Bangalore District Court
By Cottonpet Police Station vs A-6 Arjun S/O.Late Mohan on 28 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI Addl. CITY CIVIL &,
SESSIONS JUDGE: BANGALORE CITY
Dated : This the 28th day of April, 2015
-: PRESENT :-
SRI. N.P.KOPARDE B.A., LL. B.(Spl.)
LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
SESSIONS CASE NO.711/2014.
The State of Karnataka
Complainant:
By Cottonpet Police Station,
Bangalore.
Reptd. by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bangalore.
V/s.
ACCUSED : A-6 Arjun s/o.late Mohan, r/o.No.15,
19th cross, Bangalore Layout,
Lingarajapura, Bangalore.
2 S.C.No.711/2014
1. Date of occurrence of 07-08-2012
offence
2. Date of report of 07-08-2012
offence
3. Date of Arrest of
accused A-6
4. Commencement of trial 15.12.2014
5. Closing of trial 07.04.2015
6. Name of the Smt.Malini
complainant
7. First information 07.08.2012
report reached to the 07-40 P.M.
Magistrate
8. Offences complained U/s.143, 147, 148,
of 302 r/w.149 of IPC.
9. Opinion of the Judge Accused No.6 is not
found guilty
10. Sentence or order Accused No.6 is
acquitted as per the
Judgment
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police Cottonpet Police Station, submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for 3 S.C.No.711/2014 the offences punishable U/s. 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w.149 of IPC.
2. The brief case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet is as under :
On 7.8.2012 at 1 p.m. the complainant Smt.Malini and her husband Guppendra, the rowdy sheeter, were distributing the Parasada on the eve of Annammadevi and Dandumaramma festival in Jai Bheemanagar Cross and thereafter they were coming near Siddhartha Nagar 5th Cross, the accused No.1 Naveenkumar, the rowdy sheeter, thinking that while he was in jail earlier, his brother-in- law Gupendra did not help him and with that animosity with an intention of committing murder of Gupendra came with accused Nos.2 to 6 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and tried to assault on Gupendra, but he ran away from the spot and took shelter in the house of C.W.3 Kum.Nazma, but the accused entered into the house of C.W.3 and accused No.1 assaulted Gupendra by long on his head, accused No.2 assaulted by long on his chest and shoulder and accused No.3 assaulted by long on 4 S.C.No.711/2014 his right and left hand, accused No.4 assaulted by dragger on his chest and back, accused No.5 assaulted by long on his forehead, accused No.6 assaulted by long on his thighs and caused the death of Gupendra. In that regard, the C.W.1 wife of deceased on 7.8.2012 lodged complaint with police, on the basis of which the case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.204/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 302 r/w.149 of IPC. After completion of investigation, Cottonpet Police submitted charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable U./s.143, 147, 148, 302 r/w.149 of IPC.
3. On receipt of the charge sheet the cognizance of the offences cited therein was taken. The prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1 to 5, since accused No.6 could not be secured by the concerned Police, the case against accused No.6 was split up by virtue of order dtd: 17.11.2012. Consequently, split up C.C.No.23108/2012 was registered against accused No.6 and split up charge sheet was filed before the committal 5 S.C.No.711/2014 Court. Thereafter, the committal court securing the presence of accused No.6, furnished prosecution papers to him. Since offence U/s.302 of IPC exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, so, the case as per Sec.209 Cr.P.C. committed to the Hon'ble Prl.City Civil & sessions Judge, Bangalore who in turn registered case in SC No.711/2015 and pleased to make over the case to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
4. After receipt of the records and hearing the prosecution as well as defence Counsel U/s.227 of Cr.P.C. the charge for the offences punishable U/s. 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w.149 of IPC was framed, readover and explained to the accused No.6. The accused No.6 pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined in all 14 witnesses out of 36 witnesses cited in the charge sheet as P.ws.1 to 14 and through them got marked 36 documents at Exs.P.1 and P.36 and M.Os.1 to 24. Inspite sufficient opportunity given to prosecution the concerned Police failed to secure the presence of the 6 S.C.No.711/2014 rest of the witnesses, so the prayer of the prosecution to re-issue NBW to remaining witnesses was rejected and evidence of prosecution was taken as closed.
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, since there was no incriminating evidence appearing against accused in the depositions of P.ws.1 to 14, the examination of the accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, dispensed with.
