Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

Byappanahalli P.S vs Johnson @ John on 21 June, 2025

KABC0C0005422012




              IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.J.M.
                 MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU

                  Dated: This the 21st day of June 2025

              PRESENT: Smt. ANJALI SHARMA.V.S
                               B.B.A.(Hons.), LL.B.(Hons.),
                    X Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
                             Bengaluru City.

                          C.C.No.22774/2012

    Complainant    State by, Police Sub Inspector
                   Byappanahalli Police Station
                                  /vs/
   Accused No.     2. Jerald S/o Henrideyas,
                   Aged about 24 years,
                   R/at. Co-Dinesh Reddy Building
                   No.1141, Ground Floor,
                   10th Cross, Near Bhuvaneshwari Layout,
                   Munnekolalu, Marathahalli, Bengaluru.

                   (Case against accused No. 1 Split-up)
                          :: JUDGMENT :

:

The Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru filed this charge sheet against the accused No. 1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 R/w. 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case that:

That on 19/03/2012 at about 7.00 pm, at house no.64, 1 st Cross, 1st Main, Malleshpalya, accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injury and voluntarily caused hurt to CW4 by assaulting her with hands on her face and thereby accused No.2 committed an offence punishable under Sec. 323, 324 R/w. 34 of IPC.

3. The Investigating officer after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused No. 1 & 2. This Court took cognizance for the said offence and registered the case and issued summons to the accused No. 1 & 2. Accused No. 2 appeared and got enlarged on bail. During the course of trial case against accused No. 1 ordered to split-up.

4. After compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., this Court framed Charges against the accused No. 2 and read over the same to him in the language known to him. The accused No. 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for trial.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No. 2, the prosecution got examined two witnesses as PW-1 & 2 and got marked three documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

6. As the witness/victim turned hostile, the remaining witnesses were dropped and the statement of the accused No. 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7. Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused No. 2.

8. The points that arise for my consideration are as under :-

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.2 along with accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with iron rod on his head and also voluntarily caused hurt to CW4 by assaulting her with hands on her face and thereby accused No.2 committed an offence punishable under Sec. 323, 324 R/w. 34 of IPC?

2. What order?

9. My findings on the above said points are as under:

           Point No.1       :       In the Negative.

           Point No.2       :       As per the final order for
                                    the following:

                           REASONS

10. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No. 1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with iron rod on 4 C.C.No. 22774/2012 his head and voluntarily caused hurt to CW4 by assaulting her with hands on her face.

11. CW1- Sundar & CW4 - Selvi, are examined as PW1 & 2 in their chief examination they commonly deposed that, they are acquainted with accused persons and there is no quarrel took place between them and accused persons. They denied that, accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by assaulting with iron rod and voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 by assaulting with hands. PW1 also deposed that he did not file any complaint as per Ex.P1 against the accused persons in the police station. Though PW1 identified his signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW2 deposed that she did not give any statement as per Ex.P3 against the accused persons in the police station. They deposed that they does not know the contents of those documents. Though PW1 & 2 were treated as hostile by the prosecution, and inspite of cross examination by the learned Sr. APP, nothing was elicited from their mouth in support of prosecution case.

12. On perusal, the prosecution had to prove that, accused No. 2 along with accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injury and voluntarily caused hurt to CW4 by assaulting her with hands on her face.

13. As the eye witnesses who are also the victim turned hostile, there is no iota of evidence to attract the offence alleged by the prosecution. As such examination of the prosecution witnesses only for the purpose of completing the procedural aspect will not serve any judicious purpose and is sheer waste of the precious time of the Court. At this stage, it is relevant to rely upon the decision of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

"When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."

14. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applicable to this case as well. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No. 2 beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

15. POINT No.2:- In view of my discussions on the aforesaid points, I proceed to pass the following:

:O R D E R:

Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No. 2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 R/w. 34 of IPC.

Bail bond of accused No.2 stands canceled. Cash security to be refunded.

Office to retain the file till the disposal of split up case.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court today, 21.06.2025) Digitally signed by ANJALI V ANJALI V S SHARMA S SHARMA Date: 2025.06.24 12:55:27 +0530 (ANJALI SHARMA.V.S) X A.C.J.M., BENGALURU.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W-1        :        Sundar
P.W-2        :        Selvi

List of documents marked for prosecution:

Ex.P1        :        Complaint
Ex.P1(a)     :        Signature of P.W-1
Ex.P2        :        Mahazar
Ex.P2(a)     :        Signature of P.W-1
Ex.P3        :        Statement of PW2

List of witnesses examined for accused:

::NIL::

List of documents marked for accused:

::NIL::

List of material objects marked:

                                                       Digitally signed by
                                         ANJALI V S ANJALI V S SHARMA
           ::NIL::                       SHARMA     Date: 2025.06.24
                                                    12:55:20 +0530

                                         (ANJALI SHARMA.V.S)
                                        X A.C.J.M., BENGALURU.