Bangalore District Court
Ramanada Hegde vs Hemanth Kumar B V on 3 February, 2024
KABC030410572017
Presented on : 16-06-2017
Registered on : 16-06-2017
Decided on : 03-02-2024
Duration : 6 years, 7 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru
Dated this the 03rd day of February 2024
C.C.No.16311/2017
Complainant : The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
Sheshadripuram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
--- V/s ---
Accused : Hemanth Kumar B.V,
S/o.Varadaraju,
Aged about 32 years,
R/At.No.49, 6th cross, Neelagiri
Pappanna Block, Srirampuram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.Lakshmi Narayana...Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 05.05.2017
offence
Date of report of offence : 05.05.2017
2 C.C.16311/2017
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : Ramananda Hegde
Date of commencement of : 20.11.2018
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence 18.10.2023
Offences complained of : U/Sec.332 and 353 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge. : Accused is found not guilty
Date of Judgment : 03.02.2024
XXXII Addl.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of Sheshadripuram P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 332 and 353 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That C.W.1-Ramanand Hegde was working as Driver of KSRTC Bus and on 05.05.2017, at 12.00 P.M in the afternoon while C.W.1 was driving the KSRTC bus in front of Rukmini Tower building, Sheshadripuram, the accused threw a stone on the windshield of the bus driven by C.W.1 and when C.W.1 questioned the accused, the accused stabbed C.W.1-Ramanand Hegde with a knife on the left side 3 C.C.16311/2017 of his stomach and caused hurt and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 353 and 332 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW1, the Sheshadripuram Police has registered a case under Crime No.43/2017 for the offences punishable U/Sec.353 and 332 of IPC against the accused and submitted the FIR before the Court. Thereafter the investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353 and 332 of IPC. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused, the accused was enlarged on bail. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353 and 332 of IPC and read over to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
4 C.C.16311/2017
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined 08 witnesses as PW1 to PW8, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 10 and got marked 08 documents as Ex.P1 to P.8. Learned Sr.APP given up the examination of C.W5. Repeatedly summons was issued against the CW 6. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities Prosecution failed to secure CW6. With this view, prayer of Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor to re-issue summons to CW 6 is rejected and examination of CW 6 is dropped.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused is examined U/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C and each and every circumstance found in the evidence is read over separately to the accused. The accused denied all such incriminating circumstances as false. Accused did not choose to explain anything during his examination. Accused did not choose to adduce defence evidence and no documents are got marked on behalf of accused.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused. 5 C.C.16311/2017
8. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that C.W.1-Ramanand Hegde was working as Driver of KSRTC Bus and on 05.05.2017, at 12.00 P.M in the afternoon while C.W.1 was driving the bus in front of Rukmini Tower building, Sheshadripuram the accused threw a stone on the windshield of the bus driven by C.W.1 and thereby the accused obstructed C.W.1 from discharging his duty as public servant and thereby he has committed the offence of "assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty" punishable U/Sec. 353 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, place and time the accused with an intent to prevent C.W.1 from discharging his duty as public servant, stabbed him with a knife on the left side of his stomach and caused bleeding injury and thereby the accused has committed the offence of "Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public 6 C.C.16311/2017 servant from his duty" punishable U/Sec. 332 of IPC?
3. What Order ?
9. My findings to the above Point is as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REASONS
10. Point No.1 and 2: As these points are inter linked with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
11. It is the allegation that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Sec.332 and 353 of IPC.
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined the informant of crime/C.W.1 by name Ramanand Hegde- as P.W.1, CW2/ Jayaramaiah-co driver with C.W.1 is examined as PW2. C.W.4-
Lakshmegowda -Asst.Traffic Inspector is examined as PW.3, C.W.8- 7 C.C.16311/2017 Muniraju- Head constable is examined as P.W.4, C.W.7-Shivanand M.Shetty-Head constable is examined as P.W.5, C.W.10-PSI-C.Raju is examined as P.W.6, C.W.3-Abdul Hameed- Conductor of the KSRTC Bus is examined as P.W.7 and C.W.9/Anjeneya -ASI is examined as P.W.8.
13. The defence of the accused is total denial of the case of the prosecution.
14. C.W.1/PW.1-Ramanand Hegde -driver of the KSRTC bus, in his evidence deposed that on 05.05.2017 while he was discharging his duty as KSRTC Bus driver and he was driving KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-57-F-890 at about 12.00P.M on Sheshadripuram Platform road there was traffic jam and he had stopped the bus in the traffic jam and the accused threw a stone on the windshield(front glass) of the bus and started to abuse him in filthy language and when he questioned the accused, he stabbed him with a knife on the left side of his stomach and he sustained bleeding injury and his shirt was also torn. P.W.1 further deposed that himself, co-driver- C.W.2 and the conductor-C.W.3 took the accused inside the bus and took him to Majestic bus stand at KSRTC control room and produced the accused in the control room and he was taken to Appollo hospital 8 C.C.16311/2017 for treatment and later he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. P.W1 identified the knife used by the accused to stab him and same is marked as MO.1 and he identified his blood stained shirt, pant and baniyan and same are marked as M.O.2.
15. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1, he has stated that he was working as Driver of the bus No.KA-51-F-890 from the year 2016 to 2017 and the said bus has not met with any accident when he was driving the said bus. He deposed that there are scratch marks on the bus and there are no other damages to the bus. He admitted that he has not produced any photograph of the damage caused to the bus during the alleged incident on 05.05.2017, to the police station. He admitted that there are no damages to the said bus. He deposed that he departed Mumbai on 04.05.2017 at 5.00P.M and reached Mantri Mall at Malleswaram on 05.05.2017 at 12.00P.M and he was driving the said bus. At the time of the incident the bus was not moving and the engine was on. He admitted that he has not seen the accused earlier at any point of time. He admitted that there will be 02 drivers and each driver drives for 300 kms and the other driver takes rest. Further he admitted that on 05.05.2017 due to the stone pelting by the accused on the windsheild no damage was caused to the windshield of the bus. He denied the 9 C.C.16311/2017 suggestion that some metal piece of the bus has come off due to the scratches on the bus. He admitted the suggestion that the alleged incident took place at a circle junction and there was less people and vehicular movement at that time. He deposed that he does not know the name of the circle and there were traffic police at the said signal. He deposed that he did not inform the traffic police immediately about the alleged incident and he went to the hospital for treatment.
16. P.W.1 further deposed that there were 15-20 passengers in the bus on the alleged date of incident. He deposed that the M.O-1
-knife was about 3-4 inches and he does not know the color of the handle of the knife. He admitted that Ex.P.1 is not in his handwriting and he signed on Ex.P.1 when he was at hospital, he deposed that he does not know the scribe of Ex.P.1, but he read the contents of Ex.P.1 and signed Ex.P.1. He deposed that the passengers in the bus are not made as witnesses. He denied the suggestion that no incident took place as alleged and the accused has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He denied the suggestion that he has filed false complaint against the accused.
17. C.W.2/P.W.2-Jayaramaiah- Driver at KSRTC- deposed that in the year 2017 he was working as driver along with C.W.1 and 10 C.C.16311/2017 C.W.3 was the conductor in KSRTC Volvo bus No.KA-54-F-890 and while the said bus was coming back from Mumbai to Bengaluru, there was a traffic jam near Apollo hospital and there was no vehicle coming from the front of the bus and the accused came from Majestic side and threw a stone on the windshield of the bus and when C.W.1 questioned the accused about throwing the stone, there was an altercation and the accused stabbed on the stomach of C.W.1 with a knife and caused bleeding injury. Further P.W.2 deposed that himself, the passengers in the bus took the accused to the KSRTC control room and C.W.1 was sent to take treatment and the accused was taken to the police station.
18. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for accused he deposed that he is working as Driver since 1992 at KSRTC bus depot No.4 and there are two drivers for the Mumbai- Bengaluru route and he drove the bus on 04.05.2017 for a distance of 400- 500 kms and he cannot say the time till when he drove the vehicle. He deposed that on 05.05.2017 it was 11.50P.M when the alleged incident took place and C.W.1 was driving the said bus at that time and since there was traffic jam, the bus was not moving. He deposed that he drove the bus from 10.00P.M on 04.05.2017 till 05.00A.M on 05.05.2017 and later he slept from 05.00A.M on 11 C.C.16311/2017 05.05.2017 till 10.00A.M on 05.05.2017. He deposed that the bus was at a distance of 150-200 mtrs from the traffic signal and Appollo hospital was on the left side of the bus. For the question regarding as to what color and which type of knife was used by the accused to stab C.W.1 the P.W.2 deposed that the knife had red color handle and it was a sticker cutting knife. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence against accused to help the C.W.1 and he denied the suggestion that the accused was not present at the place of incident.
19. C.W.3/P.W.7-Abdul Hameed- KSRTC bus conductor- in his evidence deposed that he was working as conductor along with C.W.1 and C.W.2 were the drivers in KSRTC Volvo bus No.KA-54-F- 890 and while the said bus was coming back from Mumbai to Bengaluru, there was a traffic jam near Apollo hospital and there was no vehicle coming from the front of the bus and the accused came from Majestic side and threw a stone on the windshield of the bus and when C.W.1 questioned the accused about throwing the stone, there was an altercation and the accused stabbed on the stomach of C.W.1 and caused bleeding injury and further deposed that himself, the passengers in the bus took accused to the KSRTC 12 C.C.16311/2017 control room and C.W.1 was sent to take treatment and accused was taken to the police station.
20. During cross examination made by the counsel for accused, this witness deposed that he is working as driver-cum-conductor since 17 years at KSRTC and on 03.05.2017 he was conductor of the said bus and said bus departed from Bengaluru to Mumbai on 03.05.2017 and on 04.05.2017 in between 2.00P.M and 3.00P.M the bus departed from Mumbai to Bengaluru. He deposed that he does not remember as to the number of the passengers in the said bus from Mumbai to Bengaluru. He deposed that on 05.05.2017 the bus reached Sheshadripuram at 12.00 P.M and since there was traffic jam in front of Appollo Hospital the bus was not moving. The traffic signal was at distance of 100-200 mtrs from where the bus was stationed. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not present at the time of alleged incident. He deposed that he had not seen the knife used by the accused at the place of incident. But he deposed that he saw the knife when the accused was taken to the Kempegowda Bus stand and for the question regarding as to what color and which type of knife was used by the accused to stab C.W.1 the P.W.7 deposed that the knife was 04 inches and it was a sticker cutting blade and he does not remember the color of the knife. He 13 C.C.16311/2017 deposed that he parked the bus at the side of the road during the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence against the accused with a view to help C.W.1.
21. CW.4/P.W.3-LakshmeGowda -Asst.Traffic Inspector- in his evidence deposed that on 05.05.2017 at about 12.15 P.M, KSRTC Volvo Bus No.KA54-F-890 came inside Majestic Bus stand and in the said bus the accused went along with C.W.1 and there was bleeding injury on the stomach of C.W.1 and they handed over the accused to the police and sent C.W.1 to the hospital.
22. C.W.8/P.W-4-Muniraju-ASI-CT Control room and C.W.7/P.W.5-Shivananda Shetty-Head constable deposed that on 06.05.2017 they arrested the accused at Upparpet Police station- KSRTC Outpost and took him for medical check up at K.C.General hospital and produced the accused at the police station after medical examination.
23. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for accused P.W.4 deposed that himself and C.W.7/P.W.5 arrested the accused at Upparpet Police station-KSRTC Outpost and took him for medical check up at K.C.General hospital and produced the accused 14 C.C.16311/2017 at the police station after medical examination. Further P.W.4 admitted that he had not seen the accused earlier at any point of time and both P.W.4 and 5 deposed that the accused was with them for an hour and they do not remember as to the color of the clothes the accused wearing and police have not seized any articles from the possession of the accused. P.W.4 in the cross examination deposed that there were scratch marks on the windshield due to the alleged incident. He further deposed that he came to know about the incident only when C.W.1 and 2 told him. He admitted that he has not personally witnessed the alleged incident.
