Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By K.P. Agrahara Police Station vs No. : 1. Velu on 18 February, 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
             MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU

              Dated: 15th Day of Monday, February 2016

                     Presented By
               Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
                 44th ACMM, Bengaluru

                    C.C.No.1873/2013

Complainant     :    State by K.P. Agrahara Police station

                                  (By Asst.Public Prosecutor)


                            -V/s-

Accused No.          : 1. Velu,
                      S/o Lakshman,
                      Aged about 24 years,
                      R/at No.101, 7th Cross,
                      7th Main, R.K. S. Nagar,
                      Srirampura, Bengaluru.

                      (Case against accused No.1 is split up)


                      2. Raghu @ Raghavendra,
                      S/o Subramani,
                      Aged about 32 years,
                      R/at No.141, 1st Main,
                      K.P. Agrahara, Bengaluru.
                                   2                C.C. No.1873/2013




                      3. Smt. Sangeetha,
                      W/o Saravana,
                      Aged about 28 years,
                      R/at No.11, 2nd Cross,
                      Behind Eshwara Temple,
                      K.P. Agrahara,
                      Bengaluru.

                          (By Sri.B.C. Rajanna, Advocate)


                      JUDGMENT

The PSI of K.P. Agrahara Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.341, 504, 120(B), 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

It is alleged that, on 15/06/2012, at about 5 p.m., within the limits of K.P. Agrahara Police Station, on Magadi Road, Near Krishnappa Choultry, accused No.1 to 3 conspiring with each other and due to previous ill will between accused No.3 and C.W. 2 Umesh, picked up quarrel with C.W. 2, restrained him from proceeding further, abused him in filthy language and during that time accused No.2 instructed accused No.1 to finish C.W. 2, as such accused No.1 3 C.C. No.1873/2013 hit on C.W. 2's head with a cricket bat and caused simple injuries.

Therefore, C.W. 1 being the brother-in-law of C.W. 2 having learnt about the alleged incident, lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As a result, this case came to the registered against accused persons by C.W. 15, who has visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of witnesses, seized a cricket bat and subjected the same in P.F. No.73/2012. Later, C.W. 16 took up further investigation of the case and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

3. The accused No.1 to 3 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel. Later, accused No.1 remained absent. Therefore, this case against accused No.1 is ordered to be split up. Accordingly, a separate criminal case has been registered against accused No.1.

4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 504, 120(B), 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined two witnesses as P.W. 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. At this stage, it is brought to court notice that the complainant, injured and accused persons have compromised the matter among themselves, and are living harmoniously. Therefore, in order to promote harmonious relationship among themselves, evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required by rejecting the prayer of learned A.P.P. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, recording of accused statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with. Hence, the case is posted for arguments. 5 C.C. No.1873/2013

7. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.

8.The following points would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 15/06/2012, at about 5 p.m. in the evening, accused No.1 and 2 conspiring with accused No.3, due to old illwill in furtherance of common intention, picked up quarrel with C.W. 2 near Krishnappa Choultry on Magadi Road, unlawfully restrained him from proceeding further and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 r/w 34 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused in furtherance of common intention under the aforesaid circumstances, picked up quarrel with C.W. 2, abused him in filthy language so 6 C.C. No.1873/2013 as to breach public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.504 r/w 34 of IPC?

3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused in furtherance of their common intention under the aforesaid circumstances, conspired each other to cause assault on C.W. 2 in connection with the harassment alleged to have been caused by C.W. 2 at the working place of accused No.3 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.120(B) r/w 34 of IPC?

4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused in furtherance of their common intention under the aforesaid circumstance, accused No.1 and 2 with the conspiracy of accused No.3 picked 7 C.C. No.1873/2013 up quarrel with C.W. 2 and during that time, accused No.1 hit on C.W. 2's head with a cricket bat and caused simple blood injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC?

5. What Order?

9. My findings on the above points are as follows:

              Point No.1 :      IN THE NEGATIVE

              Point No.2 :      IN THE NEGATIVE

              Point No.3 :      IN THE NEGATIVE

              Point No.4 :      IN THE NEGATIVE

              Point No.5 :     As per final order for the following

                             REASONS

     10.Points No.1 to 4:          All these points involves similar set of

facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.

11. This is a case filed against accused persons on the back ground of previous enmity between accused No3. and C.W. 2 Umesh. 8 C.C. No.1873/2013 It is noticed that, accused No.3 by name Smt. Sangeetha and C.W. 2 Umesh were working in St. Martin School as teachers. It is alleged that, C.W. 2 was harassing accused No.3 in the school, therefore being aggrieved by the conduct of C.W. 2, accused No.3 along with accused No.1 and 2 conspired with each other to assault C.W. 2, accordingly, alleged incident took place. In this connection, prosecution has cited as many as 16 witnesses and was successful in examining only two among them.

12. P.W. 1 is the complainant and brother-in-law of injured C.W. 2. Both of them have completely turned hostile and have not deposed anything against accused persons. Even they have failed to identify the cricket bat which was produced before this court. Later, it is brought to the court notice that, complainant and accused have also compromised the matter among themselves and are living harmoniously. Therefore, in order to promote harmonious relationship among the complainant and accused, the evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required. As a result, the 9 C.C. No.1873/2013 prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 to 4 are answered in the Negative.

13.Point No.5: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 to 4, proceeded to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 504, 120(B), 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

The bail & bail bond of accused No.2 and 3 and sureties shall stands cancelled.

An unidentified blood stained wooden cricket bat seized under P.F. No.73/2012 is ordered to be retained till disposal of the split up case against accused No.1.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed and typed by her and after corrections made by me, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the Monday the 15th day of February 2016).

(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.

ANNEXURE

1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Puttaiah P.W. 2: Umesh

2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P. 2 : Statement of P.W. 1 Ex.P.3 : Statement of P.W. 2

3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL

4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.

Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate order:-

ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 504, 120(B), 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

and sureties shall stands cancelled.

An unidentified blood stained wooden cricket bat seized under P.F. No.73/2012 is ordered to be retained till disposal of the split up case against accused No.1.

(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.