Bangalore District Court
State By Sanjaynagara P.S vs Is Acquitted on 4 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th Day of January 2020
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.13800/2015
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 13800/2015
2. The date of commission 14/07/2014
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Sanjaynagara P.S.
4. Name of the accused Anil Kumar s/o
S.T.Narayanappa, aged 44
years, r/at No.14, 9th A Main,
8th Cross, Sivanagara,
Rajajinagara, Bangalore.
5. The offence complained of U/s. 323, 332, 353, 354, 504
or proved and 506 of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted
8. Date of such order 04012020
For the following:
2 C.C.No.13800/2015
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by Police Inspector of Sanjaynagara PS against the accused for an offence Punishable U/Sec. 323, 332, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 14072014 at 11.15 a.m., at Sanjaynagara, the accused picked up quarrel with CW1, who was BMTC K2 Driver and in the above said transaction assaulted CW2 with hands and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to CW1 and 2 who are the public servants, in the discharge of their duty and also used criminal force on CW1 and 2 to deter public service and misbehaved with Cw2 and tried to outrage her modesty in the public and abused in filthy language and threatened CW1 and 2 with dire consequences and thereby committed the alleged offences.3 C.C.No.13800/2015
3. Accused was on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 323, 332, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined PW.1 to 5 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P7 and MO1. The accused has been questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has not chosen to adduce any defence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The point that would arise for my consideration in this case are as under:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 14/07/2014 at about 11.15 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Sanjay Nagar P.S, you accused picked up quarrel with CW.1, who 4 C.C.No.13800/2015 was BMTC K2 Driver and in the above said transaction assaulted CW.2 with your hands thus voluntarily caused hurt and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/sec.323 of IPC?
2. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and in the above said transaction voluntarily caused grievous hurt to CW.1 and 2, who are the public servants, in the discharge of their duty and also used criminal force on CW.1 and 2 to deter public service and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.332 and 353 of IPC?
3. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and in the above said transaction misbehaved with CW.2 and tried to outrage her modesty in the public and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/s.354 of IPC?5 C.C.No.13800/2015
4. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and in the above said transaction abused CW.1 and 2 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/sec.504 of IPC?
5. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and in the above said transaction threatened CW.1 and 2 with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/sec.506 of IPC?
6. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
6 C.C.No.13800/2015
Point No.4 : In the Negative.
Point No.5 : In the Negative.
Point No.6 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 5: In order to avoid the repetition of facts all the points taken together for common discussion. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the IO has cited as many as 9 witnesses, among them the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses i.e., PW1 to 5. In the present case on hand, even after issuance of summons, warrants and proclamation to CW2, 3, 5 and 6 the prosecution has not been able to secure their presence, as such their evidence came to be dropped as not secured.
9. Now, let us turn our attention to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In order to bring home the guilt of the 7 C.C.No.13800/2015 accused, first and foremost the prosecution has examined CW1 as PW1/complainant who was the driver of the BMTC, this witness in his examination in chief deposed that in the year 2013 he was working as BMTC driver and CW2 working as Conductor. In the year 2014 he was working in the route No.K2/11 which was from Satellite Bus Stop to Hebbal. On 14072014 this witness and CW2 were deputed to the bus No.KA57F801, on the said date at about 9.30 a.m., when both these witnesses were having breakfast at Satellite Bus Stand, at that time the accused who is also the driver of BMTC came to the above said place and abused them in filthy language regarding overtaking of bus. Thereafter this witness and CW2 went to duty. On the said date at about 11.15 a.m., when them came near the Hebbal Bus stop at that time the accused came there also and picked up quarrel with this witness regarding overtaking of the bus and suddenly he started to assault this witness by means of hands and he has 8 C.C.No.13800/2015 picked up a small stone and assaulted this witness to his face, as a result this witness has sustained bleeding injuries. The CW2 who is the Conductor of the said bus came to the rescue of this witness, at that time the accused has abused CW2 also in filthy language and outrage her modesty. Thereafter, this witness rushed to the Baptist Hospital and obtained treatment and from there he went to Sanjaynagara Police Station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and the signature of this witness as per Ex.P1(a).
10. Further, this witness deposed that after lodging of the complaint the police came to crime spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and from the crime spot the police have seized the stone which was used for the commission of the offence. Since, the PW1 has identified the above said stone, as such it is came to be marked as MO1. Further this witness 9 C.C.No.13800/2015 has deposed that due to the act of the accused he was unable to perform his official duty.
11. This witness has been subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused and during the course of cross examination this witness has admitted that the accused is also the driver of BMTC and further this witness has admitted that "ಸಸಟಲಲಟ ಬಸ ನಲ ಲ ಣದಲ ಆರರರಪ ನನಗ ಬಲಯಲಗ ಸದರ ವಚರವನನ ನ ನಮಮ ಮರಲಧಕರಗಳಗ ತಳಸಲಲಲ."
12. By going through the above said admission by this witness, if at all the accused has abused the PW1 in filthy language near Satellite Bus Stand, under those circumstances what prevented this witness to lodge a complaint to the higher officials and concerned jurisdiction police in this regard. For that no explanation has been given by this witness. Further, it 10 C.C.No.13800/2015 is pertinent to note that during further cross examination further deposed as under:
"ನನನ ಹಗರ ಆರರರಪಯ ಬಸಗಳಲ ಸಸಟವ ಕಸಮರ ಅಳವಡಸಲಗದ ಎಎದರ ಸರ. ಸದರ ದನ ನನನ ಬಳ ಬಎದನ ಆರರರಪ ಜಗಳ ಮಡರನತತರ."
13. So, as per the version of this witness CC TV were installed in the bus of this witness and as per the version of this witness the accused came to PW1's bus and assaulted this witness, under those circumstances, what prevented the IO to recover the said CCTV footage and produce the same before this court. It is a matter on record that the said CC TV footage has not been recovered by the IO, as such it creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding the occurrence of the incident itself only. Further, it is pertinent to note that during the course of further cross examination this witness has further deposed as under:
"ಸದರ ಸಮಯದಲ ನಮಮ ಬಸನಲ ನನನ ಮತನತ ಚಸ 2 ರವರನ ಇದವ." 11 C.C.No.13800/2015
14. So, as per the version of this witness at the time of occurrence of incident this witness and CW2 were only present, no other witnesses have witnessed the alleged incident. Interestingly, the prosecution has examined CW4 as PW4 who was alleged to be Conductor of accused bus, as per the version of prosecution, this witness has also eye witness to the alleged incident. Interestingly, this witness in his evidence went to the extent to say that he has witnessed the incident and pacify the quarrel. But, contrary to the version of PW4, PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that except this witness and PW2 no other independent witnesses were present at the crime spot. As such, the evidence of PW4 that he has witnessed the alleged incident is highly unbelievable one. Accordingly, the evidence of PW4 is noway help to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused. 12 C.C.No.13800/2015
15. Further, it is a matter on record that the prosecution has not produced any attendance certificate or trip sheet of PW4 to show that on the said date of occurrence of incident the PW4 was working as a Conductor in the bus of accused. As such, the evidence of this witness is also no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
16. Further, it is pertinent to note that PW1 during the course of cross examination further deposed as under:
"ನನನ 11.15 ಕಕ ಆಸಸತತಗ ಹರರದನನ."
17. In the present case on hand, the wound certificate came to be marked at Ex.P3 the Doctor who was alleged to treated the PW1 has been examined as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence has deposed that on 14072014 at about 11.40 a.m., CW1 came to their hospital with a history of assault and he has treated PW1 and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P3. 13 C.C.No.13800/2015
18. Now, let us turn our attention to the ingredients of Ex.P3 i.e., wound certificate. On perusal of the ingredients of wound certificate it has been mentioned that as per the say of PW1 the incident has taken place on 14072014 at about 10.25 a.m., but as per the case of the prosecution the alleged incident has taken place at 11.15 a.m., which is totally contrary to each other. Further, as per the version of the prosecution the PW1 knows the accused very well and accused is also working in BMTC as a driver. But in Ex.P3 the Doctor has mentioned that the patient came with a history of assault by unknown person. If at all the alleged incident has taken place and PW1 went to the hospital of PW2 i.e., Doctor, the PW2 has enquired regarding the alleged assault under those circumstances, definitely the PW1 would have stated before the Doctor that the accused has assaulted him, as such he has came for treatment. Contrary to the above said facts in Ex.P3 the name of the accused has not been mentioned and 14 C.C.No.13800/2015 further the version of PW1 has not been corroborated to the version of recitals of Ex.P3. As such, further it creates a doubt in the mind of court regarding the occurrence of alleged incident itself only, as such the evidence of PW2 is also noway helpful the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
19. Further, during the course of cross examination the PW1 has admitted that there was a previous enemity between the accused and this witness which in turn demonstrates that out of the enemity the PW1 might have registered a case against the accused herein. As such, on going through the entire evidence of PW1 there is nothing coming forth before this court to connect the alleged guilt with the accused. As such, the evidence of PW1 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. 15 C.C.No.13800/2015
20. Further, the prosecution has examined PW3 and 5 who are the IOs, both these witnesses have deposed regarding the investigation part done by them. Further, it is pertinent to note that as per the version of PW1 only there was a CCTV facility in the bus of PW1, under those circumstances what prevented the IO i.e., PW3 to recover the said CCTV footage and ascertain the fact produced before the court which in turn seriously demonstrates that there is a serious lacuna on the part of the IO. Further, as stated supra, in the present case on hand, the independent witness i.e., CW3, 5 and 6 were not been secured as such their evidence came to be dropped. Further, as per the version of prosecution the CW2 is the prime eye witnesses who is the Conductor of PW1 bus. Even the CW2 also even after issuance of summons, warrants and proclamation has not been secured before the court, as such, her evidence also came to be dropped as not secured. On perusal of the entire evidence available on record coupled with 16 C.C.No.13800/2015 the oral and documentary evidence except PW1 no other independent witnesses have deposed regarding the occurrence of incident. Though the PW1 deposed regarding the occurrence of incident, as stated supra, at any stretch of imagination PW4 cannot be treated as eye witness and there is nothing put forth before the court to show that on the said date of occurrence of incident and PW4 was working in the bus of accused. Further, the independent panch witnesses have not been secured as such further the prosecution has failed top rove the spot and seizure mahazar.
21. On perusal of the entire evidence there is nothing coming before this court to show that it is the accused who was assaulted PW1 and obstructed PW1 from discharge his official duty. As such, as per the principles of benefit of doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Accordingly the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the 17 C.C.No.13800/2015 accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 to 5 in the negative.
22. Point No.6: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.323, 332.
353. 354, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.
The property seized in this case is order to be destroy as it is worthless after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 4th day of January 2020.) (M.Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
18 C.C.No.13800/2015ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : Prakash P.W.2 : Dr.P.N.Prakash P.W.3 : Narasimhaiah P.W.4 : Rajesh P.W.5 : Chandrahasa
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P4 : Requisition Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P5 : Documents Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P6 : Requisition letter Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P7 : FIR Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW5
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL
5. Material Object:
MO1: Stone VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.19 C.C.No.13800/2015
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.323, 332.
353. 354, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.
The property seized in this case is order to be destroy as it is worthless after the appeal period.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.