Bangalore District Court
State By vs H.S.Ganesh S/O.Late Patel on 4 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 4th day of March 2016
PRESENT: Sri.ARJUN.S.MALLUR,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.22394/2011
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
R.M.Nagar Police Station
/vs/
Accused 1. H.S.Ganesh S/o.late Patel, 28 yrs.
2. Srinivas S/o.H.S.Ganesh, 28 yrs.
Both r/o.No.123, near Water Tank,
Horamavu village, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The PSI of R.M.Nagar police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/S.448, 427 r/w.34 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 14/11/2010 around 8.00 AM in Khata House List No.159 site No.19 of Horamavu village, the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention wrongfully trespassed to the property of CW.1 and demolished the compound wall 2 CC No.22394/2011 constructed on a site causing wrongful loss to an extent of Rs.75,000/- and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered in R.M.Nagar P.S., Cr.No.296/2010 and FIR was submitted to the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas. Statement of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offences was taken and summons was issued to the accused persons. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their counsel and have been released on bail. Copies of chargesheet were furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation was readover to the accused for the alleged offences and accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4. Statements of accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused have denied the circumstances incriminating them in the evidence.
3 CC No.22394/2011
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
7. The points for consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 14/11/2010 around 8.00 AM in Khata House List No.159 site No.19 of Horamavu village, the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention wrongfully trespassed to the property of CW.1 and demolished the compound wall constructed on a site causing wrongful loss to an extent of Rs.75,000/- and thereby committed the alleged offences?
2. What order?
8. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:
The prosecution in support of its case has examined three witnesses. PW.1 Smt.Tulasi is examined as eye witness to the prosecution who has turned hostile to the prosecution denying having witnessed any incident and denied having made statement before the police under Ex.P1.4 CC No.22394/2011
10. PW.2 Shivaraman is the complainant who has deposed that in Horamavu village survey No.71 he owns a site bearing No.19 in which he had constructed a shed and had permitted an old lady to stay in the shed. He further deposed that on 14/11/2010 he received a phone call from CW.7 saying that accused persons have demolished the compound and shed and when he went to the spot accused had already left the spot and he sustained loss of Rs.75,000/- and after collecting the documents of his property he has given compliant on 16/11/2010 and was also present when police came to the spot and prepared mahazar.
11. PW.3 Manjunath is the I.O. who has submitted the chargesheet on verifying the investigation done by his predecessor.
12. Apart from PWs.1 to 3 the prosecution has not examined any other witness. PW.2 the complainant is the material witness whose evidence has not been completed by the prosecution. On 23/7/2015 the complainant was examined in part and his further examination was deferred at the request of the prosecution. Subsequently the complainant has not been secured for his evidence and his evidence has not been completed. PW.2 is also not tendered for cross examination. In view of the evidence of PW.2 being not 5 CC No.22394/2011 completed, his evidence is rendered no evidence in the eye of law. Apart from PW.2, the other eye witness at PW.1 has turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.3 is the I.O. who has filed the chargesheet after completing the formalities of the investigation. There is no corroboration to the evidence of I.O. as the evidence of material witness is rendered as no evidence in the eye of law. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
13. POINT NO.2:
For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of the alleged offences punishable u/s.448, 427 r/w.34 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 4th day of March 2016).
(ARJUN.S.MALLUR) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU 6 CC No.22394/2011 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution Defence PW.1 Smt.Tulasi Nil PW.2 Shivaraman.
PW.3 Manjunath.
Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 Statement of PW.1.
Ex.P2 Complaint.
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.2.
Ex.P3 Spot mahazar.
Ex.P3(a)Signature of PW.2.
Ex.P4 Photo.
Material Objects got marked
-Nil-
X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
7 CC No.22394/2011