Bangalore District Court
Anoop vs Syed Hanief @ Hanief on 18 December, 2024
KABC030098042017
Presented on : 07.02.2017
Registered on : 07.02.2017
Decided on : 18.12.2024
Duration : 07y/10m/11days
IN THE COURT OF XLI CHIEF ADDL. JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 18th day of December 2024
C.C.No.4551/2017
COMPLAINANT : The State by
Sampigehalli Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Syed Hanif @ Haneef
S/o. Syed Hussain, Aged 22 years,
R/at. No.03, Amarjyothi layout,
Street in front of Bakery,
Thanisandra Main Road, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of 13.10.2016
offence
Date of report 13.10.2016
Date of arrest On 04.05.2018 the accused appeared
before the Court and got enlarged
himself on bail.
Name of the complainant Anoop
2 C.C.No.4551/2017
Date of commencement of 12.07.2018
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 13.11.2024
Offences complained of U/Sec. 324 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.M.Sriram, Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 18.12.2024] The P.S.I of Sampigehalli Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 13.10.2016 at 6.45p.m., the accused assaulted CW.1 with a stone, caused injury to his lower lip and right eye when he questioned the acts of the accused, who was wheeling the cycle on a public road and causing nuisance to the general public in front of M.N.K. Vidyanikethana school, Amarajyoti layout, Sampigehalli. On the basis of written information given by CW.1, the Amruthahalli police have registered this case in Cr.No.180/2016.3 C.C.No.4551/2017
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of IPC.
4. On 04.05.2018 the accused appeared before the Court and got enlarged himself on bail. Subsequently, he did not appear before the Court and hence, the Court issued NBW against him to secure his presence. On 16.12.2019, the police executed the warrant, arrested the accused and produced him before the Court. As per order dated: 18.12.2019, he was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, it is learnt that, the accused is in judicial custody in some other case and hence, his presence was secured by issuing body warrant. Now, he is being produced under body warrant. This Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec. 324 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty. He claimed to be tried.
4 C.C.No.4551/2017
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to 8, got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 documents and MO.1. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating evidence led against him. He did not choose to lead his defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. MS Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused assaulted CW.1 with a stone on 13.10.2016 at 6.45p.m., in front of M.N.K. Vidyanikethana School, Amarajyoti layout, Sampigehalli, caused injury to his lower lip and right eye when he questioned the acts of the accused, who was wheeling the cycle on a public road 5 C.C.No.4551/2017 and causing nuisance to the general public and thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.324 of IPC?
2. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1:
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused assaulted CW.1 with a stone on 13.10.2016 at 6.45p.m., in front of M.N.K. Vidyanikethana School, Amarajyoti layout, Sampigehalli, caused injury to his lower lip and right eye when he questioned the acts of the accused, who was wheeling the cycle on a public road and causing nuisance to the general public.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant/CW.1 as PW.2, mahazar witnesses/CW.3 as PW.3, CW.2 as PW.4, eyewitness/CW.6 as PW.5, treated doctor/CW.8 as PW.6, the officer, who partly investigated the matter/CW.9 as PW.7, the police officer, who arrested the accused/CW.7 as PW.8 6 C.C.No.4551/2017 and investigation officer/CW.11 as PW.1 and got marked wound certificate as Ex.P.1, complaint as Ex.P.2, spot mahazar as Ex.P.3, portion of the statement of PW.3 as Ex.P.4, FIR as Ex.P.5, report given by PW.8 as Ex.P.6 and stone as MO.1.
12. CW.1/PW.2- Anoop in his evidence has stated that, he is acquainted with the accused. On 13.10.2016 at 6.45 p.m., he was proceeding on his 2 wheeler at Amarjyothi Layout. At that time, the accused and 4 others were doing wheeling on their motorcycles. When he questioned the accused, he assaulted him with a stone and caused injury to his face. Hence, he went to Sai hospital for treatment and thereafter gave Ex.P.2 complaint to the Sampigehalli police. On the next day, the police came to the spot and drawn Ex.P.3 mahazar. At that time, the police seized MO.1 stone from the spot, which was used for the commission of the offence.
13. CW.2/PW.4 - Jagadish in his evidence has stated that, he is acquainted with CW.1, who was working as Manager at a Petrol 7 C.C.No.4551/2017 bunk situated at Thanisandra. On 13.10.2016 at 6 to 7 p.m., while having tea, the CW.1 was proceeding on the road. At that time, he noticed accused doing wheeling. When, the CW.1 advised the accused not to do wheeling, the accused assaulted him with a stone and caused injury to his mouth and back, due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. The police came to the spot and drawn Ex.P.3 mahazar and seized MO.1 stone. Ex.P.3 bears his signature.