7. I heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration :-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 7.8.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. the accused No.6 alongwith accused Nos.1 to 5 formed an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons like longs, draggers etc at Siddhartha Nagar 5th cross, made rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether does the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in prosecution of their common 7 S.C.No.711/2014 object of committing murder of deceased Guppendra, the accused No.1 assaulted by long on the head, accused No.2 assualted by long on chest and shoulder, accused No.3 assaulted by long on right and left hand, the accused No.4 assaulted by dragger on chest and back and accused No.5 assaulted by long on the forehead and present accused No.6 assaulted by long on thighs of deceased Guppendra and caused injuries, knowingly and intendingly such injuries inflicted on deceased likely to cause death and they are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and they are so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death of deceased and thereby committed an offence of murder punishable U/s.302 r/w.149 of IPC?
3) What order?
9. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point Nos.1 & 2 : In the negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following :
8 S.C.No.711/2014
R E A S O N S
10. Point No.1 and 2:- For the sake of
convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts, I took both points together for consideration:
Out of 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. P.W.1 Smt.Malini is the wife of deceased Gupendra and she is the complainant in this case. P.W.2 Bhaktha the brother of deceased and eye witness to the incident. P.w.3 Smt.Shylaja second wife of deceased and eye witness to the incident. P.w.4 Suresha, P.w.5 Murali are the other eye witnesses and P.W.5 is the attestors of seizure panchanama of Ex.P.13. P.W.6 Sharma is another eye witness, P.W.7 Sadiq is the attester of seizure panchanama i.e. Ex.P.19 and P.20. P.W.8 Murugan is another attestor of seizure panchanama i.e. Ex.P.19 and P.20. P.W.9 Smt.Tamil Kudi is the sister of deceased Guppendra. P.w.10 Balakrishna one of the attestors of panchanama i.e. Ex.P.7. P.W.11-Kumara is attestor of panchanama Ex.P.13. P.w.12 Nazma is an eye witness to 9 S.C.No.711/2014 the incident. P.w.13 Pushpa is the sister of accused No.5 in whose house seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.33 was conducted. P.w.14 Anthony Francis is the owner of Car bearing No.KA-01-C-7316 which was said to have ben used for commission of the offence by the accused.
11. P.w.1 the complainant-Malini states in her evidence that about six months back, her husband was died. The accused No.1 is her brother's son and she does not know other accused persons. That about six months back when she was in her house situated at Jai Bheemanagar, some children came to her house and told that by the side of her house galata was going on, so she immediately went there and saw her husband had fallen with bleeding injuries and he had sustained injuries all over the body. Her sister took her to her house and the persons gathered took the dead body of deceased Gupendra to hospital, later on she came to know that her husband had died due to the injuries in the spot itself.
She further stated that she does not know who assaulted her husband and she does not know any other facts of the 10 S.C.No.711/2014 case. She further stated that the Police took her signature on the complaint and she does not know the contents of the complaint nor the police enquired her. She denied she gave complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.1, stating that she saw the accused assaulting her husband and caused his death. She denied further that on 8.8.2012 she gave further statement before the Police as per Ex.P.5, identifying five accused persons and she further denied that she gave statement as per Ex.P.6.
12. P.w.2 Bhaktha the brother of the deceased and alleged eye witness, turned hostile to the prosecution and denied the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased and caused his death and he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.7(1), at the time of inquest panchanama and gave further statement as per Ex.P.8 identifying accused Nos.1 to 5 in the Police Station.
13. P.W.3 Smt.Shylaja the second wife of deceased, and eye witness, also turned hostile to the prosecution. She denied the suggestion that she sw the accused 11 S.C.No.711/2014 assaulting her husband and causing his death and accordingly she gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.9 and on 8.8.2012 she identifying the accused gave further statement as per Ex.P.10.
14. P.W.4-Suresha another eye witness has alsonot suppoted the case of prosecution and he denied the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that he saw the accused assaulting deceased by long, dragger and caused his death and accordingly, he gave statement and further statement before the Police as per Ex.P.11 and 12 respectively.
15. P.W.5-Murali deposed that about two years back, the Police called him to the Police Station and obtained his signature, but they have not conducted any seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.13, nor he saw the Car shown in Ex.P.14 photograph, nor as he saw the Police seized one machu one rexin bag and one dragger. He denied the suggestion that he saw the accused assaulted Gupendra by M.Os.1 to 8 and caused his death and accordingly, he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.2 and on 12 S.C.No.711/2014 8.8.2012 he identifying the accused Nos.1 to 5, gave statement as per Ex.P.16. He denied the suggestion that on 13.8.2012 police called him and C.W.17 to Cottonpet Police, the accused Nos.1 to 5 who were in the custody of the Police took them and Police to DR. TCM Rayan Road, Siddharathanagar 2nd Cross, behind the building No.67 shown Car bearing No.KA-01-C-7316 saying that it was used for commission of the offences and produced a black color rexin Bag, one machu and dragger from the back seat of the Car, which the Police seized, conducting panchanama as per Ex.P.13.
