the actual incident. Even in the 313 Cr.P.C., statement the accused has admitted the arrival of PW1 and his officials in the place, and he has further admitted the knocking of the door by PW1. The testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW5 clearly 13 SC.No.839/2020 shows that the accused shouted from inside and he has also abused him in a foul language and he tried to pushed PW1. Again this shows that the accused was intending to prevent or deter PW1 from discharging his duty as a public servant. Again it has to be held that the prosecution has established the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.
24. Another offence for which the accused is charged is under Section 504 of IPC. Before discussing the evidence with regard to the offence under Section 504 of IPC, it is necessary to look into the ingredient of Section 504 of IPC. The offence under Section 504 of IPC is complete, when a person intentionally insult any person thereby cause provocation to the person and he with intention to know it to be likely that such provocation will causing to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Here the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly stated that the accused has shouted from inside. PW1 has categorically stated that the accused abused him in foul language as 'ಯಯವನನನನ ಅವನನ ಪಲನಸಸ ನವನನ ಲನನನಫರಸ, ಬನನನಳ ಮಗನನ ಎಎದನ ಬನಬಯನಯತಯತ ಬಯಗಲನ ತನಗನದನ, ನನನನನನ ಕನಬಯಎದ ದನಡದನನ'. His evidence has been supported by PW4 who is an independent witness. Even PW4 has stated that the accused has abused PW1 as 'ಪಲನಸರನ ರಯಮಯಎಜಯ ಮನನಯ ಬಯಗಲನ ಬಡದರನ. ಆಗ ರಯಮಯಎಜ ಒಳಗನಎದ ಯಯವನನನನ ಅವನನ ನಯನನ ಬರನವವದಲಲ ಎಎದನ ಬನನನಳ ಮಗನನನ ನಯನನ ಬರನವವದಲಲ ಎಎದನ ಅವಯಚಯ ಶಬಬಗಳಎದ ಬನಬದನನ'. Though the accused has denied this incriminating circumstances in his 313 Cr.P.C., statement, however, this version of prosecution witnesses could not be falsified. If the evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW4 who 14 SC.No.839/2020 has an independent witness is seen, it has to be inferred that the accused has used foul language with an intention to insult PW1 and further consequently he has given provocation and which has resulted in break of the public peace. With this I hold that the prosecution has established the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.2 & 3 in the 'Affirmative'.
Since MO.1 is found to be worthless, I order for its destruction.
25. Point No.4 :- For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 504 of IPC The accused is on bail. His bail bond and that of his surety stand cancelled.
Note:- MO.1- Iron rod is ordered to be destroyed.15
SC.No.839/2020 The order relating to disposal of the property shall be implemented after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 19th day of April, 2022) (SUBHASH SANKAD) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE I have heard the accused and his counsel on the sentence to be imposed. The accused has prayed for leniency. His counsel has submitted that the accused was in judicial custody from 18.02.2020 to 03.12.2021 i.e., for a period of 1 year 9 months and 15 days and he prays to consider the same while imposing sentence.
The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC, the same are serious in nature. He prays to reject the prayer of the defense counsel in showing sympathy.
The records reveal that the accused was arrested on 18.02.2020 and he was released on bail. He was in judicial custody from 18.02.2020 to 03.12.2021.
The accused has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 504 of IPC. Section 353 of IPC provides for 16 SC.No.839/2020 imposition of punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both and Section 504 of IPC provides for punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences and having regard to the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that an appropriate punishment needs to be imposed. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following.-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year, 9 months and 15 days, for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.
Accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
Since the accused has already undergone substantial sentence. The accused has been given set of as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
17SC.No.839/2020 Free copy of this judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 19th day of April, 2022) (SUBHASH SANKAD) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
PW1 : Ravikumar
PW2 : Elumalai
PW3 : Muruga
PW4 : Santhosh
PW5 : Anand
PW6 : Thippanna
PW7 : Nandish
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 : Panchanama
Ex.P3 : Station House Diary
Ex.P4 : FIR
18
SC.No.839/2020
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENCE:-
- Nil -
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
MO.1 : Iron rod
(SUBHASH SANKAD)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.