Bangalore District Court
State By Sampigehalli vs V.Balu S/O Ijayan on 23 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Smt. Vineetha P.Shetty B.Sc., M.A., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 23rd day of November 2015
C.C. NO.32332/2011
Complainant : State by Sampigehalli
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : V.Balu s/o Ijayan, 23 yrs,
R/at No.193, Ground Floor,
Bharath Nagar, Sariyipalya,
Hegadenagar, Bengaluru-77.
Date of offence : 13-05-2011
Offence : U/S 323, 326, 504
of IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Order : 23-11-2015
2 CC No.32332/2011
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
Accused is charged for the offences punishable under
Section 323, 326, 504 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 13-05-2011 at 6.30
p.m. in front of the house of CW1 Ramappa, accused picked
up quarrel with CW1 and abused him in filthy language and
also assaulted him with hands and kicked with legs. When
CW2 Nagalakshmi tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused hit
on her face and broke her teeth.
3. The accused appeared before the court. He is on bail
and he engaged advocate for his defence. The copies of the
charge sheet were furnished to accused. After hearing both
sides, charge for the above offences was framed, read over
and explained by my learned predecessor in office, for which,
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf
of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 are examined. Exhibits P.1 to
P.6 and MO1 are marked. Thereafter, accused is examined
3 CC No.32332/2011
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating
evidence which appeared against him. Heard the arguments
addressed by the learned Sr. APP and the learned counsel for
accused.
4. The following points arise for determination-
1) Whether the prosecution
proves that on 13-05-2011 at
6.30 p.m. in front of the house
of CW1 Ramappa, accused
picked up quarrel with CW1
and abused him in filthy
language?
2) Whether the prosecution
further proves that on the
above date, time and place
accused caused simple hurt to
CW1 by assaulting with hands
and kicking with legs?
3) Whether the prosecution
further proves that on the
above date, time and place,
4 CC No.32332/2011
accused caused grievous
injuries to CW2 Nagalakshmi
by hitting on her face and
breaking her teeth?
4) What order?
5. My findings on the above points are as under-
Point No-1: In the Negative
Point No-2: In the Negative
Point No-3: In the Negative
Point No-4: As per final order
for the following reasons
REASONS
Point No-1 to 3:
6. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid the
repetition of discussion, I have taken up Point No-1 to 3
together.
7. PW1 Ramappa is the complainant. He deposed that
on 13-05-2011 at about 6.30 p.m., he was getting his house
painted and at that time, accused No-1 arrived there and
picked up quarrel, by enquiring as to why the paint was
scattered on the ground, and kicked him with legs. At that
5 CC No.32332/2011
time, CW2 arrived there to pacify the matter, and the accused
also hit on her mouth, as a result of which her teeth were
broken.
8. PW1 lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and the police
conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2. MO1 is the broken teeth.
During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that before entering
his house, there are stones and ten steps in front of the house,
but however denied the suggestion posed on behalf of the
accused that CW2 herself slipped from the steps.
9. PW2 Nagarathnamma, the wife of PW1 has deposed
that accused picked up quarrel with him, during painting of
the house and when she tried to pacify the quarrel, the
accused hit her on the mouth, which resulted in breakage of
her teeth. During cross-examination, she pleaded inability to
state the date of alleged incident. It is in her evidence that
one Raja, the painter was present at the relevant time.
6 CC No.32332/2011
10. PW3 Inayath is the spot mahazar witness. He
deposed that the police seized MO1 after conducting the
mahazar as per Ex.P2. During cross-examination, he
deposed that he signed the mahazar at 9 p.m. But on perusal
of Ex.P2, the same is seen written from 9.15 p.m. to 10 p.m.
11. PW4 Ashraf is the alleged eye witness. She has not
supported the case of prosecution. She was treated hostile
and cross-examined by the prosecution, but nothing
favourable to its case could be elicited during her cross-
examination. She has even denied her alleged statement as
per Ex.P3. PW5 Ahmed Jan is yet another eye witness. He
equally has not supported the case of prosecution. Hence the
evidence of PW4 and 5 is not of any help to the case of
prosecution.
12. PW6 Dr. Ujma Razwi is the medical officer who
examined the injured. It is in the evidence of PW6 that on 18-
05-2011 at about 10 a.m., PW2 was examined and the
7 CC No.32332/2011
injuries noted at that time are - 1) fracture of teeth 2) pain in
the left jaw 3) pain beneath the eye. She opined that the
injury No-1 is grievous in nature and injury No-2 and 3 are
simple in nature and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P5.
The other possibilities of sustaining such type of injuries is
elicited during her cross-examination.
13. PW7 P.Muniraju is the IO. In the course of
evidence, he has referred to Ex.P1 complaint, Ex.P5 FIR and
seizure of two teeth at MO1 under mahazar at Ex.P2.
According to him, MO1 teeth was produced by CW1
Ramappa. He recorded the statement of CW5 and 6. He also
received wound certificate as per Ex.P5 and filed charge
sheet after completion of investigation.
14. Thus on scanning the entire evidence, it is seen that,
PW1 and 2 are husband and wife, and in view of their
relationship, their evidence will have to be scrutinized with
greater care and caution. Their evidence touching alleged
8 CC No.32332/2011
assault by the accused is not supported by the eye witnesses
i.e., PW4 and 5. According to PW1 himself, the workers
were present at the time of alleged incident, and the relevant
portion in his evidence reads-"UÀ¯ÁmÉ DzÁUÀ ¥ÉAmï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è ". He has even deposed
that he had disclosed the names of painters to SHO. The
relevant portion in his evidence reads-"¥ÉAmï ªÀiÁrzÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß
oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÉ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ". But Ex.P1 does not reflect the names of
alleged painters, instead, the names of one Ashraf and his
wife are found in Ex.P1 as- "C±Àæ¥sï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw §AzÀÄ dUÀ¼À
©r¹zÀgÀÄ". But however, the said couple are not examined by
the prosecution.
15. It is relevant to note that, as per Ex.P5 wound
certificate, the medical officer examined PW2 on 14-05-
2011. According to PW2, she obtained treatment on the
relevant day itself i.e., on 13-05-2011 immediately after
lodging the complaint. The relevant portion of her evidence
9 CC No.32332/2011
reads - "¦ügÁåzÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ". According to PW7 medical officer, she examined
PW2 on 18-05-2011. These discrepancies in mentioning
various dates by the witnesses is not clarified by the
prosecution. When all these aspects are appreciated along
with the fact that evidence of PW1 and 2 are not supported
by any of the alleged eye witnesses, further takes me to view
the evidence of PW1 and 2 under the shadow of doubt.
16. As already stated, the painting workers present at
the relevant time have not been examined and the reasons for
their non-examination is not found in the evidence of IO. In
view of these latches and infirmities and in the circumstances
of the case, therefore, I am of the view that it is not safe to
rely upon uncorroborated and interested testimony of PW1
and 2, to base conviction to accused.
17. Apart from this, it is also worthy to mention that
intention to commit offence is an essential ingredient and the
10 CC No.32332/2011
same has not come out specifically in the evidence of PW1
and 2. There is no credible evidence to attract the charges
against the accused for the offences punishable under Section
323, 326, 504 IPC. In view of all these aspects and on a
meticulous appreciation of entire evidence on record, I hold
that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of
accused beyond the reasonable doubts. Hence, Point No-1 to
3 are answered in the Negative.
Point No-4:
18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/S 323, 326, 504 of IPC. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed. The order pertaining to the 11 CC No.32332/2011 disposal of MO1 shall be given effect, after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of November 2015) (Vineetha P.Shetty), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Ramappa
P.W.2 : Nagarathnamma
P.W.3 : Inayath
P.W.4 : Ashraf
P.W.5 : Ahmed Jan
P.W.6 : Dr. Ujma Razwi
P.W.7 : P.Muniraju
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW4
Ex.P.4 : Statement of PW5
Ex.P.5 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6 : F.I.R.
12 CC No.32332/2011
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Teeth List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.13 CC No.32332/2011
23-11-2015 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/S 323, 326, 504 of IPC. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed. The order pertaining to the disposal of MO1 shall be given effect, after the appeal period is over.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.