Bangalore District Court
R.T.Nagar Police Station vs 2018 on 10 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2020
Serial Number of the C.C.5519/2018
case
Name of the State by Police Inspector,
complainant R.T.Nagar Police station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1).Lokesh,
person S/o.Late. Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
R/At.No.2792, 3rd Cross,
E Block, 2nd Stage,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
2).Anil Kumar,
S/o.Late.Srichandra,
Aged about 47 years,
R/At.No.1, 2nd Cross,
2nd Stage, AECS Layout,
Sanjaynagar, Bangalore.
3).K.Gunashekar,
S/o.Late.Kannappa,
Aged about 47 years,
R/At.No.53, AMN Residency,
4th Floor, Mathikere, Bangalore.
(Reptd. by Sri.M.U...Adv.,
Date of 11.01.2018
commencement of
offence
2 C.C.5519//2018
Offences complained U/Secs.353, 504, 341, 323, r/w
of Sec. 34 of the IPC.
Date of arrest of Accused no.1 to 3 arrested on
accused 11.01.2018,
Date of release of 11.01.2018
accused on bail
Date of 29.11.2018
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closure of 04.10.2019
recording evidence
Offences Proved Nil
Plea of the accused Not guilty
and his examination :
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 10.03.2020
JUDGMENT
U/Sec.355 of the Cr.P.C., This is a charge sheet submitted by PI of R.T.Nagar P.S. against accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 353, 504, 341 and 323 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC. in Cr.No.07/2018.
2. In brief, case of the prosecution runs thus:-
2(a). On 11.01.2018 at about 1.30.A.M in the early morning the C.W.1 PSI was on patrolling duty and he
3 C.C.5519//2018 found that the accused no.1 to 3 had parked their Honda Amaze car-KA-04-MM-6614 near Empire Hotel on 80 feet road in R.T.Nagar and the accused no.1 to 3 were consuming alcohol and same is noticed by the C.W.1 -PSI.
b). C.W.1,asked the accused no.1 to 3 to move and not consume alcohol in the public place for that the accused no.1 to 3 questioned the authority of C.W.1 and also threatend him stating that they know political leaders and famous advocates and resisted the C.W.1. Thereafter the C.W.1 called the C.W.2-police constable and C.W.3-Head constable to the spot and within 5 to 10 minutes C.W.2 and 3 came to the spot. Thereafter C.W.1 to 3 together informed the accused no.1 to 3 that they are obstructing to discharge official duty of the police and again they asked to move stating that if not, further action will be initiated.
c). As a response to that the accused no.1 to 3 got down from the car, abused the C.W.1 in filthy language and they came to assault the C.W.1. At that time C.W.2 came to rescue of the C.W.1. At that point of time the 4 C.C.5519//2018 accused no.1 to 3 assaulted C.W.2 with hands on his back and slapped him on his cheek and also pulled his uniform, made the C.W.2 to fall down and thereby the accused no.1 to 3 obstructed the C.W.1 to 3 to discharge their official duty.
d). At that point of time, C.W.4-ASI and C.W.5- P.C who were on patrolling duty in Hoysala vehicle came to the spot on seeing the galata. The accused no.1 to 3 tried to escape from the spot on seeing C.W.4 and 5. When the C.W.4 and 5 came to the spot, the C.W.1 directed them to apprehend the accused no.1 to 3. When the C.W.2 to 5 tried to apprehend the accused no.1 to 3 they tried to escape from the spot and when the C.W.1 to 5 chased the accused persons the accused tried to assault them. At that point of time the C.W.1 to 5 succeeded to apprehend accused no.1 to 3 by using minimum force.
e). Thereafter the C.W.1 produced accused no.1 to 3 before the C.W.13 SHO. In turn the C.W.13 registered the crime and proceeded to the spot and drawn mahazar on the spot and seized the car No.KA-04-MM-
5 C.C.5519//2018 6614 and one bag containing used 03 beer bottles and 2 chips pockets which were found in the car. The I.O also recovered the shirt produced by C.W.2 under mahazar.
During course of further investigation, the C.W.14- police Inspector recorded statement of the witnesses including the eye witness-C.W.10 to 12 and after completing investigation he submitted charge sheet against accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 353, 341, 504 and 323 of the IPC.
3. After submitting the charge sheet cognizance of the alleged offence is taken and criminal case against the accused No.1 to 3 came to be registered. Pursuant to the summons the accused No.1 to 3 appeared and were enlarged on bail. Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C complied.
4. After hearing before charge, since this court finds sufficient reasons to proceed further, charge framed against accused no.1 to 3 and same is read over to accused no.1 to 3. Accused no.1 to 3 pleaded 6 C.C.5519//2018 not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution in all evidence of PW.1 to 3 adduced and the documents got marked at Ex.P1 to 4 and M.O.1 to 5 got marked.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused no.1 to 3 are examined U/s.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused are separately read over to the accused No.1 to 3. The accused no.1 to 3 denied all such circumstances as false. The accused no.1 to 3 did not choose to adduce defense evidence and got marked no document on their behalf.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Now the point that arises for the determination of this court is:
"Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 353, 341,504 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC?
7 C.C.5519//2018 After considering the arguments submitted from both side and after careful appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, my finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following.....
