Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By Kamakshipalya Police Station vs Narayana R on 27 November, 2019

  IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
              MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE

          Dated this the 27th    day of November , 2019

                          :PRESENT:
          SMT. SHIRIN J ANSARI B.A.LLB (Hons)., LL.M.
                     V ACMM Bangalore .

                CRIMINAL CASE No.24016 /2017

Complainant      :    State by Kamakshipalya Police station ,
                      Bangalore
                                (Rep by Sr.A.P.P)

                                -VS-

Accused          :    1.Narayana R,
                      S/of. Rajanna.T
                      aged 50 years,
                      R/of. No.18, Ashirwad Nilaya
                      7th B main road,
                      Muthyalanagar
                      Mathikere
                      Bangalore.

                      2. Usha K.S
                      W/of. Sreenivas
                      aged 39 years
                      R/of.No.700, 15th main road
                      Gokula Road,
                      Bangalore.

                      3. Yathish Raju
                      @ Yatish
                      S/of. Narasimharaju
                      aged 45 years
                                 2
                                               CC No. 24016/2017

                     R/of. No.25, 7th cross
                     Bhovi Palya,
                     Mahalaxmi Layout
                     Bangalore .

                          (Rep by Sri.HAB, Advocate,)

   1.    Date of commencement of       23.03.2017
         offence
   2.    Date of report of offence     23.03.2017

    3    Arrest of the accused         The accused are on bail
   4.    Name of the complainant       Puttamma
   5.    Date of recording of          24.6.2019
         evidence

   6.    Date of closing of evidence   28.10.2019
   7.    Offences complained of        Secs.337 and 338 of
                                       IPC
   8.    Opinion of the Judge          The accused are   found not
                                       guilty
   9.    Complainant by                The Learned Sr.APP
   10.   Accused defence by            Sri.HAB ., Advocate,

                         JUDGMENT

The IO of Kamakshipalya police station, Bangalore has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sections 337 & 338 of IPC. 3

CC No. 24016/2017

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-

That the accused No.1 to 3 are the owners of the Tyrox Metal factory situated at Sreenivas Nagar. CWs 1to 4 were found working in the said factory belonging to the accused persons without hand gloves, helmet and other safety equipments and due to negligence of the accused persons on 23.3.2017 , at about 8.50p.m. the oven machine got bursted and blasted for which the CW Nos.1 and 4 sustained grievous injuries and Cw2 sustained simple injures and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec.337 and 338 of IPC. Hence, this complaint.
On the basis of above said allegations the police have registered a case in crime No.143/2017 and forwarded FIR to this court. During the course of investigation, accused persons appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail. Thereafter, police have as usual conducted the investigation 4 CC No. 24016/2017 and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.

3. Based on the materials placed on record, cognizance is taken for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons and issued process.

4. Copies of the charge sheet as required Under Section-207 of Cr.P.C., are supplied, after hearing the learned Sr.APP and counsel for the accused necessary charges are framed, read over and explained to the accused , they pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried. Plea of accused persons is recorded and thereafter summons issued to the charge sheet witnesses.

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined CW1 and CW 8 as PW s 1 and 2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons has been brought to the notice of the accused . They denied the same. But did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 5

CC No. 24016/2017 Heard the arguments on both sides, perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

6. Based on the above facts and circumstances on record, the following points arise for my determination:-

POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the accused No.1 to 3 are the owners of the Tyrox Metal factory situated at Sreenivas Nagar and CWs 1to 4 were found working in the said factory belonging to the accused persons without hand gloves, helmet and other safety equipments and due to negligence of the accused persons on 23.3.2017 , at about 8.50p.m. the oven machine got bursted and blasted for which the CW Nos.1 and 4 sustained grievous injuries and Cw2 sustained simple injures and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec.337 and 338 of IPC ?
2. What Order ?

7. My findings on the above points are as under:-

          Point No.1      - In the "Negative"
          Point No.2      - As per final order
                            for the following:-
                              6
                                               CC No. 24016/2017


                          REASONS

   8. Point No. 1     :- It is the case of the prosecution that

the accused No.1 to 3 are the owners of the Tyrox Metal factory situated at Sreenivas Nagar. CWs 1to 4 were found working in the said factory belonging to the accused persons without hand gloves, helmet ad other safety equipments. This show the negligence o f the accused persons for which on 23.3.2017 , at about 8.50p.m. the oven machine got bursted and blasted for which the CW No.1 and 4 sustained grievous injury and Cw 2 sustained simple injuries.

9. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has cited 8 witnesses before the court.They have examined PW s 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 12. Inspite of publication against CW 3 to 6 they have not appeared before the court. Hence, Cw 3 to 6 are dropped. Inspite of issuance of proclamation against Cw 2 who is the resident of Assam, and CW 7 who is the Medical Officer, the proclamation has 7 CC No. 24016/2017 not been published. Hence, prayer of APP for further issuance of proclamation against CW2 & 7 is rejected in view of the hostility of the complainant herself.

10. The complainant Smt Puttamma has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though this witness is subjected to cross-examination nothing fruitful is extracted from the mouth of this witness.

11. Prosecution examined CW 8 as PW 2 who has deposed with regards to the Investigation conducted by him. During the course of cross-examination , it is admitted by PW 2 that he received the complaint on 23.3.2017 and it is also stated in the panchanama that at the time of alleged panchanama, CW 1 was present. But, as per the report and the documents submitted by the prosecution along with charge sheet , it is found that PW 1 got discharged on 24.3.2017. This aspect of the matter creates doubt on the very case of the prosecution . If at all the complainant was admitted in the hospital, how can she be present at the time 8 CC No. 24016/2017 of the panchanama. Further, this aspect of the matter has not been clarified and explained by the prosecution .

12. It is questioned to PW 2 that whether the fact that the complainant was admitted in the hospital is true or that she was present at the time of panchanama, for which the Investigation Officer has answered that the complainant was present at the time of alleged panchanma. This aspect of the matter shows that the admission report of the complainant and the discharge summary which shows that the complainant was discharged on 25.3.2017 are false and created only for the purpose of this case. This aspect of the matter creates cloud on the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case aganinst the accused persons. There are absolutely no grounds or material to record to convict the accused persons . Hence, in view of the reasons mentioned above, point No 1 is answered in the negative.

9

CC No. 24016/2017

13.POINT No.2:- In view of findings on point No.1 , I find that the accused persons are not guilty and in the result , I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER By acting U/Sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.
Bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.
                   Accused     No.1 to 3       shall execute
            personal     bonds    of   Rs.10,000/-        each
towards compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
[ (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this the 27 th day of November , 2019).
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore 10 CC No. 24016/2017 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
       P.W.1          Puttamma
       P.W.2          Mahadevaiah

2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution.
       Ex.P.1           Complaint
       Ex.P.2           Mahazar
       Ex.P.3           FIR
       Ex.P.4           Salary slips
       Ex.P.5           Wound certificate
       Ex.P.6&7         Wound certificates
       Ex.P.8           Copy of Form VAT.7
       Ex.P.9           Copy of Form C
       Ex.P.10          Copy of Registration Cerficate
       Ex.P.11          FQC Certifcate
       Ex.P.12 &13      Certificate and receipt issued by BBMP.


3. List of the witnesses examined for defence: -Nil-
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence: -Nil-
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence: -Nil-

(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore 11 CC No. 24016/2017 12 CC No. 24016/2017 13 CC No. 24016/2017