Bangalore District Court
State By Hulimavu Police Station vs Nagaraja on 1 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE
Dated this the 1st day of February , 2020
:PRESENT:
Smt . SHIRIN J ANSARI, B.A.LLB (Hons)., LL.M.
V ACMM Bangalore .
CRIMINAL CASE No. 15847/2019
Complainant : State by Hulimavu Police station,
Bangalore.
(Rep by Sr.A.P.P)
-VS-
Accused : 1.Nagaraja
S/of.late Narayanappa
aged 45 years.
2. Sujatha
W/of.Nagaraja
3.Krishnappa
S/of.late Narayanappa
4. Siddaraju
S/of.late Narayanappa
aged 33 years
5. Manjunath
S/of.late Narayanappa
aged 31 years.
6. Somu
S/of.late Narayanappa
aged 28 years.
2
CC.No.15847/2019
Acc No.1 to 6 are
R/at.Nyanappanahalli Village
Begur Hobli
Bangalore.
(Rep by PVM., Advocate,)
1. Date of commencement of 11.05.2016
offence
2. Date of report of offence 12.05.2016
3 Arrest of the accused The accused are on
bail
4. Name of the complainant Sri G.T.Gopal
5. Date of recording of 28.01.2020
evidence
6. Date of closing of evidence 28.01.2020
7. Offences complained of Secs.143, 147, 447, 427
and 506 r/w 149 IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused are not
found guilty
9. Complainant by The Learned Sr.APP
10. Accused defence by Sri.PVM ., Advocate,
JUDGMENT
The IO of Hulimavu police station, Bangalore has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 and 506 R/W.149 of IPC. 3
CC.No.15847/2019
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
That CW 1 had purchased the site Nos.13, 14 and 16 from the owner that was formed at Sy No.2/5 measuring 2 Acres & 6 Guntas situated at Nyanappanahalli, Begur Hobli, within the limits of Hulimavu P.S. That CW 2 had purchased Site No.15 and that Cw 1 and 2 were in possession of the said sites . On 11.05.2016 at about 10.45. am, the accused No.1 to 6 with a common object to commit an offence, formed unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass and also caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to Cws 1 and 2 due to damage to the wall as they used the paint to write OS.No.430/2014 sy.No.2/5 on the walls and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.143,147, 447 & 427 r/w.149 of IPC.
Hence, this complaint.
3. Based on the above said allegations, the police have registered case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the investigation. Case papers discloses that the accused persons appeared 4 CC.No.15847/2019 before this court through the advocate and got enlarged on bail and thereafter the police conducted the spot mahazar and recorded the statements of the witness and after collecting the materials against the accused persosns and they have filed the present charge sheet. Based on the materials placed on record, cognizance is taken for the aforesaid offences against the accused and issued process. In pursuance of the summons, accused appeared through the advocate and obtained court bail.
4. Copies of the charge sheet as required Under Section-207 of Cr.P.C., are supplied and after hearing the learned Sr.APP and counsel for the accused persons necessary charges are framed, read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried. Plea of accused has been recorded and thereafter summons has been issued to the charge sheet witnesses.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 and 2 and closed their side. IN absence of incriminating evidence against the accused 5 CC.No.15847/2019 persons, recording of 313 Cr.p.c statement of the accused has been dispensed with.
Heard the arguments on both sides, perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
6. Based on the above facts and circumstances on record, the following points are arise for my determination:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, CW 1 had purchased the site Nos.13, 14 and 16 from the owner that was formed at Sy No.2/5 measuring 2 Acres & 6 Guntas situated at Nyanappanahalli, Begur Hobli, within the limits of Hulimavu P.S and that CW 2 had purchased Site No.15 and that Cw 1 and 2 were in possession of the said sites that on 11.05.2016 at about 10.45. am, the accused No.1 to 6 with a common object to commit an offence, formed unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.143,147 & 447 r/w.149 of IPC?6
CC.No.15847/2019
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place, the accused persons with common object to commit an offence also caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to Cws 1 and 2 due to damage to the wall as they used the paint to write OS.No.430/2014 sy.No.2/5 on the walls and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 427 r/w.149 of IPC?
3. What order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1-2 - In the "Negative"
Point No.3 - As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
8.POINT No.1 AND 2 :- It is the specific case of
the prosecution that CW 1 had purchased the site Nos.13, 14 and 16 from the owner that was formed at Sy No.2/5 measuring 2 Acres & 6 Guntas situated at Nyanappanahalli, Begur Hobli, within the limits of Hulimavu P.S. That CW 2 had purchased Site No.15 and that Cw 1 and 2 were in possession of the said sites . That 7 CC.No.15847/2019 on 11.05.2016 at about 10.45. am, the accused No.1 to 6 with a common object to commit an offence, formed unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass and also caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to Cws 1 and 2 due to damage to the wall as they used the paint to write OS.No.430/2014 sy.No.2/5 on the walls and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.143,147, 447 & 427 r/w.149 of IPC.
9. With this specific allegation, the prosecution has set the law into motion depending on the complaint lodged by CW1. According to the prosecution paper the accused were arrested for the offence u/s.143, ,147 ,447 & 427 /w.149 of IPC. But, during the course of examination-in-
chief the complainant has completely denied the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence. For this aspect of the matter, the prosecution has treated PW1 as hostile and subjected to cross examination wherein, PW 1 has clearly denied the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. On this ground the criminal liability cannot be fastened on accused persons. 8
CC.No.15847/2019
10. When PW 1 being the victim /material witness turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, recording of evidence of other witnesses is not at all helpful to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Absolutely, there is no material on record to convict the accused persons.
11. The evidence of prosecution witness is full of doubts and the benefit of such doubts should be made available to the accused persons. Therefore, the court finds no reasons to convict the accused persons. Hence, I answer the Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
12. POINT No.3:- In view of findings on point No.1 and 2, I find that the accused persons are not guilty and in the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/Sec 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 6 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sections 143, 147, 447 & 427 r/w 149 of IPC.9
CC.No.15847/2019 The bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.1 to 6 shall execute personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each towards compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, transcribed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this the 1st day of February, 2020 ).
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1 G.T.Gopal
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.1
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence.
-NIL-
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence.
-NIL-
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence.
-NIL-
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore.
10 CC.No.15847/2019 11 CC.No.15847/2019 12 CC.No.15847/2019 13 CC.No.15847/2019 14 CC.No.15847/2019 15 CC.No.15847/2019 16 CC.No.15847/2019