Bangalore District Court
Hanumanthanagar Ps vs A1 Srinivas on 17 February, 2025
KABC010261342019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.911/2019
COMPLAINANT: The State
Represented by
Hanumanthanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED: A1. Srinivas,
S/o Lakshminarayan Iyengar,
R/at No.57, 2nd cross,
6th Main, 4th block,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru.
A2. Lakshminarayana Iyengar(abated),
S/o.late K.T.Srinivas,
R/at No.57, 2nd cross,
6th Main, 4th block,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.By Sri.KK., Advocate for A1)
2 Spl.C.No.911/2019
(A2-Abated)
1. Date of commission of : 22.10.2017 to 10.02.2019
offence
2. Date of report of Offence : 13.03.2019
3. Name of the Complainant : Nagaraju.B
4. Date of commencement : 05-02-2023
of recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of : 13.08.2024
evidence
6. Offences Complained : Under Sections.341,504,506,
are 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)
(s)(g)(y) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
JUDGMENT
This case is registered as per the charge sheet submitted by ACP, Vishweshwarapuram Sub-Division, Bengaluru against the accused for the offences punishable under Section U/s. 341,504,506, 324 r/w.34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(g)(y) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
2. The present complaint made by the complainant by way of PCR.No.12/2019 dated:05.03.2019. My Predecessor in office referred the matter for investigation to jurisdictional police who in turn took up investigation and filed charge sheet. 3 Spl.C.No.911/2019
3. The case of the prosecution case is that the complainant is neighbour of the accused persons, as on 18.03.2016, he purchased the property belonging to sister of the accused No.2, K.S.Lakshmi W/o.Parthasarathy, vide registered sale deed No.BSG-1- 07794/2015-16 in the Sub Registrar Office of Basavanagudi having property bearing No.57, Old No.67, Ist cross, 6th Main, 4th block, in PID No.51-38-57, K.E.No.BMP/R.E.V./2014-15/KE/935327 measuring 27x20 feet including usage of common passage from southern side to northern side 60 feet and eastern side to western side 3 feet.
4. The complainant submits he proposed to construct a house therein to which the accused caused obstruction, however he offered to sell the same to accused who refused the same. The complainant is doing electrical work in and around Bengaluru City by obtaining daily wagers. The accused persons were abusing the complainant day and night as "madiga holeya" even during the house opening ceremony on 22.10.2017 accused obstructed for the same by entering into the 4 Spl.C.No.911/2019 house along with relatives of complainant were prevented from attending function, complainant lodged complaint before the Hanumanthanagar police who visited the spot and pacified the difference. The accused had given statement before the police that they are not going to disturb the same.
5. The complainant submits after few days even though accused persons used to make galata with the complainant as on 23.08.2018 accused abused the complainant with caste name, as such complainant lodged complaint before Hanumanthanagar police who registered crime. In fact the accused had, two wheeler and car were parked in front of the common passage causing obstruction for the complainant to move, he has been thrown a stone on the head and even hit with a key and even tried to press the neck of the victim, as such lodged complaint, however police on receiving medical report from the doctor did not took any action rather issued NCR.
6. The complainant submits on 10.02.2019 accused once again threatened the son of the complainant and his 5 Spl.C.No.911/2019 wife, by abusing in filthy language and mentioning their caste as lower and ill-treating the victim that they should not touch the gate. The complainant on hearing the bed ridden son was forced to lodge complaint before the jurisdictional police who did not took any action. As such he was forced to come up with this private complaint.
7. After filing of charge sheet this Court took cognizance of the offence and charge sheet copy furnished to the accused No.1 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the afore said offence, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. In the case on hand at the time of framing charge, accused No.2 was also present, however during course of evidence had succumbed. Therefore though charge is framed for sec.34 of IPC, accused No.1 alone is answerable before the court.
8. At trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to 8 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to 13. After completion of evidence 6 Spl.C.No.911/2019 of prosecution, the statement of the accused No.1 U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused No.1 denied incriminating evidence appeared against him and initially he chosen to lead defence evidence on his behalf and later submits he has no defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused and matter is reserved for judgment.
