Bangalore District Court
State By K.S. Layout Police Station vs No. : 1. Johnson on 28 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 28th day of DECEMBER 2016
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.554/2013
Complainant : State by K.S. Layout Police station
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Johnson,
S/o Chinnadore,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.170, 11th Main,
Chandranagar,
Bengaluru.
2. Davidson,
S/o Chinnadore,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.170, 11th Main,
Chandranagar,
Bengaluru.
3. Sunil @ Papu,
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.2282, 7th Cross,
11th Main, Chandranagar,
Bengaluru.
2 C.C.No.554/2013
5. Sandeep,
S/o Suresh,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.130, 11th Main,
Chandranagar,
Bengaluru.
6. Krishna,
S/o Subramanya,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.141, 8th Main,
Chandranagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Thimme Gowda, advocate )
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.S. Layout Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 for the offences punishable U/s. 143, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 17/06/2012 at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening, when C.W. 1 Sri. Anand was with C.W. 6 and 7 i.e. Sri. Manjunath and Sri. Koti respectively near Tamarind Tree, situated near 15E bus stop pipeline, within the limits of K.S. Layout Police Station, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common object formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 3 C.C.No.554/2013 from proceeding further, assaulted him by their hands, also assaulted with an iron rod on his eyes causing bleeding injuries, assaulted on his back with cricket bat and voluntarily caused hurt to him. Therefore, C.W.1 has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against the accused persons. Thereafter, I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar as well as seizure mahazar, seized M.O.1 and 2 subjected under P.F. No. 117/2012, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained wound certificate from the concerned medical authority and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel. During the pendency of the case, death of accused No.4 is brought to the court notice. Hence, case against accused No.4 is abated.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused persons as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 143, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C. 4 C.C.No.554/2013
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused persons 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 07 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein they have denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and they have not chosen to lead their side defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 17/06/2012 at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening when C.W. 1 Sri. Anand was with C.W. 6 and 7 i.e. Sri. Manjunath and Sri. Koti respectively near Tamarind Tree, near 15E bus stop pipeline, within the limits of K.S. Layout Police Station, all the accused persons in furtherance of their 5 C.C.No.554/2013 common object formed an unlawful assembly, and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.143 r/w 149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of their common object wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 from proceeding further and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 r/w 149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of their common object assaulted C.W. 1 by their hands voluntarily caused hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 r/w 149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of their common object assaulted with an iron rod on C.W. 1's eye, also assaulted on his back with a cricket bat caused bleeding injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 149 of IPC?
5. What Order?
10.My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
6 C.C.No.554/2013
Point No.3 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.4 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.5: As per final order for the following REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 4: All these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
12. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 11 witnesses and successful in examining only two witnesses i.e. C.W. 8 and 11. This case has been registered on the back ground of an assault said to have been caused on the complainant by the accused persons.
13. To substantiate its case the prosecution could not secure C.W. 1 during his life time. Thereafter, he is reported as dead. The only material witness that has been examined is the I.O.'s evidence. He has deposed about lodging of FIR, visiting the place of occurrence, drawing the mahazar in the presence of witnesses, recording the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2, seizing one iron rod and a cricket bat. On the contrary in support of the 7 C.C.No.554/2013 investigation of I.O. no mahazar witnesses have been secured. Only the medical officer has spoken about the injuries. Since this is a case of assault said to have been occurred in the public place, the evidence of eye witnesses receives much credibility. Whereas in this case, the prosecution has not attempted to secure eye witnesses. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to hold the accused persons as guilty minded. It is to be observed that, this court has given sufficient opportunity to secure all the witnesses by issuing summons and warrants time and again. Except the official witnesses i.e. doctor and police official, none of them have appeared before this court. Further, it is pertinent to note that, on 27/02/2016 this court has framed charge and this court has extended fullest assistance to secure the witnesses by issuing summons and warrants. But none have appeared before the court. As such, C.W. 2 to 7, 9 and 10 have been discharged from deposing evidence by rejecting the prayer of prosecution. As such, the investigation conducted by the P.W. 1 suffers from corroboration and the same is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. As such, prosecution has 8 C.C.No.554/2013 failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of accused persons.
14. As a result, the 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.
15.Point No.5: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.143, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
M.O.1 an iron rod is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period. M.O.2 cricket bat is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December 2016).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
9 C.C.No.554/2013ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Dr. Srikanth P.W. 2: Chikka Thammaiah
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Wound certificate Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.4 : Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.5 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.6&7 : Statements of witnesses
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION M.O.1 : Iron Rod M.O.2 : Bat (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
10 C.C.No.554/2013Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.143, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.
M.O.1 an iron rod is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period. M.O.2 cricket bat is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.11 C.C.No.554/2013