Bangalore District Court
State By Police Inspector vs Chethan Kumar @ Chethan on 4 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI.N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA, B.A.,LL.B.,
LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 4th day, February, 2016
S C No. 1046/2014
COMPLAINANT: State By Police Inspector,
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor.)
/ Vs /
ACCUSED:
1. Chethan Kumar @ Chethan,
S/o Harish, Aged 22 years,
R/at No.615, 6th Floor,
Bindu Apartment,
Muddinapalya Main road,
Anjananagara, Magadi
Road, Bengaluru.
2. Ravikiran, @ Ravi S/o
Gangarevanna, Aged 19
years, R/at NO.24, 17th
Cross, Bharathnagara,
Magadi Main road,
Bengaluru.
3. Raghu S/o Chowde Gowda,
Aged 20 years, R/at
Basavaiah Building, Bharath
Nagara, Byadarahalli,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.T.S.Adv)
2 S.C.No.1046/2014
Date of 15.12.2012
Commencement of
offences
Date of report of 15.12.2012
offences
Name of complainant Bharath G.
Date of recording of 04.09.2015
evidence
Date of closing of 21.01.2016
evidence
Offence complained of U/s. 341, 506 and 307 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC
Opinion of the judge Acquittal
****
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector, Chandra Layout Police Station, has filed this charge sheet against A1 to A3, of the offences U/s. 341, 506 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are as follows:
A1 to A3 and CW1 are friends to each other. A1 to A3 being the rowdy elements, were pressurizing CW1 Bharath to join their groups, failing which they were threatening him 3 S.C.No.1046/2014 with dire consequences. However, CW1 Barath refused to join the group of A1 to A3, since A1 to A3 were convicted and undergone sentence in a murder criminal case registered against them. Hence, A1 to A3 having enmity with CW1 Bharath, on 15.12.2012 at about 1.30pm within the limits of Chandra Layout PS, Moodalapalya, Kalyana Nagara, nearby Mookambica Enterprises, while CW1 was standing, A1 to A3 with their common intention to commit his murder, have obstructed him from proceeding further and A2 sprayed pepper spray on his face and at that juncture CW1 tried to escape from their clutches, A1 to A3 assaulting CW1 on his head and hands, by means of long chopper, have made an attempt to murder him and thereby and thereby A1 to A3 have committed the offences alleged.
3. After filing charge sheet, committal court took cognizance of the offences p/u/Sec. 341, 506 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and then committed the case to Sessions, which has been registered as S.C.No.1046/2014 and then made over to this court for disposal, in accordance with law. A1 4 S.C.No.1046/2014 to A3 secured before this court and they are represented through their counsel. After hearing from both side, charges framed and explained to A1 to A3, of an offence P/U/Sec.341 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. No charge framed against accused for an offence p/u/Sec.506 of IPC, since there are no materials on record to frame charge u/Sec.506 of IPC. A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty of the charges leveled against them and they claim to be tried. Prosecution in all examined 04 witnesses as PW1 to PW4, got exhibited 8 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8, got identified M.O.1 to M.O.5. Examination of accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with, for want of incriminating evidence.
4. Heard argument from both side.
5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on 15.12.2012 at about 1.30pm, while CW1 Bharath standing near Mookambika Enterprises, No.134, Kalyananagara, Mudalapalya, Bengaluru, within the limits of Chandra layout PS, A1 to A3 with their common intention to murder him, voluntarily obstructed him from 5 S.C.No.1046/2014 proceeding further and thereby A1 to A3 have committed an offence p/u/Sec.341 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder CW1, A2 while spraying pepper spray on his face, A1 and A3 assaulting on his head and hands by means of chopper, have made an attempt to murder CW1 and thereby A1 to A3 committed an offence p/u/Sec. 307 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are:
POINT NO.1 : In the Negative POINT NO.2 : In the Negative POINT NO.3 : As per final order for the Following:
REASONS
7. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since these points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take down these points together for discussion and answer.
8. In order to connect the guilt of A1 to A3, prosecution in all examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4. 6 S.C.No.1046/2014
9. On going through prosecution case, it disclose that PW1 Bharath is the victim and PW2 Gundappa is his father. PW4 D.S.Suman is stated be direct witness to the alleged incident. PW3 Imran who is stated to be attestor to mahazar at Ex.P.6. It is important to note that PW1 to PW4 being the prime witnesses in this case, have not supported the case of prosecution. PW1 in his examination chief deposes that about 2 years ago on a day noon hours while he was sitting in the shop, some assailants sprayed pepper powder on his face and as a result he fell on conscious and while he regained consciousness, he was getting treatment at Shobha Nursing Home and at juncture he sustained on his head and hands. However, PW1 deposes he do know who caused those injures to his person. PW1 categorically deposes that he and A1 to A3 are in cordial terms and no quarrel took place between them. PW1 also deposes that he has not given any previous statement before I.O. Since PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him hostile witness. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from 7 S.C.No.1046/2014 his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW1 also denies the suggestion that he has lodged First Information at Ex.P.1. More so, during the course of evidence, PW1 also failed to identify M.O.1 and M.O.2 i.e., 2 choppers. PW1 denies the suggestion that A1 to A3 tried to murder him, by assaulting on his head and hands, by means of M.O.1 and M.O.2 and as a result, he suffered grievous injuries and therefore he was admitted to Shoba Nursing home, for getting treatment and at that juncture he lodged first information at Ex.P.1, to the Police. PW1 also denies the suggestion that, since A1 to A3 are friends to him, he deposes falsely before the Court.
10. PW2 Gundappa and PW4 D.S.Suman, who are stated to be direct witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. That apart PW2 and PW4 depose that they have not given any statement before the I.O. in connection with this case. More so, PW2 Gundappa who is non other than the father of PW1. That apart, PW2 who is an attestor to spot mahazar Ex.P.3 also dispute that the spot mahazar 8 S.C.No.1046/2014 at Ex.P.3 has been drawn at alleged scene of offence by the I.O and at that juncture I.O has seized M.O.3 and M.O.4 pertains to PW1 and also collected the samples of blood stains at M.O.5. PW2 while cross examining on behalf of prosecution, categorically denies the suggestion that he has given previous statement at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P5 before the I.O. Added to this, PW3 Imran who is an attestor to Ex.P6 categorically depose categorically deposes that he affixed his signature at Ex.P6 at Chandra Layout PS and in his presence, M.O.1 and M.O.2 were not seized by the I.O. PW4 D.S.Suman who is stated to be another direct witness, has not supported the case of prosecution. PW4 has not whispered in his evidence that he witnessed the alleged incident. Since, PW4 has not supported the case of prosecution, he has been subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW4 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 respectively, said to have been given by him, before the I.O.
9 S.C.No.1046/2014
11. I have carefully gone through evidence of PW1 to PW4. Absolutely prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused, by placing any iota of evidence. In view of evidence of PW1 to PW4, this Court passed an order to the effect that, by examining rest of prosecution witnesses, it would not serve any purpose. Hence, evidence of rest of the prosecution witnesses is taken as closed. In the above circumstances, prosecution by examining PW1 to PW4, has concluded evidence from its side. It is relevant to note that PW1 who is stated to be the victim in this case disputes the very lodging of FIR at Ex.P1, before the police. That part PW1 categorically deposes that injuries suffered on his person, when he was sitting near the shop, some assailants sprayed pepper powder on his face and when he regained the consciousness, he was getting treatment at Shobha Hospital and at that juncture he came to know about injuries found over his person. More so, PW1 deposes that he do not know, who has assaulted him. Suffice it to say, PW1 to PW4 have also failed to identify M.O.1 to M.O.5, during the course of their evidence. Added to this, 10 S.C.No.1046/2014 evidence of PW1 discloses with material discrepancies as well as contradictions. Likewise very evidence of PW2 to PW4 disclose with material contradictions, since PW2 and PW4 dispute the very previous statement at Ex.P4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 and Ex.P8 respectively, said to have been given by them before I.O. More so, on going through the Wound certificate on the file, pertains to PW1, it discloses that injuries found on the persons of PW1, were simple in nature. In my view, in view of evidence of PW1 to PW4, certainly A1 to A3 are entitled to an acquittal, since prosecution has failed to establish its case against A1 to A3, by placing convincing and cogent evidence. Therefore, I need not discuss much about prosecution case. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the above points in the "Negative".
12. POINT NO.3 : For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following :
11 S.C.No.1046/2014
ORDER Acting under Sec.232 of Cr.P.C., A1 to A3 are acquitted of the offences P/U/Sec.341 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Bail Bonds of A1 to A3 and their Surety Bond stands cancelled.
Note:- M.O.1 and M.O.2 i.e., two long choppers respectively are ordered to be confiscated to State and MO.3 to M.O.5, since worthless, shall ordered to be destroyed after Appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 4th day of February, 2016) (N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA) LXV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW-1 Bharath PW-2 Gundappa PW-3 Imran PW-4 D.S.Suman 12 S.C.No.1046/2014 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2 Statement of PW2 Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 Further statement of PW2 Ex.P.5 Further statement of PW2 Ex.P.6 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.7 Statement of PW4 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW4 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED MO-1 Long Chopper MO-2 Long Chopper.
MO-3 T Shirt MO-4 Blue Pant MO-5 Blood sample
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MOs MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA) LXV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.13 S.C.No.1046/2014