10. The points for consideration are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22.10.2017 at Old No.67, New No.57, 2nd cross, 6th Main road, 4th block, Thyagarajanagar, within the limits of Hanumanthanagar police station, when C.W.5 was putting pendal for Gruhapravesha function of the house of C.W.1, accused restrained C.W.5, when C.W.1 questinoed, accused No.1 abused him and on 23.08.2018 at 6.00 p.m accused abused C.W.1 and on 10.02.2019 restrained the son of C.W.1 while he was moving in the passage, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1 has intentionally insulted as "ನೀನು ಹೊಲೆಯ ಮಾದಿಗ ಜನಾಂಗದವರು, ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆ ಪಕ್ಕ ದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೀರಿ" and thereby gave 7 Spl.C.No.911/2019 provocation to CW1 intending that such provocation will cause the said CW1 to break the public peace and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused not being the members of SC/ST has criminally intimidated C.W.1 by giving life threat to him and thereby you have committed offence which is punishable under Section 506 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused No.1 picked up quarrel with CW1 and assaulted with vehicle key on his head and left hand and caused bleeding injuries and holded his neck and torn the clothes and had voluntarily caused hurt to him and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 324 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused No.1 though not belonging to SC/ST have intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate CW.1 being the members of Scheduled Caste abused him by taking his caste as "ನೀನು ಹೊಲೆಯ ಮಾದಿಗ ಜನಾಂಗದವರು, " in a place within the public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused not being the member of SC/ST have abused C.W.1 who belongs to schedule tribe 8 Spl.C.No.911/2019 by taking the name of his caste in a place within the public view and thereby accused have committed offences punishable u/s 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused not being the member of SC/ST, intentionally insulted/intimidated with intent to humiliate the CW1, who belong to SC in a place within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(g) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused not being the members of SC/ST have abused C.W.1 who belongs to schedule tribe by taking the name of his caste in a place within the public view and thereby accused have committed offences punishable u/s 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
9) What order?
11. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : In the Negative Point No.6 : In the Negative Point No.7 : In the Negative Point No.8 : In the Negative 9 Spl.C.No.911/2019 Point No.9 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. The learned SPP argues the property has been purchased in the year 2016 through sale deed which is an undisputed fact. The accused have troubled the victim since the year 2017 upto the year 2019. The victim had lodged complaint before the police, however police have failed to take appropriate action is the allegation.
13. As on the date on 10.02.2019 the victim's son has been hospitalized due to the abuse made by the accused persons. Therefore, there is prima facie case available on record, moreover though investigation has been taken up, later the accused being involved in the alleged offence is established even as per the NCR being registered by the police establishes, there was ill- will, of the accused towards the victim. Accordingly, material placed on record by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
14. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 argues the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature as 10 Spl.C.No.911/2019 admitted by the complainant. The complainant has not taken any action before any civil court. Accordingly, there is considerable delay in lodging the complaint since the date of last incident is on 10.02.2019, however complaint has been lodged only on 02.03.2019 which is after lapse of 15 days . Though the complainant had mentioned about giving complaint to the police as on 14.02.2019 the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer definitely are to be given benefit to the accused No.1. In fact Munilinga is not a witness to the incident but he has been called by the complainant as such she came there and became a witness. The para-7 of the complaint has been contradicted in the evidence of P.W.1 in page-5 of his examination in chief itself. In fact the para-9 of the PCR contradicted in the evidence of P.W.1 in page-6 and 7. Therefore the evidence of the material witnesses does not come to the aid of the prosecution to support the incident. There is considerable delay in taking action to the incident on 2017 and 2018. There is no corroboration in the materials placed on record. The 11 Spl.C.No.911/2019 spot Mahazar has been contradicted even in the evidence of P.W.3. As such the omissions and contradictions got elicited in the evidence of P.W.1 at page-16. The benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused is the prayer.
15. On the basis of the material on record, on going through the investigation has failed to file appropriate charge sheet by conducting investigation in accordance with law. Accordingly has prayed to the court the discrepancy in the investigation are to be addressed properly.
16. POINT No.1 : In the case on hand, in proof of the alleged offence punishable u/s.341 of IPC, prosecution basically relies on the evidence of the complainant who are the so called witnesses to the incident PWs.4 and 5. In the evidence of complainant with regard to trespass the complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned in page-4 para-6 about obstruction caused by the accused persons on 22.10.2017. Further it has been mentioned in page-5 para-7 that on 23.08.2018 accused parked two wheeler and an old car where the 12 Spl.C.No.911/2019 victim used to move by taking his two wheeler, when the same was questioned by the complainant accused abused him and assaulted him and even threatened him by pressing his neck and tried to kill him, he had lodged complaint, however police took complaint, but they registered only NCR since the victim was taken to Victoria hospital on 23.08.2018 and he took treatment therein. In the complainant evidence, complainant specifically deposed in page-4 of his examination in chief that he gave his property for lease to Dathathreya and Munilinga on 17.10.2017 and he deposed further on 22.10.2017 he was doing house warming ceremony and brought all the articles from market along with Munilinga and this witness deposes accused No.1 mentioned they should not construct the house there as they are belonging to upper caste and victim belonging to lower caste. The complainant has further deposed in page-5 that on his complaint made police called accused No.1 and advised him not to cause harm to the victim. The witness further deposed in page-5 that on 23.08.2018 he found accused No.1 had parked 13 Spl.C.No.911/2019 one old Maruthi car and also old bike to the way in which he used to take his two wheeler in a manner to cause obstruction. When the victim went to ask for the same accused No.1 had assaulted with key on the head of the victim and also caused injury to his left hand and Shubhashree had held the victim tightly then accused No.2 had abused in filthy language and by taking caste name of the victim and abused. Immediately he went to hospital and took treatment and reported before Hanumanthanagar police on the same day. Further accused registered NCR and also took bond of the accused No.1. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed in page-10 that he had no any impediment to file a civil suit for obstruction caused by the accused nor he made report before BBMP. This witness deposes with regard to incident dated;17.10.2017 he made report only on 22.10.2017 before police who registered NCR but he has not placed same before the court. This witness deposes that his tenants have not lodged any complaint before the police. In page-12 of his cross examination deposed :
14 Spl.C.No.911/2019
"ದಿಃ 23.08.2018 ರಂದು ಕಾರ್ ಪಾರ್ಕಿಂಗ್ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವ ಗಲಾಟೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂದಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಕಾರನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದ ರು.
ಕಾರನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದ ಜಾಗವು ನನಗೆ ಸಂಬಂದಪಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ . ಸದರಿ
ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಬೇಕಾದರೂ ವಾಹನಗಳನ್ನು
ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಬಹುದು."
17. The P.W.4 Manjunath deposed he had gone to the house of of victim for preparing shed, for house warming. The witness deposes accused mentioned they are not put the same in the place and they directed not to touch the wall of their house. This witness deposes in page-2 that on 23.08.2018 there was no person in the spot, but Nagaraj was injured in his head and hand and incident had happened due to parking.
18. The P.W.5 G.M.Gowda deposed as on 23.08.2018 he had gone to Gruhapravesha of victim at about 6.00 a.m he was present, Srinivas and his wife were disputed with Nagaraj, Nagaraj reported the same to the police through police, the police have visited to the spot and this witness with regard to the incident on 23.08.2018 deposed he went to the house of Nagaraj only even at 15 Spl.C.No.911/2019 6.00 p.m and he found with regard to parking Nagaraj and accused were disputing. This witness deposes there was assault being made on the victim. In his cross examination in page-4 this witness deposes the spot where they were working on that day is at about 5 to 6 kms from the house of Nagaraju. This witness deposes to the specific question there was dispute with regard to parking, he deposed he does not know. This witness denies other suggestions.
19. The panch witnesses examined as PWs.2 and 3 have deposed about signing Ex.P.2 with regard to spot inspection conducted by the police on 16.03.2019 as deposed by P.W.2. In his cross examination this witness admits he is also having ill-will towards the accused. This P.W.3 K.Yeriswamy deposed about spot Mahazar being conducted by the police and he received notice as per Ex.P.3. This witness deposes on that day of inspection the victim had requested him to be a panch, as such he came there. This witness admits before becoming panch witness, he has not been issued notice. This witness admits the panchanama has been 16 Spl.C.No.911/2019 prepared in police station and further on typing on a lap-top. This witness denies other suggestions.
20. The PWs.7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers who conducted part of their investigation, one has registered crime and another has filed charge sheet. In the case on hand, as deposed by P.W.5 and P.W.4, they does not depose specifically in what manner the obstruction has been caused by the accused persons. The evidence of P.W.1 alone does not support the prosecution case with regard to ingredients of alleged offence. Therefore as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the alleged incident took place on
23.08.2018 and the complaint has been filed only in the year 2019 and moreover as the police have registered NCR the fact that complainant had accepted the filing of NCR is evident from record. Under such circumstances, the incident happened being reported only after lapse of more than 8 months and as admitted by panch witnesses that the panchanama has been prepared in the police station on a lap-top, he signed actually deposed actually contradicts with the 17 Spl.C.No.911/2019 prosecution case. Accordingly in the absence of ingredients of alleged offence being supported by the material prosecution case and the NCR registered by the police as on 23.08.2018 being not available on record, this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.1 in the Negative.
