Bangalore District Court
Station vs No.1 Voluntarily Caused Simple Hurt To ... on 7 October, 2022
1 C.C.No.9615/2016
KABC030239092016
Presented on : 11-04-2016
Registered on : 11-04-2016
Decided on : 07-10-2022
Duration : 6 years, 5 months, 26 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 7th day of October 2022
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.9615/2016 Date of commission of the
2. 17.10.2015 offence (As per F.I.R.) Thyagarajanagara Police
3. Name of the complainant Station, Bengaluru City.
4. Name of the accused 1. Narasimhalu (Dead)
2. Ravi @ Ambru, S/o Narasimhalu, Aged about 35 years, R/at No.23, 6th Main, 3rd Block, Bovi Colony, 2 C.C.No.9615/2016 Thyagarajanagara, Bengaluru - 28.
3. Somashekhara @ Shekhara, (Dead) Sections 323, 324, 504 and The offences complained
5. 506 R/e Section 34 of the of Indian Penal Code
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Accused No.2 is acquitted
8. Date of order 07.10.2022 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thyagarajanagara Police Station, Bengaluru has filed Police Report against the above named accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.10.2015 at 6.00 p.m., the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit the offences came near the shed of CW1 situated in front of House No.23, 6 th Main, 3rd Block, Bovi Colony, Sy.No.35/3, Nagasandra Village, Bengaluru within the territorial jurisdiction of Thyagarajanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City; questioned him that why he is 3 C.C.No.9615/2016 troubling to their residential property, why he constructed compound in the said property, the litigation is pending before the Court on the said property and abused CW1 in filthy languages. When CW1 told that till disposal of the suit, do not disturb him, the accused persons threatened him that if he withdraw the suit, it will be alright otherwise, they will finish him; dragged CW1 by holding him and torn his dress; accused No.1 voluntarily caused simple hurt to him beating with his hand on face and head of CW1; accused No.2 voluntarily caused simple hurt to CW1 by beating with his hands on back and shoulder of CW1; accused No.1 and 2 have voluntarily caused simple hurt to CW1 by kicking him with their legs; accused No.3 voluntarily caused simple hurt to CW1 by beating on his back and legs with club and gave life threat stating that if he has not vacated the shed, they will burn him along with shed by setting fire. Thereby, the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4 C.C.No.9615/2016
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.160/2015 at Thyagarajanagara Police Station. On completion of the investigation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Thyagarajanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences, the process was issued to the accused persons. They have appeared before this Court and enlarged on bail. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 3 are reported as dead. Therefore, the case against them was abated. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that accused No.2 has committed offences triable by this court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5 C.C.No.9615/2016
4. To prove the charges framed against accused No.2, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 and the documentary evidences in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Since, there were no incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses against accused No.2, the examination of accused No.2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No.2. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
6 C.C.No.9615/2016
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In order to prove the charges leveled against accused No.2, out of 12 witnesses cited in the Police Report by the Investigation Officer, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of only one witness before this Court as PW1. PW1 Doreswamy is the first informant, injured and the Mahazar witness. The prosecution has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Among them, Ex.P1 is the First Information and Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar.
8. As per the case of the prosecution, based on Ex.P1 given by PW1, the crime has been registered in Crime No.160/2015 and on investigation, since, there are evidences collected by the Investigation Officer to prosecute the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Police Report was filed. In the First Information - Ex.P1, there are statements of PW1 with regard to the alleged incident 7 C.C.No.9615/2016 committed by the accused persons. PW1 during his examination-in-chief has deposed the evidences contrary to the said facts. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that no quarrel was taken place between him and the accused persons; as there were some petty differences between them, he gave complaint to the Police as per Ex.P1; he does not know the contents of Ex.P1; he has not taken any treatment at hospital stating that he has sustained injuries as a result of the incident taken place in this case; the police have not conducted any mahazar at the place of incident in his presence as per Ex.P2; the police have not seized anything in his presence; he does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and he signed Ex.P2 at Police Station. He has been considered as hostile witness and cross-examined at the request of the prosecution. During cross-examination, he has denied the contents of Ex.P1; he gave it; he obtained treatment at hospital; the mahazar conducted at the place of incident as per Ex.P2 in his presence and the police have seized club. Nothing has been elicited in his cross- examination supporting the case of the prosecution. 8 C.C.No.9615/2016
9. On perusal of the above evidences, it appears that the First Informant and the injured witness has deposed not supporting the case of the prosecution. He has deposed in his cross-examination that he and accused No.2 have compromised the matter. Therefore, if the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are recorded, no purpose will be served. For this reason, the evidences of the other prosecution witnesses are dropped. Under these circumstances, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
10. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused No.2 is not found guilty 9 C.C.No.9615/2016 for the aforesaid offences charged against him. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,
accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond executed under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
Since, the properties seized in PF No.64/2015 are worthless, they are ordered to destroy after appeal period. (Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 07.10.2022) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
10 C.C.No.9615/2016ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Doreswamy.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information, Ex.P1(a) : Signature, Ex.P2 : Mahazar, Ex.P2(a) : Signature.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.11 C.C.No.9615/2016
07.10.2022 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No.2 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/e Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond executed under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till appeal period and thereafter, it shall be canceled.
Since, the properties seized in PF No.64/2015 are worthless, they are ordered to destroy after appeal period. 12 C.C.No.9615/2016
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.