Bangalore District Court
State By Sub-Inspector Of Police vs No.1 Darshan on 14 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MAY, 2018
C.C. NO. 1715/2016
Complainant State by Sub-Inspector of Police
R.T.Nagar Police station
-Vs-
Accused no.1 Darshan,
S/o.Late.Radhakrishna
Shankar,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.No.65, 2nd main road,
Muniramanna Block,
Ganganagar Extn, R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore- 32.
Accused no.2 Nishanth Kumar,
S/o.Nagesh.R,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at.No.24, 8th cross,
Muninanjappa Block,
Dinnur, R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore- 32.
Accused no.3 Manjunath,
S/o.Krishnappa,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.No.12, 9th cross,
5th Main road, Krishnappa
Block, Ganganagar, R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore- 32.
2 C.C.NO.1715/2016
The date of
commission of the 03.07.2015
offence :
Name of the
informant of crime Sri. Lohit
The offences U/secs.324, 504 and
complained of: 506 r/w Sec. 34 IPC
Date of of Accused
arrest appeared
before court on
accused:
10.07.2015
Date of release on
bail: 10.07.2015
Commencement of
recording prosecution
Nil
evidence:
Closure of recording
evidence:
Nil
State represented by : Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused represented Sri.B.V.Manjunath
by: Gowda...Adv.,
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his examination :
Final Order : Accused acquitted
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Sub-Inspector of Police of R.T.Nagar police station filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3, in Crime No.205/2015, for the offences 3 C.C.NO.1715/2016 punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case runs thus;
2(a).That on 03.07.2015 at about 8.30 P.M, in front of Johnnie Walker shop , CBI main road, Ganganagar, the accused no.1 to 3 abused C.W.1- Lohith, C.W.4-Shivanand and C.W.5-Hemanth in filthy language and further punched C.W.1 with finger ring and assaulted C.W.4 with hands on his head and caused bleeding injury.
2(b). Further, the accused no.1 to 3 criminally intimidated to the life of C.W.1, 4 and 5. Thereby the accused no.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable U/Sec.324, 504 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
3. After submitting the charge sheet cognizance of the alleged offences is taken and criminal case against the accused came to be registered. 4 C.C.NO.1715/2016
4. The Section 207 of Cr.P.C. complied. The accused appeared before court and were enlarged on bail. The charge is framed and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution, no oral evidence has been adduced and no documents are got marked.
6. Since , there is no evidence of prosecution against the accused no.1 to 3, recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with. The accused no.1 to 3 did not choose to adduce defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments.
8. The following point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences U/Secs. 504, 324 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?
5 C.C.NO.1715/2016My finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused.
Repeatedly NBW was issued against CW.1 to 6 and 8. It was reported that C.W.7 is dead. NBW against the said witnesses was issued through DCP also. It was reported that C.W3, 5 and 6 were not traced in the address. For one or the other reasons the witnesses could not be secured.
10. In the decision In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Kar 900 (State of Kar v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 6 C.C.NO.1715/2016
11. In this present case on hand, sufficient opportunities had been given to the prosecution to secure the witnesses. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the witnesses. Adjournment would cause prejudice to the rights of the accused. With this view, as per order dated 02.04.2018, prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor to re-issue NBW is rejected and examination of C.W's 1 to 6 and 8 is dropped. The prosecution evidence is taken as Nil.
However, liberty was given to the prosecution to secure and examine the witnesses before pronouncing judgment. But, no efforts were made by the prosecution to secure and examine the witnesses.
12. After going through the entire material available on the record, this court comes to the clear conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt. With this view I answer above said point no.1 in the negative and pass the following;
7 C.C.NO.1715/2016
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of accused and that of surety, stands cancelled. (Typed to my online dictation by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 14th day of MAY 2018.) (Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws: Nil
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps: Nil
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Nil
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.8 C.C.NO.1715/2016