Bangalore District Court
State By Parappana Agrahara Police vs Nos.1 To 5 With Common Intention ... on 1 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 1st day of April 2016
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 6833/2014
2.Date of offence 24-8-2012
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara Police
Station
4.Accused 1. Nagesh
Son of Narayanareddy, aged 32
years,
2. Munireddy
Son of Obalappa, aged 38 years,
3. Venkataswamyreddy
Son of Obalappa, aged 56 years,
4. Narayanareddy
Son of Arasureddy, aged 65 years,
5. Sidhareddy
Son of Narayanareddy, aged 40 years
All are residing at
No.534, Koodlugrama, Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 427 and 447 r/w 34 of IPC.
of
2 C.C.No.6833/2014.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 to 5 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 1-4-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused
Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under sections 427 and
447 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
24-8-2012 at 10-00 a.m., in sites No.20 and 21 and other sites
formed in survey No.190/2 of Koodlu village, Bangalore city
within the limits of Parappana Agrahara police station the
accused Nos.1 to 5 with common intention trespassed into the
said sites belonged to C.W.1 Palani, C.W.2 Vishalakshi, C.W.3
M.P.Gopalakrishna, and C.W.4 Krishnamurthy and damaged
the compound wall constructed in it and thereby caused loss
to the extent of thousands of rupees and committed aforesaid
offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are on bail. On receipt of
charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused
persons. After hearing on charges, this court has framed the
accusation for the offences punishable U/s.447 and 427 of IPC
3 C.C.No.6833/2014.
and read over to the accused persons in the language known
to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
persons has examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got
marked three documents as per Exs.P1 to P3. Since C.Ws.3, 6
to 8 did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer
of Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said
witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused persons
as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against them and
submitted that they have no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused
evidence on record.
7. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused Nos.1 to 5 has examined four witnesses. P.W.1 K.
Palani is the complainant and owner of site where the alleged
incident taken place. P.W.2 K.Krishnamurty is another owner
of site No.11 where the alleged incident taken place. P.W.3
P.Yuvaraj is the spot mahazar witness. P.W.4 Vishalakshi is
another owner of the site where the alleged incident taken
place. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities the
prosecution has not examined C.W.3 M.P.Gopalakrishna the
4 C.C.No.6833/2014.
owner of another site where the alleged incident taken place.
C.Ws.6 to 8 the investigating officers who conducted the
investigation.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence on record.
9. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that he purchased
one site formed in survey No.190/2 of Koodlu village from one
Govinda. He constructed shed in it so also the owners of his
adjacent site have also constructed shed in their respective
sites. There is civil dispute pertaining to his site as well as the
sites of others. About three years back some body has
damaged the shed constructed in his site but he does not
know who actually damaged. He has not asked accused
persons about damage to his site. Since P.W.1 not supported
the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr.APP., treated this
witness as hostile and further cross examined. In the cross
examination P.W.1 has admitted that he lodged complaint to
the police as per Ex.P.1 in respect of damage to his shed on
24-8-2012 at 10-00 a.m., by accused persons. However, he
denied the suggestion that on 28-8-2012 the police visited the
spot and prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P.2.
10. The testimony of P.W.2 indicating that site No.11
formed in survey No.190/2 of Koodlu village purchased by him
from one Govindappa and constructed shed in it. So also, his
adjacent site owners have also constructed sheds in their
5 C.C.No.6833/2014.
respective sites. There is civil dispute in Anekal Court as well
as in High Court pertaining to his site. About three years back
during night hours some persons damaged the shed
constructed in his site, also in the sites of some others but he
has not questioned the accused persons regarding damages to
his site. Since P.W.2 has also not supported the case of the
prosecution, the learned Sr.APP., treated this witness as
hostile and further cross examined. In the cross examination
P.W.2 has denied the suggestion that he gave statement to the
police as per Ex.P.3 but on 24-8-2012, the accused persons
trespassed into his sites and damaged the shed construed in
it.
11. The testimony of P.W.4 Vishalakshi indicating that
her father purchased site formed in survey No.190/2 of
Koodlu village. She constructed the house in the said site.
The accused persons damaged the shed constructed in her
site, also the sheds constructed by others. Accordingly, she
sustained loss to the extent of lakhs of rupees.
12. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
witnesses on record. It appears, the investigating officer during
the course of investigation has collected xerox copies of
documents of ownership of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. It appears the
prosecution has not marked any documents to prove
possession of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 over their respective sites. In
6 C.C.No.6833/2014.
order to establish the trespass, the prosecution has to
establish the possession of complainant P.Ws.2 and 4 over the
disputed sites by way of production of documentary evidence
but the prosecution has not established the same.
13. In respect of damages caused by accused persons the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is no where assist to the prosecution
to prove its case. Though P.W.4 has deposed that the accused
persons have damaged the shed constructed in her site, any
witnesses and circumstances do not corroborate her
testimony. Therefore, mere saying that accused persons
damaged the shed of P.W.4 is not sufficient to connect them
for the offences alleged. Therefore, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and the discussions made
above, I am of the considered opinion that, the evidence on
record is insufficient to conclude that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
accused Nos.1 to 5 are entitled for benefit of doubt. In the
result, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under section 447 and 427 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 5 have been acquitted for the above referred offences.
7 C.C.No.6833/2014.Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1, K.Palani; P.W.2, K.Krishnamurthy; P.W.3, P.Yuvaraj; P.W.4, Vishalakshi;
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1, Complaint; Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1; Ex.P2, Mahazar; Ex.P2(a), Signature; Ex.P.2(b), Signature of P.W.2; Ex.P.2(c), Signature of P.W.3; Ex.P.3, Statement;
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil List of witnesses examined, documents & materials marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.