14. CW.6/PW.5 - Rajan in his evidence has stated that, he is acquainted with the CW.1, who was the manager of a petrol bunk, situated at Thanisandra. On 13.10.2016 at 6.40 p.m., when he was having tea, the CW.1 was proceeding on the road. At that time, the accused was doing wheeling and hence, the CW.1 advised the accused not to do wheeling. At that time, the accused assaulted him with a stone and caused injuries to his mouth and back due to which, the CW.1 sustained bleeding injuries. He has identified the accused.
8 C.C.No.4551/2017
15. CW.3/PW.3 - Kiran in his evidence has stated that, he is not acquainted with CW.1. He has seen the accused earlier. In the month of October-2016, when he was proceeding towards his aunt's house in the morning at Amarjyothi Layout, the police took his signature to Ex.P.3. The police had kept an article with them. But, he has not seen that article. He has not given any statement about the incident.
16. CW.9/PW.7 - Shivaramaiah, in his evidence has stated that, while he was working at Head constable at Sampigehalli police station, on 13.10.2016 at 10 p.m., the CW.1 came to their station and gave Ex.P.2 complaint. On the basis of which, he registered Ex.P.5 FIR. On 14.10.2016 at 7.15 a.m., he visited the spot which was showed by CW.1 and accordingly, he has drawn Ex.P.3 mahazar till 8 a.m., in the presence of pancha witnesses and seized MO.1 stone, which was used for the commission of the offence. On the same day, he recorded the further statement of CW.1.
9 C.C.No.4551/2017
17. CW.7/PW.8-Anand K.V., in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as Constable at Sampigehalli police station on 14.10.2014, the SHO deputed him to trace out the accused. Accordingly, at 6 p.m at the bus terminal of Saraipalya, he arrested the accused by name Syed Haneef. At 5 p.m., he produced him before the SHO and gave Ex.P.6 report.
18. CW.8/PW.6-Dr.Ranganathan in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as visiting doctor at Sai Hospital, Hegade Nagar, on 13.10.2016 at 7.30 p.m., one Anoop came to the hospital for treatment with the history of assault. On examination, he noticed bleeding lacerated wound over his lower lip and contused and lacerated wound over his right intra orbital region. Those injuries were fresh and simple in nature. Accordingly, he has issued Ex.P.1 wound certificate.
19. CW.11/PW.1-K.T.Nagaraj in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as PSI at Sampigehalli police station, on 10 C.C.No.4551/2017 17.12.2016 he received Ex.P.1 wound certificate. By completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
20. On the basis of Ex.P.2 complaint given by PW.2, the Sampigehalli police have registered this case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused. In Ex.P.2, the PW.2 has mentioned the name of the accused, who assaulted him with a stone. In the complaint, he has narrated the incident in detail as to how the accused and his friends were doing wheeling at Amarjyothi Layout on 13.10.2016 at 6.45 p.m., and how he assaulted him with a stone to his face and caused bleeding injuries. In Ex.P.2, it is also stated that, the friends of the accused also assaulted him and caused injuries.
21. In his evidence, the PW.2 did not say that the friends of the accused also assaulted him with the accused. Though the PW.2 has mentioned name of the accused in Ex.P.2 complaint, he did not mention his name while taking treatment from Sai hospital. The PW.2 visited the hospital with the history of assault. In Ex.P.1 11 C.C.No.4551/2017 wound certificate, history of injury is mentioned as "assault by unknown person with hands". While taking treatment, the accused did not say that he was assaulted by the accused and his associates with the stone.
22. If the PW.2 was not knowing the name of the assailant, while taking treatment at the hospital, how he came to know his name while lodging Ex.P.2 complaint? This fact has not been explained by the PW.2. The PW.6 being the treated doctor in his cross examination admits that, a person can sustain injuries referred in Ex.P.1 if, he falls on hard surface.
23. The prosecution contends that, the PW.5 is an eyewitness to the incident. According to PW.5, the accused was doing wheeling of his cycle. The PW.4 being another eyewitness has stated that the accused was doing wheeling of his cycle. The PW.4 and 5 did not say that the accused and his friends were doing wheeling on their motorcycles. The PW.4 and 5 did not say anything about other persons or friends of the accused, who were allegedly 12 C.C.No.4551/2017 doing wheeling on a public road at Amarjyothi Layout on 13.10.2016.
24. Though the PW.4 and 5 deposed about witnessing the incident, they did not tender themselves for cross examination. Inspite of issuance of repeated warrants and proclamations, they did not appear before the court. The police have also published proclamation warrant against PW.4 on 25.07.2024. By noting their absence and age of the case, the court dropped PW.4 and 5 from examination. In the absence of complete evidence of PW.4 and 5, the court cannot believe their incomplete version as gospel truth.
