Bangalore District Court
The State By P.S.I vs Abhinay Singh @ Abhinay on 1 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st Day of April, 2022
C.C. No.3031/2017
Complainant:
The State by P.S.I.
Cubbon Park Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused:
Abhinay Singh @ Abhinay
s/o Ramlakam Singh
Age 39 years, r/at No.524
M.M.Layout, Kavalbyrasandra
3rd B Cross, R.T.Nagar
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.L.Santhosh Kumar Advocate)
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 3031/2017
2. The date of commission 18092016
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant Umesh R Udapa
2 C.C.3031/2017
4. Name of the accused Abhinay Singh
5. The offence complained of U/s. 353 and 504 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Accused is acquitted
8. Date of such order 01042022
For the following:
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station has filed the final report against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 353 and 504 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 18092016 at about 1.00 a.m., at Queens Circle, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru, the CW1, 4, 5 and 7 were on special duty of inspection for drunk and drive vehicle riders, at that time the accused by consuming alcohol came near CW1 by walk and abused him in filthy language, the CW1 has advised him to go home, for that the accused pulling the shirt of CW1 and damaged the 3 C.C.3031/2017 button and name plate of him deter him to discharge his duty. Accordingly, CW1 had lodged first information before the Cubbon Park Police Station, accordingly said police have registered FIR against the accused. On 18/09/2016 the accused was arrested and produced before this court who was remanded to judicial custody. On 19/09/2016 the accused by moving application obtained bail. After completion of investigation the IO has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
3. This Court has taken the cognizance. In pursuance of summons the accused appeared. The prosecution papers furnished to accused in compliance of Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing both side, my predecessor in office has framed the charges, read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and got marked six documents 4 C.C.3031/2017 as Ex.P1 to P6 and one material object as per MO1. The prosecution has given up CW5. Thereafter in spite of taking coercive steps the prosecution has not secured CW2, 3, 6 and 7, so the evidence of prosecution side taken as closed.
6. Thereafter, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and not chosen to lead defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides, perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18092016 at 1.00 a.m., at Queens Circle, the PW1 & 2 and CW5 & 7 were inspecting the vehicle then accused intentionally insulted PW1 and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 504 of IPC?
5 C.C.3031/2017
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused pulled the uniform of PW1 and deter him from discharging his duty and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 353 of IPC?
3. What order?
8. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 and 2: In order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken both the points together for common consideration for sake of brevity.
10. In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution has examined four witnesses as PW.1 to 4 and marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to P5 and one material object as per MO1. The then PSI of Cubbonpark Traffic Police 6 C.C.3031/2017 Station, who has lodged first information examined as PW1, The Police constable who accompanied with PW1 examined as PW2. The then ASI who has registered the case and issued the FIR as PW3. Further investigation officer, who after completion of the investigation filed the Charge sheet as PW4.
11. PW1 being the then PSI of Cubbonpark Traffic Police Station, has deposed that on 18/09/2016 himself and PW2 were checking the vehicles at Queens circle for identifying the drunken drivers. On that day, at late night 100 a.m. the accused came to him in a drunken condition and picked up quarrel on the ground that he was booked for drunken driving case earlier, then he told him to go to home as he is in alcoholic condition. For that the accused abused him in filthy language and dragged his uniform for which his Shirt button and name plate were came out. Himself and PW2 caught the accused and enquired his name. Accordingly, they have produced him before the Cubbon Park Police 7 C.C.3031/2017 station stating that the accused has prevented him from discharging his public duty. Accordingly he has filed first information statement as per Ex.P1 and his signature at Ex.P1(a).
12. He further deposed that, on 19/09/2016 at 1200 noon the I.O has visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of CW2 & 3 as showed by him as per Ex.P2 and his signature at Ex.P2(a). At the time of conducting mahazar the IO has seized his uniform white Shirt which is marked at MO.1. He also identified the accused present before the court.
13. During the crossexamination, he stated that, he has not furnished any document to show that he had filed drunk and drive case against the accused before the IO. He denied the suggestions that, he was deposing falsely that the accused has committed the alleged offences. He also denied the suggestions that no punchanama was drawn as per Ex.P2 but they have created the same. On 18/09/2016 8 C.C.3031/2017 when he was inspecting the vehicle and at the time of incident no public were gathered. He denied the suggestions that, on 17/09/2016 at 900 p.m. to 1000 p.m. when he was inspecting the vehicle even though the accused has shown all the documents he has abused him in filthy language and not allowed him to go further, so in ordered to avoid that the accused may file any case against him he has filed this false case against the accused.
14. PW2 being the then Police constable of Cubbon park Traffic PS has also stated in the same line as of PW1 and identified the accused as well as MO1.