16. P.W.6 Sharma is alleged eye witness, he too turned hostile to the prosecution and denied the suggestion of Learned Public Prosecutor that on 7.8.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. he saw the accused assaulted deceased Gupendra by machu, dragger, long i.e. M.Os.1 to 8 and caused his death and accordingly, he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.17 and further statement as per Ex.P.18 by identifying the accused Nos.1 to 5. 13 S.C.No.711/2014
17. P.W.7-Sadiq and P.W.8 Murugan are the attestors of seizure panchanama deposes that about two years back the police called them to Police Station and obtained their signatures, the police have not conducted any panchanama nor seized any articles. They denied the suggestion of Learned Public Prosecutor that on 15.8.2012 the Police called them and C.W.12 to the Police Station where accused Nos.1 to 4 were in the custody of the Police who led them and towards cement Asgar Shed situated at eastern side of No.7 HN 35005 of Bidarahalli Hobli, Dodda Gubbi and produced two rexina bags and M.Os.10 to 24 from those bags which the Police seized by conducting seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.19. P.w.7 further denied the suggestion that on 16.8.2012 the police again called them to Police Station, the accused No.5 who was in the Police Station led them to the house of Smt.Pushpa near Naresha Clinic at Bhakshi Garden and there accused No.5 produced is M.Os.22 to 24 i.e. one long, one show, one pant from the beneath of wooden almirah, which the Police seized by conducting seizure 14 S.C.No.711/2014 panchanama as per Ex.P.20. They further denied the suggestion that they gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.21 to P.24 respectively.
18. P.W.9 Smt.Tamilkudi the sister of the deceased states that about two years back her brother Gupendra was murdred, but she does not know who murdered him. Even though the Learned Public Prosecutor subjected this witness to detailed cross-examination, nothing worth could be elicited from her mouth. She denied the suggrestion that she gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.7(2) and further statement as per Ex.P.25.
19. P.w.10 Balakrishna states that about two years back, the Police called him to the Police Station and obtained his signature. He has not seen the accused, machu, dragger, rexina bag and Car shown in photo i.e. Ex.P.14 earlier. In the cross-examination by the Learned Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that on 13.8.2012 the Police called him and C.W.8 Murali to the Police Station, the accused Nos.1 to 5 who were in custody of the Police took them near building no.67 in 2nd 15 S.C.No.711/2014 Cross, Dr. TCM Royan Road and shown the Car No.KA-01- C-7316 saying that the sold Car they used for commission of offences and produced rexin bag from the back seat and machu, a dragger, rexin bag which the Police seized conducting seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.13 and accordingly, he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.28.
20. P.W.12 Nazma deposed that she knows Gupendra who was murdered about three years back by someone, but she does not know who caused death of Gupendra nor she gave statement before the Police nor she has seen M.Os.1 to 8 and 22 earlier. In cross-examination by Learned Public Prosecutor she denied the suggestion that on 7.8.2012 when she returned to her house at about 1.00 p.m. the accused persons chased deceased Gupendra and in order to escape Gupendra entered her house, even then the accused entered into her house and assaulted him by M.Os.1 to 8 and 22 on account of that, Gupendra succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital accordingly, she gave statement before the Police as per 16 S.C.No.711/2014 Ex.P.31. She further denied the suggestion that on 17.8.2012 she identified the accused Nos.1 to 5 in the Police Station and gave further statement as per Ex.P.32.
21. P.W.13-Smt.Pushpa states that accused No.5 Ganesha is her brother, but she does not know the other accused persons and deceased Gupendra. About three years back the Police called her to the Police Station and obtained her signatures, but no panchanama was conducted nor any articles were seized in presence of her. She denied the suggestion of Learned Public Prosecutor that on 16.8.2012 the accused No.5 came to her house alongwith Police and produced M.Os.22 to 24 which were kept under the almirah which the police seized conducting seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.33. She denied the suggestion that she gave statement before the police as per Ex.P.34.
22. P.w.14-Anthony Francis states that he is the owner of the Car bearing No.KA-01-C-7316 which he had given to his mother-in-law's son Prathap and since from the date of purchase it was not with him. The said 17 S.C.No.711/2014 Prathap was residing at Dubai. When he enquired Prakash the brother of Prathap who told him that Prathap might have left that Car in Garage. After one week he came to know that the car was in the Police Station. In the cross- examination by the Learned Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that on 7.8.2012 he came to know that the said Car was used in commission of murder of Gupendra and in that regard the Police seized Car. He denied the suggestion that he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.36.