REASONS
9. Point No.1: On behalf of prosecution, the informant of crime- C.W.1- PSI-Sri.Irrappa Ritti examined as P.W.2. Through this witness the complaint, spot mahazar are marked as Ex.P.2 and 3 and 03 beer bottles and 02 chips packets are marked as M.O.1 to 4. The shirt of C.W.2 is marked as MO.5.
10. The C.W.2 police constable examined as P.W.3. C.W.4 one Sri. RamaKrishna-ASI examined as P.W.1. Through this P.W.1, photo of the car is marked as Ex.P.1.
Cross examination of P.W. 1 and 2 was deferred at the request of the counsel for accused subject to payment of cost. Thereafter P.W.1 and 2 did not turn 8 C.C.5519//2018 up to undergo cross examination. Even after taking coercive steps the prosecution failed to secure P.W.1 and 2. Hence it is recorded that P.W.1 and 2 not available for cross examination and evidence of P.W.1 and 2 came to be discarded. Since evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is not complete evidence, same is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
12. Learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor given up examination of C.W.5 who is cited as eye witness to the incident.
The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.
13. In the decision In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 900 (State of Karnataka v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead 9 C.C.5519//2018 evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision. In this present case on hand, repeatedly NBW was issued against other witnesses. NBW was issued through DCP also. Hence law laid down in the above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
14. Now the evidence of P.W.3 alone is available on record, in support of the case of the prosecution. The P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that on 11.01.2018 at 1.30A.M in the early morning on the basis of the information given by C.W.1(P.W.2) himself and C.W.3 rushed to the spot and he seen that the accused no.1 to 3 were abusing the C.W.1 in vulgar language and C.W.1 was telling the accused not to obstruct him in discharging his duty and C.W.1 was telling the accused not to consume alcohol on the public road. Further P.W.3 deposed that accused threatened the C.W.1 and accused came to assault C.W.1 and when he went to rescue of C.W.1 the accused no.1 to 3 assaulted him, slapped him on his cheek, torn his button in the uniform and name 10 C.C.5519//2018 badge and in the incident he fell down. Further P.W.3 deposed that C.W.4 and 5 who were in hoysala duty came to the spot and accused no.1 to 3 tried to flee away on seeing the Hoysala vehicle and thereafter they apprehended the accused no.1 to 3 and took them to the police station.
15. No doubt P.W.3 is interested witness. In the decisions reported in:
1. (2003) 11 SCC 681 (Harijan Narayana and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) wherein it is held that Criminal Trial witnessrelated witnesstestimony of -conviction on the basis of -Held, permissible if the presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved or considered to be natural and the evidence tendered by him/her is found to be true but where there is enmity and the witnesses are near relatives too, held great care, caution and circumspection required while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses"
2). AIR 1980 SC 443( Babu VS State of UP wherein it is held that were the witnesses are interested, their evidence should be scrutinized with great caution"
I have gone through the law laid down in the above decisions. Keeping the law laid down in the above said decisions, I have carefully examined the material 11 C.C.5519//2018 available on record. No doubt the fact that the P.W.3 is interested witness itself is not a ground to rule out or disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3. In this background on looking to the evidence of P.W.3 this court noticed that the P.W.3 in the cross examination admitted that there is CCTV camera at the scene of the offence. Further this court noticed that as per say of P.W.3 in the chief examination the accused had put beer bottles on the bonnet of the car, when they reached the spot.
According to the case of the prosecution, the M.O.1 to 3 beer bottles seized from inside the car. As per complaint averments the accused were consuming alochol and C.W.1 warned them to leave the place, but accused resisted the C.W.1 and thereafter C.W.1 called the C.W.2 and 3, thereafter C.W.2 and 3 came to the spot within 510 minutes and at that time accused were inside the car. This material aspect is not supported by the oral evidence of P.W.3. On this aspect the evidence of P.W.3 is contrary to the case of the prosecution. Apart from that this court noticed that the prosecution case is not explaining the overt act of each accused and in 12 C.C.5519//2018 the evidence also the overt act of each accused is not explained. Apart from that the evidence placed on record is not free from material contradictions. Under these circumstances, non examination of other independent eye witness/es is seriously fatal to the case of the prosecution. The prime witnessesP.W.1 and 2 did not turn up for further cross examination. This aspect is seriously fatal to the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, non examination of the I.O also is seriously fatal to the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, this court does not find any good and sufficient reasons to believe and act upon on the evidence of P.W.3 and to hold the accused guilty. Under the circumstances it is not safe and proper to hold the accused guilty based on the evidence placed on record. Out of the evidence and circumstances of the case, number of serious doubt arises in believing the case of the prosecution. As a matter of right, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. With this view I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following ...
13 C.C.5519//2018
ORDER
Acting U/s.248(1)) of Cr.P.C., I
hereby acquit the accused No.1 to 3
for the offences punishable U/secs. 353, 504, 341, 323, r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of the accused no.1 to 3 and that of surety stands canceled.
M.O.1 to 5 seized in this case are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
(Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her computerized copy corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March 2020).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Sri. Ramkrishna-ASI P.W.2: Sri.Irappa Ritti-PSI P.W.3: Sri.Pradeepa.T.S- P.C
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1:-Photo of the car Ex.P.2:-Complaint Ex.P.2(a): Signature Ex.P.3: Mahazar Ex.P.3(a):Signature
14 C.C.5519//2018 Ex.P.4:Photo of the car
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused Nil
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 to 3 - Three beer bottles, M.O.4 - Two chips packets, M.O.5-Shirt of C.W.2 (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.