Bangalore District Court
State By Sampigehalli vs Vinoda Babu S/O Late James on 27 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2015
PRESENT:
Sri M.Chandrashekar Reddy, B.A., L L.B.
C.C. NO. 13472/2012
Complainant : State by Sampigehalli
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : Vinoda Babu s/o Late James
Philips, 35 yrs, R/at No.67,
8th Cross, Shabari Nagar,
Hegdenagara, Bengaluru-77.
Date of offence : 17-02-2012
Offence : U/S 341, 506, 353 of I.P.C.
Plea of the accused : Accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted of the
offences punishable under
Section 341, 506 IPC,
and Convicted for the offence
punishable under Section
353 IPC
Date of Order : 27-06-2015
2 CC No.13472/2012
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The Police Inspector of Sampigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against accused, for the
alleged offences punishable U/S 341, 506, 353 of I.P.C.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief is that -
a) On 17-02-2012 at about 4.30 pm, when
CW1 M.B.Ramakrishnareddy & CW6 Umesh -
PSI & PC of Chikkajala Traffic P.S. respectively
being public servants were discharging their
duties within the limits of Sampigehalli P.S., the
accused who came in Mahindra Car bearing
registration No.KA 01 D 356 in a drunken
state, had driven the said vehicle in rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life.
At that time, CW1 had stopped the said
vehicle & tested by way of Alco meter and
confirmed that the accused had taken alcohol, as
3 CC No.13472/2012
a result of which notice was given to accused
and vehicle was seized & parked in the premises
of Sampigehalli P.S.
b) Further it is alleged that, on the same day at 5
pm, when CW1 & 6 were proceeding in bike to
discharge their official duties, the accused had
stopped them in front of the road at Sampigehalli
P.S. and wrongfully restrained them. Further,
threatened to leave the vehicle or else he will
make galata by informing to TV9 & others, and
inspite of CW1's advise, the accused had
wrongfully restrained them and obstructed them
in carrying out their public duty. CW6 to 9 had
apprehended the accused and produced before
SHO, wherein a case in Crime No.42/2012 was
registered against accused, FIR was forwarded to
court and arrangement was made for production
of accused before the court. Thereafter, the
4 CC No.13472/2012
statements of relevant witnesses were recorded,
and after collecting necessary materials against
accused, charge sheet is submitted against
accused.
3. The accused is on bail. After furnishing the charge-
sheet copies, my learned predecessor on the basis of
materials placed before the Court, has framed Charge
against accused for the alleged offences and read over &
explained to accused in the language known to him. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all
two witnesses as per PW1 & 2 and produced documents
as per Ex.P1 & 2. Thereafter the statement of accused as
required U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he
has denied the prosecution case in toto and opted not to
adduce any defence evidence.
5 CC No.13472/2012
4. Heard arguments.
5. The only point that arises for my consideration is-
Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that, accused person has
committed the offences punishable under
Section 341, 506, 353 of I.P.C., as per the
Charges leveled against him?
6. My answer to the above point are as follows, for the
following reasons.
In the Negative in respect of the offences
punishable under Section 341, 506 IPC, &
In the Affirmative in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 353 IPC
REASONS
7. The accused herein is facing trial for the offences
punishable under Section 341, 506, 353 of IPC. It is
the case of prosecution that on 17-02-2012 at 4.30
pm, when CW1 & 6 being public servants were
discharging public duty within the limits of
6 CC No.13472/2012
Sampigehalli P.S., the accused who was in drunken
state had driven his car in a rash & negligent manner
so as to endanger human life, as a result of which, the
said vehicle was stopped by CW1 and after got
confirming by way of Alco meter that the accused had
taken alcohol, seized the vehicle. Further, it is alleged
by the prosecution that on the same day at 5 pm,
when CW1 along with CW6 were proceeding in bike for
carrying out public duty, accused had wrongfully
restrained them, used criminal force to deter them
from performing their duties as such public servants,
and also gave threat to them.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence let in by
prosecution through PW1 (CW1) & PW2(CW9). PW1 is
the complainant and he has almost reiterated the
complaint averments. PW2 has deposed in respect of
accused questioning CW1 in loud voice as to why his
car has been seized etc., as a result of which, himself
7 CC No.13472/2012
& his colleagues had apprehended the accused and
produced before CW10.
9. No doubt, the learned Sr. APP would contend that
merely because there is no version from independent
witnesses, there is no reason to dis-believe the
evidence given by official witnesses. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for accused would contend
that the self-serving testimony of Police witnesses
cannot be relied on, to bring home the guilt of
accused.
10. On close scrutiny of the cross-examination portion
of PW1 would reveal that the learned counsel for
accused has made suggestions to PW1 that while the
accused was only pleading to let off his vehicle which
was seized for committing traffic offences, PW1 out of
vengeance has lodged false complaint. The said
suggestion would only prove that accused in fact was
8 CC No.13472/2012
booked for some traffic offences by PW1, and his
vehicle was in fact seized. Considering the clear
deposition of PW1, I am of the considered view that
prosecution is able to prove beyond all reasonable
doubts that, accused in a fit of rage and out of
frustration that his vehicle was seized, has used
criminal force to deter PW1 & CW6 from performing
their official duties. There is no reason to discard the
said version given by PW1, and also the testimony of
PW2.
11. As regards the allegations made against accused in
respect of the offences under Section 341 & 506 IPC, I
am of the view that, there are no sufficient materials
placed on record, and hence I have to inevitably hold
that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on
these two counts.
9 CC No.13472/2012
12. Section 353 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both. Since the offence
under Section 353 IPC is proved beyond all reasonable
doubts, the applicability of Probation of Offenders Act
has to be considered by the court. The accused though
not a habitual offender, considering the fact that he
has used criminal force to deter public servants from
performing their official duties, I am of the considered
view that the beneficial provisions of P.O. Act should
not be applied to him. Anyhow, having considered the
facts & circumstances of case, mere imposing of fine
would serve the purpose. Hence, I answer the Point
raised for my consideration in the Negative in respect
of the offences punishable under Section 341, 506 IPC
and in the Affirmative in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 353 IPC. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following:
10 CC No.13472/2012
ORDER
The accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 341, 506 IPC, and hence acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the said offences. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, and hence acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,200/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month.
Office to supply a free copy of judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on Computer. The computerized print out taken by him is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, 27-06-2015).
(M.Chandrashekar Reddy), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
11 CC No.13472/2012ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW1 : M.B.Ramakrishna Reddy PW2 : Bheemashankar List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
List of Material objects produced:-
NIL List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL C.M.M., BENGALURU.12 CC No.13472/2012
27-06-2015 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 341, 506 IPC, and hence acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the said offences. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, and hence acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,200/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month.
Office to supply a free copy of judgment to accused.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.13 CC No.13472/2012 14 CC No.13472/2012