25. Though the PW.2 stated that, the accused and 4 others were doing wheeling of their motorcycle at Amarjyothi Layout, he did not name the other persons, who accompanied the accused. In Ex.P.2, the PW.2 stated that, the accused and his friends assaulted him with stone. But, in his evidence, the PW.2 stated that, he was assaulted by the accused alone.
13 C.C.No.4551/2017
26. During the course of cross examination, the PW.2 stated that he did not mention the name of the offender, who assaulted him while taking treatment as he was not knowing his name. In his cross examination, he admits that Ex.P.2 complaint is not in his handwriting. As stated by PW.1, if he was not knowing the name of the accused/offender while taking treatment from the hospital, how he came to know about the name of the accused, while giving Ex.P.2 complaint to the police. This fact has not been explained by PW.2.
27. Though the PW.2 contends that, the police have seized MO.1 stone from the spot while drawing mahazar, he himself admits that MO.1 does not bear the label containing his signature for having seized the same from the spot in his presence. The PW.7 being the police officer has stated that, he has written Ex.P.2 complaint as per the sayings of CW.1. But there is no endorsement in the complaint stating that, PW.7 has written the complaint as stated by PW.2.
14 C.C.No.4551/2017
28. During the course of cross examination, the PW.7 stated that they had received intimation from Sai hospital regarding the complainant taking treatment with the history of assault. As stated by PW.7, if he had received intimation from the hospital, how he came to know about the name of the accused, so as to mention the same in Ex.P.2. In this case the IO has not produced MLC intimation. Moreover, the name of the assailant is not mentioned in the wound certificate. The PW.2 was not knowing the name of the accused while taking treatment. Inspite of it, the name of the accused is mentioned in Ex.P.2. This fact creates doubt about this case.
29. Though the PW.8 stated that he has arrested the accused near the bus terminal of Saraipalya on 14.10.2014 at 4 p.m., his version is not supported by the oral evidence of any independent witnesses. In the present case, there is no convincing evidence on record to hold that the accused assaulted PW.2 with a stone and caused injuries to his lower lip and right intra orbital region. As 15 C.C.No.4551/2017 stated by PW.4 if the accused assaulted PW.2 with a stone to his mouth and back, the doctor ought to have noticed any injury on his back. But ,the treated doctor did not notice any such injury on the back of PW.2. This aspect also creates doubt regarding the genuineness of this case.
30. In the present case, the IO has not seized the so called motorcycle or cycle of the accused, which was used for doing wheeling on the public road. Hence, the evidence led by PW.1 to 8 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.2 is not supported by the oral evidence of any independent witnesses. In the absence of oral evidence of independent witnesses, the version of PW.2 appears to be baseless.
31. From the evidence led by PW.1 to 8, it is not proved that, the accused assaulted PW.2 on 13.10.2016 at 6.45 p.m at Amra Jyothi layout. There is no convincing evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused assaulted PW.2 with a stone on 13.10.2016 at 16 C.C.No.4551/2017 6.45p.m., in front of M.N.K. Vidyanikethana School, Amarajyoti layout, Sampigehalli, caused injury to his lower lip and right eye when he questioned the acts of the accused, who was wheeling the cycle on a public road and causing nuisance to the general public. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Negative. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the charge of Sec. 324 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
The property seized under PF No.65/2016 i.e., MO.1/ stone being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period. TATTANDA Digitally signed by TATTANDA DAMAYANTI DAMAYANTI SOMAIAH Date: 2024.12.18 17:51:10 +0530 SOMAIAH 18.12.2024 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU 17 C.C.No.4551/2017 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : K.T.Nagaraj PW.2 : Anoop PW.3 : Kiran PW.4 : Jagadish PW.5 : Rajan PW.6 : Dr.Rangarajan PW.7 : Shivaramaiah PW.8 : Anand K.V.,
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.1[b] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.2 : Written information/Complaint Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.2[b] : Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.3 : Spot cum seizure Mahazar Ex.P.3[a] : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.3[b] : Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.3[c] : Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.3[d] : Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.4 : Portion of the statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5 : FIR 18 C.C.No.4551/2017 Ex.P.5[a] : Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.6 : Report given by PW.8 Ex.P.6[a] : Signature of PW.8 LIST OF MO'S MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 : Stone LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED : NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED : NIL
....................................................................................
Dictated on : 10.12.2024
Transcribed on : 10.12.2024
checked on : 18.12.2024
Signed on : 18.12.2024
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M.,BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS