Bangalore District Court
State By K.S. Layout Police Station vs No. : 1. Venugopal.D on 10 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 10th day of MAY 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.19543/2016
Complainant : State by K.S. Layout Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Venugopal.D.
S/o Vasanth,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.68/1, 10th Cross,
Sarakki, J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Jose Sabastian, advocate)
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.S. Layout Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.19543/20162. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, C.W. 2 Sri. Srinivas.H.N. had filed a civil case in respect of ownership of site No.8 and 9 situated near Dayananda Sagar College, Opposite to Vasudha Bhavan, within the limit of K.S. Layout Police Station, which was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. As such, on 05/03/2016, at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning, accused wrongfully restrained son of C.W. 2 i.e. C.W. 1 Sri. Naveen Kumar, from proceeding further, abused him in filthy language, assaulted on C.W. 1's chest by his hands, voluntarily caused hurt, posed threat to his life with dire consequences and thereby committed aforesaid offences. Therefore, C.W.1 Sri. Naveen Kumar 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, seized item No.1 and 2 and subjected the same under P.F. No.76/2016, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 3 C.C.No.19543/2016
3. The accused No.1 is on bail and he is represented through their counsel. During the course of investigation, accused No.2 to 4 have been dropped.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused No.1 as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 341, 323, 504, 506 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 No.1 in the language known to him, he 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 its complainant C.W. 1 as P.W. 1 and got marked two documents at Ex.P1 and P.2. At this stage, it is brought to court notice that the complainant and accused No.1 being relatives 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 prayer 4 C.C.No.19543/2016 of learned A.P.P. As there is no incriminating evidence against accused No.1, 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. 2 Sri. Srinivas.H.N. had filed a civil case in respect of ownership of site No.8 and 9 situated near Dayananda Sagar College, Opposite to Vasudha Bhavan, within the limit of K.S. Layout Police Station, the same was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. As such, on 05/03/2016, at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning, accused No.1 wrongfully restrained son of C.W. 2 i.e. C.W. 1 Sri. Naveen Kumar, from proceeding further and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused No.1 abused C.W. 1 in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.504 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under 5 C.C.No.19543/2016 aforesaid circumstances, accused No.1 assaulted on C.W. 1's chest by his hands, voluntarily caused hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused No.1 posed threat to the life of C.W. 1 with dire consequences and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC?
5. What Order?
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 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.4 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.5: As per final order for the following REASONS
10.Points No.1 to 4: All these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.6 C.C.No.19543/2016
11. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 07 witnesses and successful in examining only its complainant C.W. 1 as P.W. 1. This case has been registered on the back ground of an assault said to have been caused on the complainant by accused No.1. In this connection, complainant Sri. Naveen Kumar.M is examined as P.W.1. During the course of trial, P.W.1 has completely turned hostile, not deposed anything against the accused and thereby not supported the case of prosecution. As such, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. Later, it is brought to the court notice that, complainant and accused No.1 being relatives 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, the evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No.1 with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 to 4 are answered in the Negative.7 C.C.No.19543/2016
12.Point No.5: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Item No.1 and 2 seized and subjected under P.F. No.76/2016 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of May 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
8 C.C.No.19543/2016ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Naveen Kumar.M.
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.
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.
9 C.C.No.19543/2016Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Item No.1 and 2 seized and subjected under P.F. No.76/2016 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.10 C.C.No.19543/2016