24. C.W.10/P.W.6-C.Raju- Retd PSI- deposed that on 05.05.2017 on the basis of receipt of information regarding assault on C.W.1, he went to Apollo hospital and recorded statement of C.W.1 and registered the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and sent the FIR to Court and arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
25. During the course of cross examination by the counsel for accused he deposed that on 05.05.2017 at about 3.00P.M, the Appollo hospital staff handed over the Ex.P.8 and he has not signed on the Ex.P.8 and did not give any acknowledgement for receiving it 15 C.C.16311/2017 at the police station. He deposed that there are no CCTV Cameras installed at the place of incident. He deposed that C.W.3 and 4 informed him that many people gathered at the place of incident. He deposed that he has not enquired the passengers in the said bus and he does not know how many passengers were in the said bus. He deposed that the C.W.1 had mentioned about the accused in the complaint. But he deposed that he did not tell regarding the identification of the accused to C.W.4 and 5 and he denied the suggestion that the mahazar was drawn at the police station. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.5-duty report and Ex.P.6-log sheet at the KSRTC bus depot are concocted for the purpose of this case and he has not made the person who gave Ex.P.5 and 6 as witness. He admitted that the report of medical examination was not given on 05.05.2017. He admitted that he has not investigated about the damage caused to the bus and he has not sent M.O.1-knife to FSL. He denied the suggestion that he has filed false charge sheet without properly investigating the case.
26. C.W.9/P.W.8-Anjeneya - PSI- Traffic P.S. in his evidence deposed that on 05.05.2017 he was working as ASI at Upparpet P.S and the accused was brought to the said P.S. At about 4.00 and 4.15 16 C.C.16311/2017 P.M he received a call from C.W.10 of Sheshadripuram PS telling him to send the accused in the Hoysala jeep to Sheshadripuram P.S and he sent the accused with C.W.7 after proper enquiry.
27. During trial, the defence of the accused is total denial of the case of the prosecution.
28. Further it is pertinent to note that in the evidence of P.W.1 he deposed that he signed on the Ex.P.1 when he was at the hospital and he does not know the scribe of Ex.P.1. Further it is worthy to note that the P.W.1 himself admitted in the cross examination that he has not seen the accused earlier at any point of time. Further he admitted that on 05.05.2017 due to the stone pelting by the accused on the windshield no damage was caused to the windshield to the bus. He admitted the suggestion that the alleged incident took place at a circle junction and there was less people and vehicular movement at that time. But in the complaint at Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that there was heavy traffic and the bus was not moving. This contradictory statement of P.W.1 creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to occurrence of the alleged incident. Further he deposed that there were traffic police at the said signal and he deposed that he did not inform 17 C.C.16311/2017 the traffic police immediately about the alleged incident and took the accused in the bus and took him to the KSRTC control room at Majestic and he went to the hospital for treatment. This version of P.W.1 also creates suspicion as to the occurence of alleged incident, since the question arises as to what was the need for him to take the accused in the bus to the KSRTC Control room instead of informing the nearby traffic police and concerned jurisdictional police immediately about the incident.
29. P.W.1 deposed that there are scratch marks on the bus and there are no other damages to the bus. He admitted that he has not produced any photograph of the damage caused to the bus during the alleged incident on 05.05.2017, to the police station. He admitted that there are no damages to the said bus. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused threw a stone on the windshield of the bus, if a stone is thrown/pelted at the windshield of the bus certainly some amount of damage will be caused to the windshield. Here the P.W.1 admits that there was no damage to the bus. The prosecution/IO has not seized the alleged stone which the accused is alleged to have pelted at the windshield. This lapse in the investigation is fatal to the case of the prosecution as it is case of the 18 C.C.16311/2017 prosecution that the accused threw a stone on the windshield of the bus. More over during the cross examination P.W.1 himself admits that he has not seen the accused at an earlier point of time. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 reveals that he is not certain and he is not able to recollect the incident of the case. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 appears to be doubtful.
30. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident occured on the main road and certainly there will be CCTV cameras installed at traffic signals and P.W.1 admits that the distance between the traffic signal and alleged place of incident is about 100 to 150 mtrs. If really the incident had occurred the IO would have produced the CCTV footages. In the present case on hand they have not produced the CCTV footages or any documentary proof to show that the accused pelted a stone on the windshield of the bus and the windshield was damaged and stabbing of the accused with a knife as per the case of prosecution.
31. It is worth to note that the passengers in the bus are not made as witnesses. No reason is forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the passengers of the bus or any public witness is not cited as 19 C.C.16311/2017 a charge sheet witness. There would have been very strong evidence of the eye witnesses/passengers of the bus if they were to be examined. The prosecution has erred in not citing and examining the passengers of the bus.
32. Further it is evident to note that the complainant has not identified the knife in his chief examination. It is pertinent to note that the C.W.2 and 3 who are the co-driver and conductor in the bus deposed that the accused possessed a sticker cutting blade/knife, whereas the prosecution has seized one steel knife as mentioned in P.F.No.35/2017. This aspect also creates a doubt in the trustworthiness of the evidence of PW.1.
33. In the decision reported in: AIR 1980 SC 443( Babu VS- State of UP -it is held that "where the witnesses are interested, their evidence should be scrutinized with great caution ". This decision is also aptly applicable to the case on hand.
34. In the decision reported in 2003)11 SCC 203 (State of Punjab Vs- Harbans Singh), wherein it is held that "non examination of any independent witness adversely affected the 20 C.C.16311/2017 prosecution case". This decision is also aptly applicable to the case on hand.
35. On careful perusal of the evidence placed on record, it is evident to note that except the interested witnesses (P.W1 to 8) have been examined by the prosecution, no public or other independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
36. Further relying on the decision reported in 1999 Crl.L.J 19 (SC) (Sanspal Singh Vs State of Delhi)
-It is evident that public witnesses were available and could have been associated to witness the recovery. It would have been a different matter altogether, had there been No public witness available or none was willing to associate here as stated above, public witnesses were available but No explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus it would be unsafe to maintain conviction of the appellant for the offences charged"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
37. Furthermore the decision reported in (2017)11 SCC 195- Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh and others.. At para 16 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"16. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal 21 C.C.16311/2017 cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
38. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. For the reasons stated above, it is clear that number of serious doubts arises in the mind of the court as to the evidence and circumstances of the case on hand. Under these circumstances, no doubt the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence this court held that the evidence placed on record is not pointing out towards guilt of the accused only and accused as a matter of right is entitled for benefit of doubt and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
39. Point No.3: - In view of the findings of point No.1 and 2 this court proceeds to pass the following;
22 C.C.16311/2017
ORDER Acting U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.332 and 353 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled. The bail bond executed u/s 437(A) of Cr.P.C shall be continued.
M.O.1- knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State and M.O.2- Blood stained shirt, pant and banian being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on-line and typed by her, judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 03 rd day of February, 2024).
(Latha J.), XXXII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Ramanandh Hegde C.W.1 20-11-2018
PW2 Jayaramaiah C.W.2 16-07-2022
PW-3 Lakshmegowda C.W.4 16-07-2022
PW4 Muniraju C.W.8 30-11-2022
PW5 Shivananda Shetty C.W.7 22-12-2022
PW6 C.Raju C.W.10 22-12-2022
PW7 Abdul Ameed C.W.3 18-04-2023
PW8 Anjaneya C.W.9 18-10-2023
23 C.C.16311/2017
List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of C.W.1, Signature of PW.6, Ex.P2 : FIR Ex.P2(a), : Signature of PW.6, Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P3(a), : Signature of PW.6, 7 (b) Ex.P.4 : Spot mahazar Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.5 and : Duty report and true copy of route 6 charge Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.7 : Wound certificate Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.8 : MLC report
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
M.O.1-knife M.O.2-blood stained shirt(uniform), pant and baniyan of C.W.1 List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil--
Digitally signed by LATHA LATHA Date:
J
J 2024.02.07
15:28:02
+0530
XXXII Addl.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.