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 7, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By vs Siddaraju S/O.Ramakrsihna on 17 October, 2015

       IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
        MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU

                 Dated: This the 17th day of October 2015

             PRESENT: Sri.ARJUN.S.MALLUR,
                                                      B.A.L., LL.B.,
                             X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
                             Bengaluru City.

                       C.C.No.52453/2014
       Complainant -     State by, Police Sub Inspector
                         M.D.Pura Police Station
                                    /vs/
       Accused        1. Siddaraju S/o.Ramakrsihna, 26 yrs.
                         No.452/2, Kampeeraanahalli, near
                         Hosur, Tamil Nadu.
                      2. Seenan S/o.Yellappa, 21 yrs. No.412,
                         Marenahalli, near Hosur, Tamil Nadu.


                              JUDGMENT

1. The P.S.I of M.D.Pura police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/S.448, 341, 384, 506 r/w.511 IPC.

2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29/11/2012 around 12.30 PM the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention trespassed to the property of CW.1 at No.8, I Main, Kaverinagar, Bengaluru and attempted to extort money from her and without there being any 2 CC No.52453/2014 provocation threatened her with life and thereby committed the alleged offences.

3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered in M.D.Pura P.S., Cr.No.752/2012 and FIR was submitted to the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas and statement of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons for the alleged offences.

4. Cognizance of offences was taken and summons was issued to the accused. Accused 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. After hearing, charges were framed against 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 1 witness as PW.1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.P1 and P2. As no incriminating evidence found against the accused his statement u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records. 3 CC No.52453/2014

7. The points for consideration is:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on 29/11/2012 around 12.30 PM the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention trespassed to the property of CW.1 at No.8, I Main, Kaverinagar, Bengaluru and attempted to extort money from her and without there being any provocation threatened her with life 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 1 witness. PW.1 Smt.Sumithra is the complainant and the victim. She has turned hostile to the prosecution denying any assault and extorting money from her and also denied any threat to her life by the accused persons. She has denied her complaint before the police under Ex.P1 and also denied any mahazar drawn in her presence under Ex.P2. She has deposed having compromised the dispute with the accused. PW.1 being material witness having turned hostile and compromise being 4 CC No.52453/2014 reported between parties, the prayer of learned Sr.APP to summon and examine other chargesheet witnesses was refused. In view of the material witness turning hostile and compromise being reported between parties, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.

10. POINT NO.2:

For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the alleged offences punishable u/s.448, 341, 385, 506 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 17th day of October 2015).

(ARJUN.S.MALLUR) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

                            5            CC No.52453/2014


                           ANNEXURE
                LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
             Prosecution                 Defence
PW.1 Smt.Sumithra                         Nil
            Exhibits Marked
Ex.P1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2 Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.1.
        Material Objects got marked
             -Nil-


                               X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.