Bangalore District Court
Station vs Went To The The Shop Of Cw1 I.E. Roopesh ... on 10 October, 2022
1 C.C.No.23372/2017
KABC031001582017
Presented on : 23-09-2017
Registered on : 23-09-2017
Decided on : 10-10-2022
Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 10th day of October 2022
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.23372/2017 Date of commission of the
2. 19.09.2015 offence (As per F.I.R.) Subramanyapura Police
3. Name of the complainant Station, Bengaluru City Shashikumar @ Shashi, S/o Singrappa, Aged about 32 years,
4. Name of the accused R/at No.518, 10th Cross, Bright Way School Road, Bengaluru City.
2 C.C.No.23372/2017Sections 323, 325, 341, 427, The offences complained
5. 506 R/w Section 34 of the of Indian Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Accused is acquitted
8. Date of order 10.10.2022 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru has filed Police Report against the above named accused alleging that he along with another accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427, 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 19.09.2015 at 4.90 p.m., the above named accused along with another accused went to the the Shop of CW1 i.e. Roopesh Jewelers and Bankers situated at No.43/44, near Kadirenahalli Petrol Bunk, Bengaluru within the territorial jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City; shown the chit about pledge of gold ornaments by his wife and asked to give them back; when CW1 asked the accused that if he pays loan amount of Rs.10,300/- is paid with interest and his wife signs the chit, he will give them back, the accused persons in 3 C.C.No.23372/2017 furtherance of their common intention have wrongfully restrained CW1; the above named accused voluntarily caused simple hurt on the face of CW1 and gregarious hurt on the nose of CW1 by beating him with hands on his face; damaged the showcase glass of hi shop and gave life threat to him. Thereby, the above named accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.668/2015 at Subramanyapura Police Station. During Investigation, the accused appeared before this Court and enlarged on bail. On completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to the accused. He has appeared before this Court. The copies of the Police 4 C.C.No.23372/2017 Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences triable by this court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 and PW2 and the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Since, there were no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses against the accused, the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
5 C.C.No.23372/2017
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, out of 9 witnesses cited in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of only two witnesses before this Court as PW1 and PW2. PW1 N.Padam Devasi is the first informant, injured and the mahazar witness. PW2 is the eyewitness of the incident. The prosecution has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Among them, Ex.P1 is the First Information, Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P3 is the Witness Statement. 6 C.C.No.23372/2017
8. As per the case of the prosecution, based on Ex.P1 given by PW1, the crime has been registered in Crime No.668/2015 and on investigation, since, there are evidences collected by the Investigation Officer to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Police Report was filed. In the First Information - Ex.P1, there are statements of PW1 with regard to the alleged incident committed by the accused. PW1 during his examination-in- chief has deposed the evidences contrary to the said facts. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that no quarrel taken place between him and the accused; as there were some petty differences between them, he gave complaint to the Police as per Ex.P1; he does not know the contents of Ex.P1; he has not taken any treatment for the injuries sustained in the alleged incident; the police have not conducted any mahazar at the place of incident in his presence as per Ex.P2; he does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and he signed Ex.P2 at Police Station. He has been 7 C.C.No.23372/2017 considered as hostile witness and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. During cross-examination, he has denied the contents of Ex.P1; he gave it; he obtained treatment for the injuries sustained as a result of the alleged incident and the mahazar conducted at the place of incident as per Ex.P2 in his presence. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination supporting the case of the prosecution.
9. One of the eyewitnesses PW2 during his examination-in- chief has deposed the evidences contrary to the case of prosecution. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that no quarrel taken place between PW1 and the accused; he has not taken PW1 to hospital for treatment and he has not given any statement before Police. He has also been considered as hostile witness and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. During cross-examination, he has denied the contents of his witness statement given before the Investigation Officer. It is marked as Ex.P3. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination supporting the case of the prosecution.
8 C.C.No.23372/2017
10. On perusal of the above evidences, it appears that the First Informant and the injured witness as well as one of the eyewitnesses of the incident have deposed not supporting the case of the prosecution. They have deposed in their cross- examination that the accused and they have compromised the matter. Therefore, if the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are recorded, no purpose will be served. For this reason, the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are dropped. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
11. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is not found guilty for the aforesaid 9 C.C.No.23372/2017 offences charged against them. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is hereby acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond executed and cash surety furnished under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 10.10.2022) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : N.Padmam Devasi,
PW2 : Gowtham.
10 C.C.No.23372/2017
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information, Ex.P1(a) : Signature, Ex.P2 : Panchanama, Ex.P2(a) : Signature. Ex.P3 : Witness Statement.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.11 C.C.No.23372/2017
10.10.2022 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond executed and cash surety furnished under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.