Bangalore District Court
State By: Banashankari Police vs A1: Rani W/O Nagaraju on 7 May, 2015
1 C.C.16240/2014
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this Thursday the 7th day of May 2015
Present: Sri.Mohan Prabhu, B.Com., M.A, LL.B.,
III Addl., CMM.,
Bengaluru.
C.C.No.16240/2014
Complainant : State by: Banashankari Police
V/s
Accused : A1: Rani W/o Nagaraju, 40 yrs,
A2: Nagaraju S/o Late Kaverappa, 48 yrs,
A3: Suyidar Raju @ Suyambu Raju
S/o Nagaraju,
A4: Suresh S/o Nagaraju, 26 yrs,
(A1 to A4 R/at:190, Rajivgandhi Road,
Bhavani Nagar, Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru).
(By Sri.NSK Adv., Bengaluru)
---
::Judgement::
Case No. : C.C.No.16240/2014
Date of offence : 19/2/2014
Complainant : Krishnamurthy
2 C.C.16240/2014
Accused : Named above
Offence : U/ss. 323, 326
r/w 34 of IPC
Charge : Accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not
guilty
Final order : Accused No.1 to 4 acquitted
Date of order : 7/5/2015
The brief statement
of the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
::REASONS::
The Police Inspector of Banashankari Police Station has
filed the chargesheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable U/ss. 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as
follows:
That on 19/2/2014 at about 8-45 a.m. within the
jurisdiction of Banashankari, 2nd Stage, Bhavaninagar,
Rajivgandhi Road, infront of House No.190 when accused
No.1 in order to bath the child boiling the water in Aluminum
3 C.C.16240/2014
pot at that time the Cw.1 came to the spot and asked
accused No.1 to whom he has abusing then the accused
persons with common intention picked up quarrel with Cw.1
and assaulted Cw.1 with hands when Cw.2 to Cw.5 tried to
pacify the quarrel at that time accused No.1 thrown the pot
containing the boiling water on Cw.1 as a result Cw.1
sustained grievous injuries on his face and on his chest. The
boiling water also fell on Cw.2 and caused grievous injuries
to her right hand.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by Cw.1, the
Banashankari Police Station Police registered the case in
Crime No.42/2014 and dispatched FIR to the Court. The I.O.
took up the investigation and visited the spot and drawn the
spot mahazar. The I.O. recorded the statements of the
witnesses. The Investigating Officer after collecting the
Wound Certificate on completion of investigation has filed
chargesheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences
punishable U/ss. 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
4 C.C.16240/2014
4. Accused No.1 to 4 engaged counsel and released on
bail. The chargesheet copies duly furnished to the accused
and thereby provision u/s 207 of Cr.P.C., is complied with.
After hearing on both sides charge came to be framed for
the offences punishable U/ss. 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC for
which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. During the course of trial on the side of the
prosecution 2 witnesses are examined Pw.1 and Pw.2 and
documents Ex.p1 to p3 are marked. Since there is no
incriminating evidence against the accused recording of
statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. No defence
evidence is led.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 19/2/2014 at about 8-45 a.m. within the
jurisdiction of Banashankari, 2nd Stage, Bhavaninagar,
Rajivgandhi Road, infront of House No.190 the accused persons
with common intention picked up quarrel with Cw.1 and
assaulted Cw.1 with hands and voluntarily caused him simple
injuries and accused No.1 thrown the boiling water on Cw.1
5 C.C.16240/2014
and Cw.2 and voluntarily caused them grievous injuries and
thereby accused persons have committed the offences
punishable U/ss. 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the above point:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: As per final order
::REASONS::
9. Point No.1: Pw.1 is the complainant and injured.
Pw.2 is the injured eye witness. It is the specific case of the
prosecution is that the accused persons with common
intention picked up quarrel with Cw.1 and assaulted Cw.1
with hands and voluntarily caused him simple injuries and
thrown the boiling water on Cw.1 and Cw.2 and caused
them grievous injuries.
10. Pw.1 deposed that the accused persons have not
picked up quarrel with him and not assaulted him with
hands. He states that the accused No.1 has not thrown the
Aluminum Vessel containing boiling water on him and Cw.2.
6 C.C.16240/2014
He states that at about one year back there was altercation
between him and accused persons hence he went to the
Police Station at that time the Police took his signatures on
Ex.p1. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution
learned Sr.APP cross examined Pw.1 in detail. In his cross
examination Pw.1 denied the entire contents of the
documents Ex.p1 complaint. Nothing is elicited from the
mouth of Pw.1 to support the case of the prosecution.
11. Pw.2 is the wife of Pw.1 also turned hostile to the
case of the prosecution by stating that the accused persons
have not picked up quarrel with Pw.1 and not assaulted him
with hands. She states that the accused persons have not
thrown the boiling water on her and on her husband. She
states that at about one year back when she went to the
Police Station the Police took her signatures on Ex.p2
Mahazar. She states that she has not given any statement
before the Police. Having turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution learned Sr.APP Cross examined Pw.2 in detail.
In her cross examination Pw.2 denied the entire contents of
7 C.C.16240/2014
the document Ex.p2 mahazar. She is denied of giving any
such statement before the Police as per Ex.p3. Nothing is
elicited from her mouth to support the case of the
prosecution.
12. In this case Pw.1 and Pw.2 who are the important
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
They have not deposed anything against the accused. There
is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Pw.1 and
Pw.2 in their cross examination admitted the fact that they
have compromised the case with the accused. Pw.1 and
Pw.2 and the accused may set right their differences, hence
Pw.1 and Pw.2 may not supported the case of the
prosecution for which the prosecution cannot be blamed.
Even though learned Sr.APP cross examined Pw.1 and Pw.2
in detail nothing is elicited from their mouth to support the
case of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence to show
that the accused persons have committed the offences
punishable U/ss.323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC. The prosecution is
failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all
8 C.C.16240/2014
reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered point no.1 in the
negative.
13. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
::ORDER::
U/s.248(1) of the Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/ss.323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
Their Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled after completion of appeal period.
The material object which is mentioned in PF No.29/14 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7/5/2015).
(Mohan Prabhu), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. 9 C.C.16240/2014 ::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1: Krishnamurthy Pw.2: Padma
2. List of Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.p1: Complaint P1(a): Signature Ex.p2: Mahazar P2(a): Signature Ex.p3: Statement of Pw.2
3. Material objects marked: Nil
4. Defence: Nil
- --
III ACMM., Bengaluru.
10 C.C.16240/2014