Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By K.P. Agrahara Police Station vs Santosh @ Dyamappa. H.J on 7 January, 2019

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

             Dated:    This the 7th day of JANUARY 2019

                     :Present:
                 Smt. Mala N.D., LL.M.,
                 44th ACMM, Bengaluru

                 C.C.No.21908/2017

Complainant      :    State by K.P. Agrahara Police station

                           (By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)

                           -V/s-

Accused           :       Santosh @ Dyamappa. H.J.
                          S/o Jayappa,
                          Aged about 23 years,
                          R/at 4th Cross, 2nd Main,
                          Allalasandra, Yelahanka New Town,
                          Bengaluru.

                           (By Sri. Gopal.R.S. advocate )


                           JUDGMENT

The PSI of K.P. Agrahara Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.354 of IPC.

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

It is alleged that, on 17/08/2016 at about 7. p.m. in the evening, C.W. 1 Smt. Sandhya Shankar Ingle and C.W. 2 2 C.C. No.21908/2017 Sri. Mohith.B. Karla booked Uber vehicle from their house bearing No.47, situated at 4th Cross, Telecom Layout, within the limits of K.P. Agrahara police station in order to go to Malleshwaram, as such, accused came to pick up C.W. 1 and 2 in his car bearing No.KA-51-A-8240, picked them from aforesaid place, after moving some distance near Total Gas bunk road, C.W. 1 asked accused to put on the A.C, for which accused replied them about non working condition of A.C. due to some repair, as such, C.W. 1 and 2 alighted from the said car, canceled their Uber trip, thereafter accused asked C.W. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.50/- as per Uber rules, when the same was refused by C.W. 1, accused being enraged picked up quarrel with C.W. 1, pulled her hands and tried to out rage her modesty in general public and thereby committed aforesaid offence. Therefore, C.W.1 Smt. Sandhya Shankar Ingle has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, recorded the statement of witnesses 3 C.C. No.21908/2017 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.

3. The accused is on bail and he is represented through his counsel.

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 offence punishable U/sec. 354 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.

5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he 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 its complainant C.W. 1 as P.W. 1 and got marked two documents at Ex.P1 and P.2. At this stage, it is brought to court notice that, complainant is not intending to prosecute the case against accused herein. Hence, in order to close the matter, by considering the career of both accused and complainant, evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required by rejecting the prayer of prosecution.

As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, recording 4 C.C. No.21908/2017 of accused statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.

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 17/08/2016 at about

7. p.m. in the evening, C.W. 1 Smt. Sandhya Shankar Ingle and C.W. 2 Sri. Mohith.B. Karla booked Uber vehicle from their house bearing No.47, situated at 4th Cross, Telecom Layout, within the limits of K.P. Agrahara police station in order to go to Malleshwaram, as such, accused came to pick up C.W. 1 and 2 in his car bearing No.KA-51-A-8240, picked them from aforesaid place, after moving some distance near Total Gas bunk road, C.W. 1 asked accused to on the A.C, for which accused replied them about non working condition of A.C. due to some repair, as such, C.W. 1 and 2 alighted from the said car, cancelled their Uber trip, thereafter accused asked C.W. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.50/- as per Uber rules, when the same was refused by C.W. 1, accused being enraged picked up quarrel with C.W. 1, pulled her hands and tried to out rage her modesty in general public and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.354 of IPC?

2. What Order?

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

Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.2: As per final order for the following REASONS

10.Point No.1 : The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 08 witnesses and successful in examining only its complainant C.W. 1 as P.W. 1. This case has been registered on the back ground of accused trying to out rage the modesty of C.W. 1 Smt. Sandhya Shankar in general public . In this connection the complainant Smt. Sandhya Shankar is examined as P.W.1. During the course of trial, P.W.1 has completely turned hostile, not deposed anything against accused and thereby not supported the case of prosecution. As such, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. Later, it is brought to the court notice that, complainant is not intending to prosecute the case against accused herein. Therefore, by considering the career of both accused and complainant, evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required by rejecting the prayer of prosecution.. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against 6 C.C. No.21908/2017 the accused with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

11.Point No.2: In view of the negative findings on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 354 of IPC.

The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of January 2019).

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

ANNEXURE

1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Smt. Sandhya Shankar

2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED 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 P.W. 1

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

Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 354 of IPC.

The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.

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