Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya P.S vs Manjunatha S/O Ramakrishnaiah on 19 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the Thursday the 19th day of March 2015
Present: Sri B. Venkatesha, B.Sc., LL.B.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bangalore.
CC No.42239/2010
Complainant State by Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore.
(Rep., by Sr.APP., B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.Manjunatha S/o Ramakrishnaiah,
34 Yrs., R/a No.1, 8th Cross, Agrahara
Dasarahalli, Bangalore.
Presently r/a Prakruthi Nilaya, Sharadha
Colony, 8th Main, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore.
2.Krishna S/o Hanumantharayappa,
40 Yrs., R/o I Cross, Lavakusha Nagar,
Laggere, Bangalore.
And also at Jadaganahalli Village,
Madhugiri Tq., Tumkur Dist.,
(Rep. by Sri CS and another, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.42239/2010
2. Date of the commission of the : 16.04.2010
offence
2 CC No.42239/2010
3.The name of the complainant : Sri Nanjundaswamy
4.Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5.the offence complained off :U/s.323 and 326 of IPC
and proved r/w Sec.34 of IPC
6.The plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : Acquitted
8.The date of such order : 19.03.2015.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR FINAL ORDER:
The prosecution's case in brief as set out in Cl. No.7 of
charge sheet is that on 16.04.2010 at about 5.15 a.m.
complainant having tea by parking his auto rickshaw bearing
registration No.KA-05-B-7438 at Jai Munirao Circle, situated at
Agrahara Dasarahalli, by that time a unknown person came and
asked him to come on hire having some luggage and took him to
a newly constructed building situated at 8th Cross, near Jai
Munirao Circle, Agrahara Dasarahalli within the limits of
Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore, and asked him to park his auto
3 CC No.42239/2010
rickshaw in the front road, while the said person loading the
centering sheets to his auto rickshaw, by that time accused No.1
came to the spot and enquired the same, by that time the said
unknown person ran away from the spot, and the accused No.1
picked up quarrel with the complainant by stating why you didn't
caught hold the said person, and assaulted over his face and all
over the body with hands, voluntarily caused hurt. At that time,
accused No.2 also came to the said spot, and picked up quarrel
with the complainant and assaulted him with the help of a club
over his left harm and caused grievous hurt to the complainant.
Thus, the accused persons have committed the aforesaid offences
as alleged. Hence, the Charge Sheet.
2.During Crime stage, the accused persons enlarged on bail.
After submission of this charge sheet, this court has taken
cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the aforesaid
accused persons. Copies of the charge sheet have been furnished
to them as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. With no objection from the
Counsel for the accused, this Court framed charge for the
4 CC No.42239/2010
aforesaid offences against them. The same read over and
explained to them in the language known to them. They pleaded
not guilty. The prosecution has examined complainant and CW.9,
as PWs.1 and 2 and it has got marked two documents as Ex.P1 to
P3. MO1 club is also got marked for the prosecution. Statement
of the accused as required U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. has been
recorded. The accuseds have denied the incriminating evidence
that appeared against them. The accused No.1 is examined as
DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D13 to disprove the case of the
prosecution.
3.Heard the arguments of both sides, perused evidence
placed before the court.
4.This case has been registered in view of the complaint
submitted as per Ex.P1 by the complainant-Nanjundaswamy to
the then SHO of Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore on 16.04.2010 at
about 2.30 p.m. In the complaint marked at Ex.P1, complainant
has stated almost all the facts as averred in the Cl. No.7 of
Charge Sheet and para No.1 of this judgment. Ex.P2 is the FIR
5 CC No.42239/2010
submitted to this Court. Ex.P3 discloses that after registration of
this complaint, the then SHO of Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore,
had gone to the alleged spot of the incident and prepared the
mahazar in between 3.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. on 16.04.2010 in the
presence of the complainant and two panchas. The same
discloses that at that time the I.O., had seized 2 and ½ feet
length club. The said club is marked as MO1.
5. PW.2, the complainant during the course of his oral
evidence has deposed that one day about 2-3 years back he was
at Jai Munirao Circle of Agrahara Dasarahalli and waiting
passengers to his auto rickshaw. At that time, one unknown
person came near him and requested him to took his auto
rickshaw towards Magadi Road on rent. Therefore, he took the
said person in his auto rickshaw and traveled towards the
residential house of the accused No.1 that situated at Agrahara
Dasarahalli. The said person has loaded 5 cement sheets to his
auto rickshaw, the watchmen came there and attempted to
caught hold the said person. Thereafter, the said person and
6 CC No.42239/2010
another person ran away from the spot. The said watchmen
through telephone intimated the said fact to accused No.1 and
thereafter the accused No.1 along with woman and another
person came to the spot. The accused No.1 asked him that why
you came to here on rent and kicked him with his bootlegs on his
chest and stomach. The accused No.2 took the complainant to
the floor of the said building and thereafter accused No.1 and 2
assaulted to him with club over his left harm. Therefore, he had
submitted the complaint to the SHO of Kamakshipalya P.S.,
Police came to the spot and prepared the mahazar and seized the
said club. He took treatment at KC General Hospital. He has
identified the said club as MO1.
7.PW.1 NJ Bettegowda, the then SHO of Kamakshipalya
P.S., has deposed about receipt of the Ex.P1 complaint from the
complainant on 16.04.2010 at about 2.30 p.m. He has further
deposed that on the basis of the said Ex.P1 complaint, he
registered this case and submitted Ex.P2 FIR to the Court. He
7 CC No.42239/2010
visited the spot and prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P-3. He has
not deposed that he had seized the MO-1 club.
8. In the evidence, the accused No.1 has deposed before
this Court on 16.04.2010 he left Agharaha Dasarahalli at about
4.30 a.m. and proceeded towards Bangalore International Airport
to travel towards Delhi. On the same day at about 7.00 a.m. he
boarded the flight and reached Delhi at 11.15 a.m. He was
further deposed that on 16.04.2010 at about 5.15 a.m. he has not
assaulted to the complainant with his hands or with club. Ex.D1 is
the letter issued by the Travel Tours Private Ltd., to the accused
No.1. The same discloses that accused No.1 has purchased Air
Ticket to travel towards Delhi on 16.04.2010. The said ticket
discloses the dispatching time of the flight as 7.00 a.m. and
arrival time as 9.40 a.m. Seat No. is S-2- 232. Ex.D2 is the
boarding pass issued by the Airport Authority. Ex.D-3 is the Seat
number ticket S2 232 towards Delhi. Ex.D4 is the receipt issued
by Shalimar Hotel, Delhi. The same discloses that the accused
No.1 has stayed in the said hotel on 16.04.2010. Ex.D5 is the
8 CC No.42239/2010
intimation given by St. Philomena's Hospital to the Police Sub-
Inspector of Ashoknagar P.S., Bangalore. The same discloses
that the accused No.1 Manjunath has obtained treatment in the
said Hospital on 13.04.2010 at about 4.45 p.m. for multiple skin
abrasions and loss of skin. Ex.D-6 is the statement of Emergency
Medicine that issued by St. Philomena's Hospital. Ex.D-7 to D11
are the Medicine purchased bills and Prescriptions. Ex.D12 is the
copy of Mutation Register of the property bearing survey No.1/*/4
and 45/*/* of Kithanahalli Village. The same discloses that the
said properties are the properties of one Mangalalakshmamma.
Ex.P13 is the RTC Extract of land bearing survey No.45 of
Kithnahalli village, the same discloses that the said Mangala
Lakshmamma is in peaceful and enjoyment of the land measuring
20 guntas as on the year 2006-2007.
9.As per the complaint, it is alleged that the accused No.1
has assaulted to the complainant with his hands over his face and
body. The same discloses that the accused No.2 has assaulted to
the complainant with club over his left hand and caused grievous
9 CC No.42239/2010
injuries over his left hand Whereas I stated supra, the
complainant, in his oral evidence recorded at the time of his chief
examination, has deposed that the accused No.1 with bootlegs
has assaulted over his chest and stomach. He has also deposed
that both the accused persons have assaulted to him with club
over his left hand. Medical Certificate placed on the record
discloses that the left foreharm tenderness and swelling and
swelling of face. Injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2
is simple in nature. The Doctor who has treated the complainant
is not examined before this Court inspite of opportunities
provided. The I.O., who has conducted the further investigation
also, has not been examined. According to the complainant and
the evidence of PW.2 there were no eyewitnesses to the said
incident. The evidence recorded during the course of cross-
examination of PW.2 discloses that the complainant has not
known the accused persons prior to that date. In the complaint
marked at Ex.P1, the complainant has not mentioned the names
and addresses of the accused persons. Therefore, I am of the
10 CC No.42239/2010
view that the evidence of the I.O., is required to know in what
way he has find out the names and addresses of the accused
persons. Evidence PW-1 is different than the contents of ExP-1.
In the absence of the evidence Of the IO as well as the evidence
of the Medical Officer, it would be very difficult to accept that on
the aforesaid date time and place, the accused persons have
assaulted to the complainant with hands, bootlegs and with club.
No evidence placed to show that the house under construction
(where the alleged assault is made) is belongs/belonged to the A-
1 & 2. The evidence of PW.2 appears to be not reliable in nature.
No corroborative evidence is placed to accept the evidence of
PW.2. It is clear that the evidence of PW.2 is doubtful in nature
about the identity of the accused persons. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to have the
benefit of doubt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as alleged
against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The
accused persons are entitled for acquittal.
11 CC No.42239/2010
10.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
By acting U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.323 and 326 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 months from this date in view of Secs.437 (A) of Cr.P.C., Refund cash security amount of Rs.1,000/- each to accused No.1 and 2 after expiry of appeal period as per law.
MO-1 club is worthless. Destroy the same after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this Thursday the 19th day of March 2015.) (B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
12 CC No.42239/2010ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW.1 NJ Bette Gowda PW.2 Nanjundaswamy
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex-P-1 Complaint dt., 16.04.2010 Ex.P-2 FIR Ex.P-2 Mahazar dt., 16.04.2010.
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW.1 Manjunath Ex.D1 Letter Ex.D2 Boarding Pass Ex.D3 Seat S2 232 Ex.D4 Hotel Bill Ex.D5 Police Intimation Ex.D6 Statement of Emergency Medicine Ex.D7 to D11 Medicine purchase bills and prescriptions Ex.D12 Mutation Register Ex.D13 RTC Extract.
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
MO-1 the Club (B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.13 CC No.42239/2010
19.03.2015 Case called. Accused No 1 and 2 are present., St. by Sr. APP Judgment pronounced in the open Court as A-1 & 2 on bail under vide separate Judgement kept in the For Judgment file.
By acting U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.323 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 months from this date in view of Secs.437(A) of Cr.P.C., Refund cash security amount of Rs.1,000/- each to accused No.1 and 2 after expiry of appeal period as per law.
MO-1 club is worthless. Destroy the same after expiry of appeal period.
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
14 CC No.42239/2010