15. During the crossexamination, he expressed his ignorance that on that day how many cases were registered by PW1. He further stated that, the incident was seen by 2 to 3 people. He denied the suggestions that on that day no incident as alleged taken place, but only as per the say of his higher officer he was deposing falsely.
9 C.C.3031/2017
16. PW3 being the then ASI of Cubbon Park PS deposed that on 18/09/2016 at 130 a.m. he received first information statement from PW1 as per Ex.P1 and issued FIR as per Ex.P3, his signature is at Ex.P3(a). The PW1 has also produced the accused and he preserved him and handed over further investigation to PW4 and identified the accused before the court.
17. PW4 being the further investigation officer has deposed that after receiving case file from PW3 for further investigation on 18/09/2016 he recorded the statements of CW4 to 7 and sent the accused with remand application to the court. He further stated that on the next day he visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazer in the presence of panchas CW2 and 3 in between 12 noon to 1245 p.m. as per Ex.P2 and seized the Shirt of PW1 as per MO1. He further stated that on 20/09/2016 filed a requisition to the Cubbonpark Traffic Police Station to furnish the details of Deputation of work on 18/09/2016 which is as per Ex.P4 10 C.C.3031/2017 and on 20/09/2016 he received the copy of Station house diary and the duty roster, which were marked as per Ex.P5 & 6 respectively. After completion of investigation he has filed the final report and identified the accused before the court.
18. During the course of crossexamination PW3 & 4 have denied each and every suggestions put to them. PW3 stated that, at 130 a.m. he sent the accused to the medical examination. PW4 stated that he has not received any records about medical examination of the accused. He also stated that at the time of enquiry PW1 & 2 have not stated before him that the accused was subjected to the test of consumption of liquor at that time he has deter PW1 to discharge of his duty. He denied the suggestion that he has not recorded statements of witnesses and created MO1 for the purpose of this case. He also denied that, though there is no material against the accused, but he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.
11 C.C.3031/2017
19. Here in this case, the PW1 and 2 have supported the case and deposed as per the case of the prosecution. However, during the crossexamination PW1 has stated that at the time of alleged incident there were no person at that spot, whereas PW2 states that 2 to 3 persons have witnessed the incident. This is a major contradiction in the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, PW1 and 2 are at the same place while discharging their duty by inspecting the vehicles. The IO has also not at all cited any independent witnesses in the charge sheet.
20. The prosecution has also not secured the mahazar witnesses i.e., CW2 and 3 despite taking coercive steps by this court. Therefore, the Ex.P2 the mahazar has not been proved by examining the independent witnesses. Only PW1 and PW4 have stated about conducting about mahazar as per Ex.P2.
21. According to PW4, the mahazar witnesses have put their signatures on Ex.P2 at the spot at the time of 12 C.C.3031/2017 conducting the mahazar. In this case, the prosecution neither examined the mahazar witnesses nor any independent witnesses. So, without examination of the mahazar witnesses or any independent witnesses Ex.P.2 looses its sanctity as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 73 Varun Choudhary V/s State of Rajasthan.
22. Of course in this case, the PW1 to 4 being the police witnesses have deposed as per the case of the prosecution. But, the PW1 alleged that due to the case registered by him against the accused earlier on that grudge he has picked up quarrel with him but the PW1 has clearly admitted that he has not furnished any document with regard to the earlier case filed by him against the accused before the IO. As I have already discussed that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution, even though 2 to 3 persons have witnessed the incident as per the version of PW2. There is also discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses with 13 C.C.3031/2017 regard to the medical report of the accused in order to ascertain whether he was in a drunken condition or not at the relevant point of time.
23. On careful scrutiny of oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, it clearly reveals that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, there is no material on record to accept the case of the prosecution. So, I answer the above points in the negative.
24. Point No.3: For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 353 and 504 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. 14 C.C.3031/2017
His bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
The property seized under P.F.No.85/2016 shall be destroyed as it is worthless after the expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 1 st day of April, 2022) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU : Annexure :
Witness examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 : Umesh R s/o Rajushetty
PW2 : Syed Ali s/o Syed Gouse
PW3 : Narayan Tiwari s/o Krishnappa
PW4 : S.Nagaraju s/o Siddegowda
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P1 : First Information Statement Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P3 : First Information Report Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW3 15 C.C.3031/2017 Ex.P4 : Letter dated 1809216 Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P5 : True copy of Station House Diary Ex.P6 : True copy of Duty Roster Diary Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
NIL Material Object:
MO1 : Uniform shirt VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru 16 C.C.3031/2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 353 and 504 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
His bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
The property seized under P.F.No.85/2016 shall be destroyed as it is worthless after the expiry of appeal period.
VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU