Bangalore District Court
Rajagopalanagar Ps vs Pavan Alias Papa Reddya on 19 September, 2024
1
S C. No.1513/2017
KABC010303442017
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61)
:Present :
Sri Sri Prakash S.Helavar, B.Com., LL.M.,
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 19th day of September, 2024
S.C. No. 1513/2017
COMPLAINANT:- The State of Karnataka,
By Rajgopalnagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:-
Sri. Pavana @ Papareddy
S/o Shri Ravishekar
Aged about 22 years
Residing at Opposite to Sathya
Shiva Kalyanamantapa
3rd Cross, Prithinagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
Date of offence 01.03.2017
Date of report of offence 01.03.2017
Name of the complainant Sri. V.J. Mithun Shilpi, Police
Inspector
2
S C. No.1513/2017
Date of commencement of 03.10.2019
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 16.09.2022
Offences complained of Section 229(A), 332, 353, 307
of Indian Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. K.L, Advocate
JUDGMENT
The present charge sheet is filed by the Rajagopala Nagar Police against the accused alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections 229(A), 332, 353 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
It is alleged by the prosecution that on 01.03.2017, around 4.00 am, in the morning hours, the CW1-Sri.Mithun Shilpi, Police Inspector received a credible information from the informants that nearby Pillappana Katte, one person was wondering in his Honda Activa two wheeler having one long in his hand 3 S C. No.1513/2017 with an intention to commit robbery. Therefore, the CW1-Sri.Mithun Shilpi secured the presence of CW7 to 12 and informed about the movements of said suspected person. Later, all of them proceeded nearby Pillappana Katte in Government Jeep bearing No.KA-
02-G-773 and witnessed by standing nearby the said Pillappana Katte that the said suspected person was sitting on a Honda Activa two wheeler having one long. As soon as the CW1 and 7 to 12 rushed towards the said suspected person to catch him, the said suspected person attempted to escape and thus, the CW1 and CW7 to 12 caught hold him and found that the said person had stolen the said Honda Activa two wheeler. It was confirmed that in respect of the theft of the said two wheeler motorcycle, the crime No.1113/2016 was registered in Rajagopal Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. The said suspected person attempted to attack the CW1 and CW7 to 12 with the 4 S C. No.1513/2017 said long and assaulted the CW11-Sri.H.P.Sharath Kumar, PSI, Rajagopalanagar Police Station, who sustained blood injuries to his hand. Though, the said CW1 and CW7 to 12 cautioned him to surrender the said suspected person, but, he did not heed, therefore, Sri.H.P.Sharath Kumar, with his Service Pistol, fired two rounds in the air. The said person rather surrendering, but attempted to kill the CW1 and CW7 to 12 with the long. Therefore, the Sri.H.P.Sharath Kumar for self protection fired with the said Service Revolver to the said suspected person and the said bullet hit the right leg of the said person. As such, the said suspected person sustained blood injuries. Therefore, Sri.H.P.Sharath Kumar caught hold him and later took him to the Jai Maruthi Hospital for treatment. The said suspected person obstructed the public servants from discharging their duties and thereby the accused person has committed an offence 5 S C. No.1513/2017 punishable under Sections 229(A), 332, 353, 307 of Indian Penal Code.
3. After investigation by the Investigating Officer, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 229(A), 332, 353, 307 of Indian Penal Code. The offence levelled against the accused under Section 229(A), 332, 353, 307 of Indian Penal Code, are triable by the Magistrate except the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, since, the same is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. So, the case against the accused was committed to Principal City Civil & Sessions Court and the same is registered as SC No.1513/2017 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
4. The accused is in judicial custody till this day. On hearing, the prosecution as well as the defence counsel, this Court framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307, 6 S C. No.1513/2017 353, 332 and 229(A) of Indian Penal Code. The contents of charge for the above said offence are read over and explained to the accused in the language best known to him. The said accused denied the charge contents and claimed to be tried.
5. So, in order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15. Further, the prosecution has relied upon the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P73. Besides, the prosecution has identified the seized materials as M.O.1 to 15. Out of 38 witnesses, evidence of CW3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 to 12, 15, 18 , 20 to 28 and 34 have not been examined, since the prosecution has given up the said witnesses. The evidence of CW29 has been dropped.
6. After having recorded the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code has been recorded and explained to the accused in the language best 7 S C. No.1513/2017 known to him. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he has not chosen to examine any witness on his behalf and also he has not produced any documents.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused addressed their final arguments.
8. Having heard the arguments from both sides I have perused the records meticulously.
9. The points that arise for my consideration is as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that on 01/03/2017 at about 4.00 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Rajagopalnagar Police Station near Pillappana Katte when the accused was attempting to commit heinos offence armed with deadly weapon like a long by that time the complainant on receipt of information reached the spot and cautioned the accused, but the accused rather hearing the complainant, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to his right hand with a long to the complainant 8 S C. No.1513/2017 while he was discharging his duty as a public servant, to prevent the complainant from discharging his official duty thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place when the complainant being a public servant in the execution of his duty by that time the accused assaulted the complainant with the deadly weapon like a long and thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place when the complainant being a public servant in the execution of his duty by that time the accused assaulted the complainant with the deadly weapon like a long having knowledge and with such intention that the said assault by the weapon may cause death of the complainant and thereby the accused has committed an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused though was released on bail but subsequently failed to appear in 9 S C. No.1513/2017 the court and jumped from the bail conditions, thereby accused has committed an offence under Section 229(a) of Indian Penal Code?
5) What order?
10. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- In the Affirmative Point No.3:- In the Negative Point No.4:- In the Affirmative Point No.5:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 4:- All these points are interconnected each other. So, to avoid repetition of facts all these points have been discussed together.
12. As can be seen from the records, the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate for the 10 S C. No.1513/2017 first time on 13.05.2017. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. The charge sheet is filed on 17.08.2017 and the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance directed the Jail authorities to produce the accused through virtual hearing. Accordingly, the accused was being produced. On 02.12.2017, the learned Magistrate committed the case by passing the committal order. So, it is evident that the accused is in judicial custody from 13.05.2017 till this day. This Court secured the accused through virtual hearing from Jail authorities on all the adjournments. It is also seen from the records, the bail application filed by the accused was came to be rejected by my learned predecessor on 10.04.2018. It is further evident from the records that on 24.09.2020 as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in Crl. Petition No. 4541/2020, the accused was ordered to be released on bail by executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. Accordingly, the accused was released on 11 S C. No.1513/2017 bail. But, on subsequent dates, from 17.11.2021 the accused continuously remained absent, therefore, a proclamation was issued. On 14.03.2022 accused was produced by executing a non bailable warrant, therefore, he has been taken to judicial custody and thus, he is in jail till today.
13. In this background of the matter, let me scrutiny the oral and documentary evidence. The CW2 Mr. Soma H. has been examined as PW1, who is panch witness in respect of seizure of article which is identified as MO-1 Iron long. He has stated in his oral evidence that on 01.03.2017 the Police had secured him near Pillanna Katte by issuing notice to him as there was shoot out in the place of occurrence. Therefore, Police seized one long, 3 empty bullets and one two wheeler Honda Activa, which has no register number plate, which are identified as MO-1 to 4. The Police have conducted the mahazar between 4.00 pm and 5.30 pm. During mahazar, one Mr. Raghu and Mr. 12 S C. No.1513/2017 Manjunath also present as panchas to the panchnama at Ex.P1. It is also stated by him that Police have drawn one hand sketch map as per Ex.P3 in the place of occurrence and also Police have taken photographs of the place of occurrence as per Ex.P4 to P7. Later, the said witness partly turned hostile.
14. In the course of cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, he has clearly identified the seized articles as MO-1 to 4 and also mahazars. It is also stated by him that the blood stained mud is at MO-8. The said witness has identified the two wheeler in the photographs which are marked at Ex.P16 and P17. The said PW1 has been subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused. In the course of cross-examination, no worthwhile has been extracted from his mouth to believe that the said panch witness is a stock witness and he is always available to the Police to act as a pancha not only to the present case, but, also to other cases. Besides, 13 S C. No.1513/2017 nothing has been extracted to suspect about his presence in the place of occurrence while drawing panchanama and seized the articles.
15. No doubt, he has admitted during the cross- examination that he is unable to name the scribe of Ex.P1 and he has not given any statement before the police. Moreover, the engine number and chassis number of two wheeler has not been recorded by the Police. It is also elicited that the panchnama has been drawn from 3.30 pm to 6.00 pm. So far as this statement is concerned, there is a discrepancy in the evidence. But, the same is minor discrepancy, which does not take away the case of prosecution. Further, as could be seen from his cross-examination, it appears that there are discrepancies elicited by the defence counsel during his cross-examination. But, the said discrepancy are absolutely minor in nature and from which it cannot be suspected to the case of prosecution to hold that no such kind panchanama 14 S C. No.1513/2017 has been drawn and properties have not been seized in the presence of PW2. So, this is lucid from this evidence, that this witness has acted as a pancha for the spot mahazar and seizure of MO-1 to 4 and 8.
16. The CW5 Mr.Sampath Kumar who is also panch witness for the seizure of article pistol has been examined as PW2. In his evidence, he has stated that on 01.03.2017, he was secured by the police by issuing notice in Jai Maruthi Hospital. The said Pistol identified at MO-9 was taken custody by the Police Sub Inspector Mr. Sharath Kumar from Mr. Husain Pash, Head Constable and in the said Pistol there were two live bullets. In his presence, the said Pistol and live bullets have been seized under panchanama at Ex.P18. The said witness partly turned hostile. In the course of cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, the witness has identified the Pistol at MO-9, panchanama at Ex.P18 along with live bullets, which are identified as MO-10 and 11. He has also 15 S C. No.1513/2017 identified the photographs which were taken during drawing of panchanama marked at Ex.P20 to P23.
17. In the course of cross-examination by the defence, he has explained that who called him to act as a pancha witness and also explained that one Mr. Poojar, Constable has typed the panchanama at Ex.P18. But, he states that he does not know who dictated to prepare to type the said panchanama. He states that he is unable to express the directions of the place, where the mahazar has been drawn and also he states that he is unable to explain the serial number of the Pistol. It is also stated by him that he does not know the name of the photographer. So, as could be seen from the cross-examination by the defence, no doubt, there are discrepancies to the case of prosecution, but, they are absolutely minor discrepancies, which do not cut the very route of the prosecution case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that though the said PW2 turned partly hostile, but, there 16 S C. No.1513/2017 are sufficient materials to believe that the said PW2 has acted as a panch witness to seize the MO-9 to 11 under Ex.P18 mahazar.
18. The CW1 Mr. Mithun Shilpi, Police Inspector and complainant has been examined as PW3. In his oral evidence, he has stated that when he was on patrolling duty on 01.03.2017, he received the information around 4.00 am in the morning from the informant that one person nearby Pillappanna Katte attempting to commit robbery, possessing one Honda Activa scooter and long. Therefore, he sent the said information to the Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Peenya Police Station, Nandini Layout Police Station, Kamakshi Palya Police Station. Accordingly, Police Sub Inspector Mr. Sharath Kumar, Head Constables, Mr. Siddappa, Mr.Ningaraju, Mr. Paramesh and Mr. Jayashankar. Later all of them proceeded near the said suspected place in the Police Jeep bearing No. KA-02-G-773 around 4.20 am. It is further stated by 17 S C. No.1513/2017 him that they witnessed in the said place that one person was in the possession of two wheeler and long. The said suspected person by looking to police attempted to run away and when all of them attempted to catch hold him and cautioned him to surrender. But, he assaulted to Mr. Sharath Kumar with the long to his left hand.
19. When the accused again attempted to attack, by that time, Police Sub Inspector Sharath Kumar fired two rounds in the air and later for self protection he fired to the right leg of the accused. So, immediately, they have taken the accused and PSI Sharath Kumar to the Jai Maruthi Hospital for treatment at 5.10 am and thereafter to preserve the place of occurrence, he entrusted CW12 Mr.Kusha, Police Constable. He enquired the accused and he came to know that he is Mr. Pavan @ Papireddy S/o Sri. Ravishekar. So, he came to know that there are number of murder cases pending against the accused 18 S C. No.1513/2017 and even there are arrest warrants pending against the accused. It is further stated by him that on the very same day, at 6.30 am he came to the Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P2 against the accused and the said Long is identified as MO-1. It is also identified the Service Revolver, which is at MO-9.
20. It is further stated by him that the hand sketch map of the scene of the occurrence has been prepared as per Ex.P3 and also he took photographs as per Ex.P4 to P7. The photograph at Ex.P7 is in respect of the Honda Activa two wheeler, which was used by the accused for commission of the offence. It is further identified by him in respect of the seized properties, which are MO-1 to 8 and also identified the accused. The said witness has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused. As can be seen from the said cross- examination, it clearly goes to show that there is only 19 S C. No.1513/2017 a denial. On the other hand, it is suggested as a defence, that in order to encounter the accused all the Police took him to the remote place, thereby, fired to the leg of the accused Further, as can be understood from the cross-examination, absolutely nothing has been extracted to disbelieve or to suspect the case of prosecution. So, it is evident that the testimony of complainant has not been shaken in any manner.
21. The CW7, Shri. Sharath Kumar, who is the Police Sub Inspector, served in Rajagopalnagar police station has been examined as PW4. He has stated in his oral evidence that on 28.02.2017 during the night hours himself and CW8 to 11 were on special patrolling duty. On 01.03.2017, in the morning hours at 4.00 am, when they were in patrolling duty at Peenya II Stage, by that time, CW1 informed him in respect of the information which he received about the accused and his movements, therefore, all of them proceeded to the said place of occurrence in 20 S C. No.1513/2017 Government Jeep bearing registration No. KA-02-G-
773. It is also stated that the accused was in possession of two wheeler. All the Police informed to the accused to surrender himself and when all of them attempted to catch the accused by that time, the accused attacked him with iron long and on account of which, he has sustained bleeding injuries to his left hand. Therefore, immediately, he took the service Revolver and cautioned the accused to surrender and fired two rounds in the air.
22. It is further stated that accused did not surrender and when he attempted to catch him, he came to know that the said accused Sri. Pavan @ Papireddy, who is already in rowdy sheeter list. Again he attempted to catch him, by that time, accused again attempted to attack, therefore, for self defence he fired to the right leg of he accused. They caught the accused and took him to the Jai Maruthi Hospital and in the said Hospital, he has also taken the treatment 21 S C. No.1513/2017 as an inpatient. There are several robbery cases against the accused from 2011 and even there are number of arrest warrants pending against him. It is further stated by him that on 01.03.2017 when he was taking treatment, he handed over the service Revolver and two live bullets to the CW14 and also he has handed over his shirt to the Doctor. Accordingly, he has given statement before the Investigating Officer. It is further stated that on 13.05.2017, the CW 38 called him to the Police Station to identify the accused. Therefore, he has identified the accused in the police station and given the further statement. He has identified the service Revolver which is identified as MO-9, the iron long, which is identified as MO-1, three fired bullets which are identified as MO-2 to MO- 4 and remaining two live bullets which are identified as MO-10 and 11. He has identified his shirt which is identified as MO-12. It is also identified the T.Shirt 22 S C. No.1513/2017 and Jeans Pant of the accused which are identified as MO-13 and 14.
23. The said witness has been subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel. In the course of cross-examination, except the denial suggestions, no specific questions have been posed. On the other hand, it is suggested that as there was around 61 feet distance, between the accused and the Police squad. Therefore, the accused was not appearing to the Police. This suggestion clearly goes to show that the defence has admitted that the accused was present in the place of occurrence. It is also suggested that the accused never attempted to attack any of the Police and to the said PW4. In the opinion of the Court, the said suggestion itself goes to show that the accused was involved in the commission of offence in the said place. As can be seen from the testimony of this witness, it can be gathered that the accused was caught by the police in the said place of 23 S C. No.1513/2017 occurrence when the accused was preparing to commit robbery.
24. The CW38 Shri.R.P.Anil, who is the Investigating Officer has been examined as PW5. The said witness has stated in his oral evidence that he was directed to take further investigation of this case. Therefore, after having collected the records from CW37 he took up the investigation. On 01.03.2017 itself he conducted the seizure mahazar of service Revolver at MO-11 in the presence of CW5 and 6. Later he has recorded the statement of CW5 and 6 and collected the blood stained clothes of CW11, CW20 and the accused. The said blood stained clothes are identified as MO-12 to MO-14 and the Baniyan of the accused is identified as MO-15.
25. It is further stated by him that he has recorded the statement of CW11, when he was under
treatment at Jai Maruthi Hospital. On the very same day, the CW1 shown the place of occurrence, 24 S C. No.1513/2017 therefore, in the presence of the CW2 to 4 he has conducted the spot and seizure panchanama as per Ex.P1. He has seized one long, three empty cartridge, one without number plate Honda Activa vehicle and blood mixed soil. Later, he has drawn the hand sketch map as per Ex.P3 and took the photographs as per Ex.P4 to P7. He has seized the said properties. It is further stated by him that he has recorded the statement of CW2 to 4 and on 02.03.2017 he has recorded the statement of CW12 to CW16, CW22 to CW27. He has requested the A.R.O., BBMP by way of requisition to furnish the Khata pertaining to the place of occurrence and it is at Ex.P31. The said requisition is at Ex.P32.
26. It is further stated by him that he has requested the A.E.E. BESCOM as per Ex.P33 to confirm as to whether there was electricity supply on the date of incident and even he has requested the A.E.E. BBMP to prepare the sketch map of the place 25 S C. No.1513/2017 of incident. It is also stated by him that he has requested by way of application as per Ex.P35 to the ACP, Master Control, for the purpose of collecting the GPS location of Jeep bearing No. KA-02-G-773. On 04.03.2017, he has recorded the statement of CW30, since the said CW30 produced the Honda Activa vehicle which was pertaining to the Crime No.111/2016 of Bagalugunte Police Station. It is further stated by him that on 06.03.2017, he has enquired the accused in the Victoria Hospital in the presence of Medical Officer. So, the accused informed about the incident and he has admitted his guilt and it is recorded as per Ex.P36. Therefore, he has secured the signature on Ex.P36 as per Ex.P36(b). On 15.03.2017 he received the report as per Ex.P37 from the A.E.E., BESCOM stating that on the date of incident there was electricity supply.
27. It is further stated by him that on 20.03.2017, he requested the Malleshwaram, 26 S C. No.1513/2017 Rajajinagar, Peenya, Mahalakshmi Layout, Nandini Layout and Subramanyanagara Police Station for having performed their duty on the said date. He has collected the vehicle logbook, duty register in respect of handing over the fire arms register regarding issue of the weapons to the PSI, Mr. Sharath Kumar, Rowdy sheet pertaining to the accused and warrant as well as FIR in respect of the accused and involved the same in the present case. It is further stated by him that the copy of Rowdy sheet is at Ex.P44 and Logbook is at Ex.P45 and the register is at Ex.P46 in respect of handing over the Revolver to Mr. Sharath Kumar PSI. The first information report registered in all the 5 Police Stations are at Ex.P47 to P51 and copy of three charge sheets are at Ex.P52 to P54.
28. It is further stated that on 21.03.2017 he has recorded the statement of CW33 and on 06.04.2017 he collected the sketch map of the place of incident from A.E.E., BBMP as per Ex.P55. On 13.05.2017, 27 S C. No.1513/2017 CW23 and CW29 submitted the discharge summary of the accused and thus, he has arrested the accused by following the arrest procedure and recorded the voluntary statement of the accused which is at Ex.P57. It is further stated by him that he has recorded the statement of the owner of Honda Activa who lost two wheeler, which has been stolen by the accused. On 22.05.2017, the BBMP officials submitted the report as per Ex.P58 mentioning about the place of incident. On 22.06.2017, he collected the Medical Report of the accused and the CW11 and the discharge summary of the accused is at Ex.P59. The OPD record is at Ex.P60 and the wound certificate of the accused and the CW11 are at Ex.P61 and 62.
29. It is further stated by him that on 29.06.2017, he has sent the seized service Revolver, two live bullets and three empty cartridge to the F.S.L as per Ex.P63 for forensic report. Further, he has sent the blood stained clothes of the accused on 28 S C. No.1513/2017 03.07.2017 to the F.S.L. as per Ex.P64 for forensic report. It is further stated by him that on 10.07.2017, after completing the investigation, he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 229(a), 332, 353 and under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
30. The said PW5 has been subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused. As can be seen from the said cross-examination, there are some discrepancies elicited from the mouth of PW5. But, the said discrepancies are absolutely minor discrepancies and on the other hand, absolutely there is no evidence and nothing has been extracted from his mouth to believe that the said PW5 never conducted the investigation pertaining to the present case. In my opinion the discrepancies which have been elicited by the learned counsel for the accused in the course of cross-examination, never taken away the case of prosecution. More particularly, I find no strong 29 S C. No.1513/2017 reasons to disbelieve the case of the prosecution to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Police have falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
31. The CW36 Sri. Kumarappa, A.E.E. BBMP has been examined as PW6. It is stated by him that on 02.03.2017, he was requested by the Shriramapura Police Station to prepare and issue sketch map of the incident place occurred on 01.03.2017 in the morning at 5.10 am, Laggere near Pillappana Kate. So, as per the request, he visited the place of occurrence since the said place of occurrence was shown by PW1. He has identified the hand sketch map which is at Ex.P55. In the course of cross-examination he admits that the Police have not requested him as per Ex.P34 to prepare the hand sketch map and on the other hand, he has denied that he has prepared the hand sketch map as per the advise of CW12. Except the fact about non-existence of electricity poles, nothing has 30 S C. No.1513/2017 been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW6. In my opinion, merely because, the existence of electricity poles have not been shown in Ex.P55 cannot be construed that he has not visited the spot and he has not drawn the hand sketch map at Ex.P55. So, the evidence of this PW6 is crystal clear that he has drawn the sketch map at Ex.P55 by visiting the place of incident.
32. The CW35 Sri. R.Narayana, AEE, Peenya has been examined as PW7. He has deposed in his oral evidence that the Shriramapura Police Station S.H.O. had requested him by way of requisition on 02.03.2017 to confirm as to whether there was an electricity supply on 01.03.2017 in Pillappana Kate, within the jurisdiction of Kodava Samaja, from 4.00 am to 5.30 pm. Therefore, he has collected the information from the Logbook and sent the report as per Ex.P37 stating that there was flow of electricity connection consistently on the said date, time and 31 S C. No.1513/2017 place. The said witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. But, nothing has been extracted to disbelieve his version. So, the evidence of PW7 is crystal clear that on the date of incident there was absolutely and consistently electric supply and thus, the police have clearly identified the accused and on the said day of the incident which was occurred.
33. The CW37 Sri. Narasaiah who was the S.H.O. of Rajagopala Nagar Police Station on the date of alleged offence has been examined as PW8. He has stated in his oral evidence that on 01.03.2017 when he was serving as Station House Officer, at 6.30 am, he has received the complaint given by the CW1 as per Ex.P24 and he registered the cases crime No.272/2017. He prepared the First Information Report as per Ex.P65. Later, he handed over the file to Investigating Officer for investigation. The said witness has been subjected for cross-examination by 32 S C. No.1513/2017 the defence counsel. But, nothing worthwhile has been extracted to disbelieve his testimony. So, the case of the prosecution that the PW8 while he was on duty as SHO received the complaint from CW1 and registered the case under crime No.227/2017.
34. The CW31 Dr.Nagesh Kumar, who treated the accused has been examined as PW9. He has stated that he has been serving as a Medical Director in Jai Maruthi Hospital from 2003. On 01.03.2017, at about 5.40 am, one person by name, Mr.Pavan Kumar, aged about 25 years was brought before him by the Police under the history of Gunshot injury to the right knee. So, he has examined the said Mr. Pavan Kumar and also examined the Police Officer by name Mr. Sharath Kumar, who was also brought before him for treatment on the history of assault by Mr. Pavan Kumar with sharp object. So, he has registered the case as MLC, as per Ex.P66 and P67. He has given first aid to both the patients as per Ex.P61 and P62. 33
S C. No.1513/2017 Mr. Sharath Kumar had sustained deep cut lacerated wound to his left forearm, measuring about 5 cm x 2 cm and the said injury is simple in nature and fresh. On examination of Mr. Pavan Kumar, he found that there was gunshot injury to his leg and exist of bullet over later part of patela extending up to costirial aspect of calf muscle with bleeding over the right knee. The said injury is grievous in nature. So, he has issued the wound certificates. The injuries caused to Mr. Sharath Kumar is by sharp weapon like MO-1 and the injuries caused by Mr. Pavan Kumar is by the Pistol at MO-9.
35. The said witness has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused. It is elicited that there is a Primary Health Center in Chowdeshwari Nagar, Laggere and Heggana halli Hospital which is at the distance of 5 km from the place of occurrence and it is also elicited that there are many more clinics in Laggere locality. It is also elicited 34 S C. No.1513/2017 that he has not mentioned in Ex.P66, the M.L.C. register that he has not stated in respect of treatment given to Mr. Sharath Kumar. It is also elicited that he has not examined the weapons, as stated in Ex.P66. It is also elicited that in his presence, the statement of Sharath Kumar was not typed in a laptop and also he has not recorded in the MLC register.
36. Upon perusal of cross-examination, it is clear that an attempt has been made out by the learned counsel for the accused to believe that the said Doctor has not followed the procedure while treating the accused and the police officer. But, in my opinion the over all evidence of the PW9 if taken into consideration, there cannot be no doubt for having treated the accused and Police Inspector, Mr.Sharath Kumar in respect of the injury which they sustained during incident. Hence, I find no reasons to hold the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that the entire case has been simply cooked up to implicate 35 S C. No.1513/2017 the accused. But, one thing is crystal clear that the Police officer Mr.Sharath Kumar sustained very simple injury and it is recorded in wound certificate at Ex.P62.
37. The CW30 Mr. Byregowda ASI has been examined as PW10. He has stated in his oral evidence that on 22.12.2016, when he was serving as S.H.O., at 10.30 pm, one Smt. Chandrakala came to the Police Station and informed him that her two wheeler which was parked in front of her house has been missing from 18.12.2016. Therefore, he has received the complaint and registered the case under Crime No. 1113/2016. It is further stated by him that on 01.03.2017, around 4.00 am in the morning hours that he received the information that Rowdy sheeter one Mr. Pavan Kumar was nearby Pillappana Katte. Therefore, he went to the said spot along with the Police officials. He has seized the two wheeler from the custody of the accused in respect of the crime 36 S C. No.1513/2017 No.1113/2016 and in this regard, he has given statement before the CW38. He has identified the two wheeler appearing in photographs at Ex.P16, 17 and P7. The said witness has been subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused. As can be seen from his cross-examination, except the suggestion by way of denial nothing has been extracted to disbelieve his testimony and his participation as a part of investigation.
38. The CW33 Dr. Muralikrishna has been examined as PW11. He has stated that he has been working as H.O.D in Vascular Surgery at Jayadeva Hospital, Bengaluru from 02.05.2010 to 01.03.2017. A 24 years old person by name Mr. Pavan Kumar was referred to the Jayadeva Hospital from Victoria hospital with the history of Gunshot injuries sustained on 01.03.2017. So, on 06.03.2017, he found that there was an injury on the right knee joint and there was low blood supply to the right leg. So, on 37 S C. No.1513/2017 08.03.2017, patient underwent angiogram and operated on 09.03.2017 and restored the blood supply to the said right leg. On 17.03.2017, the patient was discharged and handed over the said patient to Rajagopalanagar Police Station. The said patient did not visit the hospital for follow up treatment and the discharge summary and advise on discharge are at Ex.P68 and P69. Further, the OPD slip of the accused, angiogram report with photo and 2D ECG report are at Ex.P70 to 72. The said witness has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused. As can be seen from the cross-examination, no worthwhile has been extracted and there is no evidence to disbelieve that the said Doctor never treated the accused and he never operated him.
39. The CW19 Mr. Vasiulla, PSI has been examined as PW12. He has stated that he served as PSI in Peenya Police Station from June 2016 to June 2019. On 28.02.2017 at 11.pm, he started patrolling 38 S C. No.1513/2017 duty and accordingly, recorded the same in the Station diary. On 01.03.2017 around 4.00 am, he received the information from Rajagopalanagar Police Station that one person has been wondering, under suspect. Therefore, he started to inspect the vehicles and came to know that from whom they were searched, he was sustained injury in Gunshot by Police Inspector Sharath Kumar. On 02.03.2017, he has given statement to CW38. It is elicited during his cross- examination that he has not recorded in his police station case diary in respect of the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of his Police Station. It is also elicited that Rajajinagar Police have not received any information about the two wheeler. But, as could be understood from the cross-examination, in my opinion no worthwhile has been extracted to disbelieve the version of PW12 and to disbelieve the case of prosecution. Therefore, no reliance can be placed to the admissions given by him in the course of cross 39 S C. No.1513/2017 examination to the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
40. The CW17 Sri. Raghavendra, Head Constable has been examined as PW13. In his evidence, he has stated that he served as Head Constable in Rajagopalanagar Police Station from 2013 to 2020. On 01.03.2017, the Police Inspector of Shrirama puram Police Station came to Rajagopala nagar Police Station and recovered the Pistol at MO-9 from CW-7 Sri. Sharath Kumar. The said Pistol was used for firing to the accused. The CW38 R.P. Anil Kumar drawn the mahazar from 9.30 am to 10 am. He took the photographs as per Ex.P4 to P7 and P20 to P23. So he has given statement before the Investigating Officer. The said PW13 has been subjected to cross- examination by the defence counsel. As can be seen from the cross-examination, no worthwhile has been extracted to disbelieve the case of prosecution and even nothing extracted to suspect that the said PW13 40 S C. No.1513/2017 never taken the photographs of the place of occurrence as per Ex.P4 to 7 and P20 to 23. Moreover, nothing is extracted to suspect that the CW38 never drawn the mahazar.
41. The CW13 Mr. Revanasidda Biradar Police Constable has been examined as PW14. He has stated that he served as a Police Constable in Rajagopala nagar Police Station from 2016 to 2022. On 01.03.2017 he was directed by SHO to collect the clothes of the accused and CW7 Sri.Sharath Kumar from Jai Maruthi Hospital. Accordingly, he collected the said clothes from Dr.Nagesh. Thereafter, he has placed the same before the CW38 and submitted the report as per Ex.P30. The said witness has been subjected to cross-examination. In the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that there shall be an entry in the case Diary for the movements of every police officials. It is also extracted that he has not recorded about his movements from the police station. 41
S C. No.1513/2017 Further, there are suggestions by way of denial. But, as could be understood from the cross-examination, no worthwhile has been extracted to disbelieve the version of said PW14. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the CW14 has collected the clothes of accused and CW7 Sri. Sharath Kumar from the Jai Maruthi Hospital and the same have been produced before the CW38, who is the Investigating Officer. It is relevant to mention that merely because, there is no entry made in movement register, does not mean that the entire evidence of PW14 is doubtful.
42. The CW14 Mr. Husain Basha, Head Constable has been examined as PW15. In his oral evidence he has stated that he served as Head Constable in Rajagopalanagar Police Station from 2015 to 2022. On 01.03.2017, as per the direction of S.H.O, he had been to Jai Maruthi Hospital and collected the Pistol MO-9 from the CW7, who was in the said Hospital. Later, he has placed the said Pistol 42 S C. No.1513/2017 before the CW38. While placing the said Pistol, the photographs at Ex.P20 to P23 were taken and accordingly, he has submitted the report as per Ex.P73. The said witness has also been subjected to cross-examination. But, no worthwhile has been extracted to disbelieve his testimony.
43. So, upon careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, it is crystal clear that on 01.03.2017 at about 4.05 am, the complainant received the credible information, when he was on patrolling duty that on 01.03.2017 at 3.35 morning hours, near Pillappana Katte, as the accused was in the possession of stolen two wheeler, holding iron long with a preparation to commit the robbery. Therefore, the complainant has informed the same to the CW8 to 11 and went near the said place. The complainant confirmed that the accused was having the possession of two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-02-JL-4278 as well as iron long. When all of them attempted to 43 S C. No.1513/2017 catch him, by that time, the accused attacked the PW4-Sharath Kumar with iron long and due to said attack, the PW4 sustained blood injuries to his left hand. Therefore, the PW4 in order to safeguard his life he fired to the accused with service Revolver. Since, the accused did not surrender to the Police, so, all of them caught hold him. Later, the Police officials in the presence of panchas seized the deadly weapon.
44. It is also crystal clear from the records that during discharging of the official duty by the complainant, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to deter public servant for his duty with an intention to prevent that the said complainant from discharging his duty. As such, the PSI Mr. Sharath Kumar compelled to fire to the right leg of the accused with a service revolver. It is also crystal clear from the materials that the said accused prevented the Police officers while discharging of their lawful duty by assaulting Mr. Sharath Kumar with the deadly weapon 44 S C. No.1513/2017 like, a Long, having knowledge that the said assault may cause death of the Police Officer. It is also clear from the materials that the accused, though he was released on bail as per the order of the Hon'bel High Court of Karnataka, but, subsequently, he failed to appear before the Court.
45. So, upon careful scrutiny of the entire materials on records, the prosecution has utterly and successfully proved to bring home the offence against the accused. As I stated supra, the pancha witnesses have clearly supported to the prosecution in drawing the panchanama in the spot, as well as to seize the MO-1 long from the custody of the accused. As I stated supra, in order to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited and even it is crystal clear from the records that the accused is a rowdy sheeter and wanted criminal. Thus, the PSI Mr. Sharath Kumar was compelled to shoot the accused with his service revolver. As can be 45 S C. No.1513/2017 seen from the records, the defence has not made out the case to suspect the case of prosecution and even nothing has been elicited to disbelieve that the Police only to implicate the accused have created the story of attack by the accused with the iron long.
46. It is necessary to express at this juncture that no doubt the prosecution successfully proved that the accused has committed hurt to the PSI Mr. Sharath Kumar with Long at MO-1. But, upon careful scrutiny of the materials, it is opined that the said attempt of assault cannot be termed that the accused attempted to commit a murder. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the injury said to have been caused is simple in naure, which can be seen from the evidence of the Doctor CW31 and wound certificate at Ex.P62. As such, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. So, in the light of the above said observations, I am 46 S C. No.1513/2017 inclined to answer point No.1, 2 and 4 in the Affirmative and point No.3 in the Negative as the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 229(a), 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
47. Point No.5:- In view of my findings on point Nos.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The prosecution has partly
established that the accused has
committed an offence punishable under Section 229(A), 332 and under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, acting under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused by name, Sri. Pavana @ Papareddy S/o Sri. Ravishekar is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 229(A), 332 and under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Further, acting under Section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code the above said accused is acquitted for the 47 S C. No.1513/2017 offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
In view of the above, case is posted for hearing on sentence.
Call on 20.09.2024.
(Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed and typed by him and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 19th day of September, 2024).
(Sri. Prakash.S. Helavar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
23.09.2024 ORDERS ON SENTENCE Learned counsel for the Accused addressed the arguments submitting that the days which has been spent by the accused in custody may be adjusted and minimum sentence may be passed since accused is having old-age parents and also his wife and minor children who are depending upon the earning of the accused.
On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor addressed the arguments and submitted that the accused may be sentenced as per the provisions incorporated in Indian Penal Code since 48 S C. No.1513/2017 the accused being the habitual offender prevented the Government servants to discharge their duties.
Having heard, I have gone through the records. It is evident from the records that during discharging of the official duty by the Police officers, the accused voluntarily deterred the public servant for their duty with an intention to prevent the said Police officers from discharging their duty. Under these circumstances, it is opined that the accused is not entitled for any leniency. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused viz., Sri. Pavana @ Papareddy S/o Sri. Ravishekar has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 years (three years) and he shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code.
Secondly, the accused been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years (two years) and he shall 49 S C. No.1513/2017 pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Thirdly, the accused been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year (one year) and he shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month for the offence punishable under Section 229(A) of Indian Penal Code.
The above said punishments shall run concurrently.
In view of the provision of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is entitled for set off for the period which he has already undergone in the judicial custody.
MO.1 to 7 and 9 to 15 are being worthless, therefore, they shall be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.
MO.8 Service Revolver has already released to the custody of Investigating Officer and same is made absolute.50
S C. No.1513/2017 A free copy of this Judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith. In addition to that, office shall send a copy of this judgment through mail to the Jail authorities.
The Jail authorities directed to deliver the copy to the accused and send an information in any mode.
Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
(PRAKASH S. HELAVAR) LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-61) ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Sri. Soma H
PW.2 Sri. Sampath Kumar
PW.3 Sri.V.J. Mithun Shilpi
PW.4 Sri.Sharath Kumar H P
PW.5 Sri.R.P. Anil
PW.6 Sri.Kumarappa
PW.7 Sri.R.Narayana
PW.8 Sri.Narasaiah
PW.9 Dr. Nagesh Kumar
PW.10 Sri.G.Byare Gowda
PW.11 Dr. Muralikrishna
51
S C. No.1513/2017
PW.12 Sri.S. Vasimulla
PW.13 Sri.Raghavendra
PW.14 Sri.Revanasidda Biradar
PW.15 Sri.Hussain Basha
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.2 Notice
Ex.P.3 Kaccha Nakshe
Ex.P.4 to 7 Photos
Ex.P.8 Slip attached to MO-1
Ex.P.9 to 11 Slip attached to MO-2, 3 and 4
Ex.P.12 Slip attached to MO-5
Ex.P.13 Slip attached to MO-6
Ex.P.14 Slip attached to MO-7
Ex.P.15 Slip attached to MO-8
Ex.P.16& 17 Photos
Ex.P.18 Panchanama PW-2
Ex.P.19 Notice
Ex.P.20 to 23 Photos - 4 nos.
Ex.P.24 Complaint
Ex.P.25 Station Diary
Ex.P.26 &27 Reminder letter
Ex.P.28 M.L.C.
Ex.P.29 M.L.C.
Ex.P.30 Requisition /submission
Ex.P.31 Requisition letter
Ex.P.32 Copy of Requisition letter
Ex.P.33 Requisition to K.E.B.
Ex.P.34 Requisition letter
Ex.P.35 Requisition for GPS location
report
Ex.P.36 Statement PW5
52
S C. No.1513/2017
Ex.P.37 Report
Ex.P.38 to 41 Requisition letters and reports Ex.P.42 Requisition letter Ex.P.43 R.G.Nagar Police Station Duty roster copy Ex.P.44 Rowdy sheeter copy Ex.P.45 Vehicle Log book copy Ex.P.46 Issuance of revolver bullets Ex.P.47 to 51 Copy of 5 cases FIR Ex.P.52 to 54 Charge sheets Ex.P.55 Map Ex.P.56 Report Ex.P.57 Statement of accused Ex.P.58 Report Ex.P.59 Discharge summary Ex.P.60 CC of OPD Ex.P.61&62 Wound certificates Ex.P.63 Acknowledgment Ex.P.64 FSL acknowledgment Ex.P.65 FIR Ex.P.66 MLC Ex.P.67 MLC Ex.P.68 Discharge summary Ex.P.69 Advise on discharge certificate Ex.P.70 OPD slip of accused Ex.P.71 Aengram report with photo Ex.P.72 2 D ECG report Ex.P.73 Report List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
M.O.1 Iron long
M.O.2 to 4 Bullets fired case
53
S C. No.1513/2017
M.O.5 Mud
M.O.6 Blood mixed mud
M.O.7 Mud
M.O.8 Blood mixed mud
M.O.9 Service Pistol
M.O.10 & 11 Empty cases (2 nos.)
M.O.12 Blue, White, Brown checks shirt
M.O.13 Blood stained half sleeves shirt
M.O.14 Jeans Pant
M.O.15 Blood stained white half baniyan
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.