23. On perusal of the evidence of above witnesses, it can be seen that Gupendra died due to injuries inflicted on him by lethal weapons. So, it can be presumed that the death of deceased was homicidal one, but on careful scrutiny of the evidence of the above witnesses it becomes clear that the complainant, the alleged eye witnesses, seizure panchas all have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. There is no material evidence to connect accused with alleged offences. None of the above witnesses deposed as to present accused No.6 18 S.C.No.711/2014 alongwith other accused committed murder of deceased Gupendra. There is no single piece of evidence to bring home the accused and guilt of accused to connect the accused with alleged offences. So, under such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to put forth the cogent, consistent, corroborative and convincing evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. So, under such circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in negative.
24.Point No.3 : In view of my above observations and findings on point Nos.1 and 2 in negative, extending benefits of doubts to the accused No.6, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R Acting U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. I do hereby acquit accused No.6 for the 19 S.C.No.711/2014 offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused No.6 is set at liberty. The bail and surety bond of the accused No.6 stand cancelled.
M.Os. 1 to 24 are ordered to be preserved for trial of split up accused Nos.3 and 5.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2015).
(Sri.N.P.KOPARDE) LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.20 S.C.No.711/2014
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
PW.1 - Smt.Malini w/o.Gupendra P.W.2 - Bhakta s/o.late Rajagopa P.W.3 - Smt.Shylaja w/o.late Gupendra P.W.4 - Suresha P.W.5 - Murali s/o.Govindaswamy P.W.6 - Sharma s/o.G.T.Subramani P.W.7 - Sadiq s/o.Mani P.W.8 - Murugan s/o.Kashi P.W.9 - Smt.Tamilkudi w/o.late MOhan P.W.10 - Balakrishna s/o.Muniswamy P.W.11 - Kumar s/o.Pandian P.W.12 - Nazma d/o.Mohaboob Shareef P.W.13 - Smt.Pushpa w/o.Mahesh Babu P.W.14 - Anthony Francis s/o.Terez Raj
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE :-
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P.1 - Complaint Ex.P.1(a) - Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 to 4 - Deceased's Photos Ex.P.5 - Further Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.5(a) - Further Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.6 - Further Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.7 - Inquest Panchanama Ex.P7(1) - Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.7(2) - Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.7(3) - Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P8 - - Further Statement of P.w.2 21 S.C.No.711/2014 Ex.P9 - - Statement of P.w.3 Ex.P10 - Further Statement of P.w.3 Ex.P11 - Statement of P.w.4 Ex.P12 - Further statement of P.w.4 Ex.P13 - Seizure mahazar Ex.P13(a) - Signature of P.w.5 Ex.P13(b) - Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P14 - Photograph of Car Ex.P15 - Statement of P.w.5 Ex.P16 - Further statement of P.w.12 Ex.P17 - Statement ofP.W.6 Ex.P18 - Further statement of P.W.6 Ex.P19 - Seizure mahazar Ex.P19(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P19(b) - Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P20 - Seizure mahazar Ex.P20(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P20(b) - Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P21 - Statement of P.w.7 Ex.P22 - Further statement of P.W.7 Ex.P23 - Statement of P.W.8 Ex.P24 - Further statement of P.W.8 Ex.P25 - Further statement of P.W.9 Ex.P28 - Statement of P.w.11 Ex.P31 - Statement of P.w.12 Ex.P32 - Further statement of P.w.12 Ex.P33 - Seizure panahcnama Ex.P33(a) - Signature of P.w.13 Ex.P34 - Statement of P.w.13 Ex.P35 - Photograph of Car Ex.P36 - Statement of P.w.14 22 S.C.No.711/2014
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:-
-NIL-
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
M.O.1 - Dragger M.O.2 - Dragger M.O.3 - Machu M.O.4 to 8 - Longs M.O.9 - Rexin Bag M.O.10 - Bloodstained shirt of accused No.1 M.O.11 - Bloodstained pant of A-1 M.O.12 - Bloodstained shirt of A-2 M.O.13 - - Bloodstained Geans Pant of A-2 M.O.14 - Bloodstained shirt of A-3 M.O.15 - Bloodstained pant of A-3 M.O.16 - Bloodstained shirt of A-4 M.O.17 - Bloodstained jeans pant of A-4 M.O.18 - Bloodstained shirt of A-5 M.O.19 - Bloodstained pant of A-5 M.O.20 & 21 - Rexin Bags M.O.22 - Long M.O.23 - Bloodstained Shirt M.O.24 - Bloodstained jeans pant.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE :-
-NIL-
LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.23 S.C.No.711/2014
24 S.C.No.711/2014 Order pronounced in open Court vide detailed order passed separately.
O R D E R Acting U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. I do hereby acquit accused No.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused No.6 is set at liberty. The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.6 stand cancelled.
M.Os.1 to 24 are ordered to be preserved for trial of split up accused Nos.3 and 5.
(Sri. N.P.Koparde) LXI ACC & SJ, B'lore.25 S.C.No.711/2014