21. POINT NO.4: In the case on hand, to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC, the complainant has specifically deposed about assault made on him in the PCR in page-5. In consonance with the same, complainant has specifically mentioned in the evidence at page-4 as assault made on the complainant on 17.10.2017 and also on 23.08.2018 with a key. P.W.2 has specifically deposed about signing the Mahazar, but he deposed has not been issued notice by the police, he is also having ill-will towards the accused. The wound certificate of the victim has been got marked as Ex.P.9 wherein it discloses alleged history of assault on 23.08.2018 with stone and key and injuries are simple in nature. However the material witnesses namely P.W.4 has 18 Spl.C.No.911/2019 deposed about injuries suffered by the victim to head and hand in page-2, he specifically deposed that Nagaraju was injured in the head and hand, but this witness deposes in the same, examination in chief that he was not at all present at the time of incident, but he took him to hospital. However in Ex.P.8 the person who accompanied the victim has not been mentioned, but he has been mentioned as victim has come on his own. The PW.5 though deposed about assault being made on the victim in page-2 that victim has been assaulted by accused No.1 with a key and stone and also deposed about abusive words used by the accused persons and even mentioned as "Holeya Madiga'. This witness deposes on 10.07.2019 police called him he came to police station. On going through the material on record, though injury has been suffered by the victim as on 23.08.2018 as per his cross examination he has not at all taken any action with regard to the NCR registered by the police and in page-12 it has been admitted by the P.W.1 that the place is a public place but not a private place where the accused have parked and 19 Spl.C.No.911/2019 caused obstruction. Such being the case, though victim deposed that NCR being registered by Hanumanthanagar police with regard to incident on 23.08.2018 he ha snot filed any private complaint nor placed NCR as deposed in page-13 of his examination in chief. Under such circumstances, the assault being made on the victim by accused that too particularly accused No.1 the material witnesses so called eye witness especially P.W.5 has not specified in what manner the assault being made. Under such circumstances in the absence of specific corroboration with regard to the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC., though the wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer is not disputed, this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.4 in the Negative.
22. POINT NO.2: In proof of the offence punishable us/.504 of IPC, with regard to the abusive words used by the accused persons against the complainant, complainant has specifically mentioned in PCR in page- 4 that accused abused him as 'Madiga Holeya' in front 20 Spl.C.No.911/2019 of his family members and also guest and relatives on 22.10.2017. In page-5 of the complaint, complainant has mentioned as accused No.1 has given undertaking before the Hanumanthanagar police that he will disturb the complainant in future as per the Annexure-C the NCR.447/2017, as per Annexure-D it has been mentioned by the complainant about caste remark. The police documents are not being collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. There is lapse committed by the Investigating Officer with regard to the documents placed by the complainant in the PCR have not been collected from the Medical Officer and also who are all present at the time of incident. In fact with regard to the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.504 of IPC, as discussed supra, P.W.4 is admittedly not present as per his examination in chief. With regard to evidence of P.W.5 G.M.Gowda though deposed about accused No.1 along with his wife were disputed with the victim but this witness does not depose accused No.2 was present and disputing with the victim. This witness has deposed in 21 Spl.C.No.911/2019 examination in chief in page-2 that victim has been assaulted on the neck and head with a stone and key. In fact in the PCR, the complainant has placed MLC notarised copy as per Annexure-E. In fact as per the Annexure-F the accused No.1 has given statement that accused No.1 will not trouble the victim and similarly victim will not trouble them and the same has been pacified by the police since the complainant has given complainant against accused Nos.1 and 2 on 23.08.2018 and another complaint is made on 14.02.2019 before the jurisdictional police which has not at all been registered by the police even the complainant has reported the same before the Commissioner of Police on 22.02.2019 and DCRE on 22.02.2019 and even to Home Minister. The materials collected by the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.2 spot Mahazar has been conducted by the ACP only on 16.03.2019 after a period of more than 1 month. On the date of alleged incident though reported before the jurisdictional police they have not registered the crime. Only, after PCR being sent to the jurisdictional ACP the 22 Spl.C.No.911/2019 police have registered crime as per Ex.P.5 only on 13.03.2019. There are discrepancies in the registration of crime. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused, Investigating Officer has not conducted himself as per the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Rules especially Rule 7 and Rule 9 of SC/ST (POA) Act 1995. In the case on hand, the spot Mahazar has not been conducted as per the mandatory provisions of Police Manual:
"Commentary on Karnataka Police Manual Volume- II 1285: (7). When a discovery is made as the result of the statement of the accused a separate panchanama should be drawn up for the discovery as giving information and recovery that follows it are two different transactions. The information given by an accused person should not be mixed up in the panchanama drawn up for the recovery made in consequence of such information. It is the information given by an accused person that determines his mens-rea and that has a direct bearing on his guilt.
(8).When one of several accused persons who have taken part in an act, for example, the burial of the property at certain place, offers to point out the place and the property is found in consequence, his confessional statement is relevant against him u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, But if other accused persons suspected to have taken part in burying the property at the 23 Spl.C.No.911/2019 place subsequently point out the same place separately and in the absence of one another these confessional statements cannot be said to have led to the discovery of the property which has already been discovered and are not, therefore, relevant under the section.
There is, however, nothing objectionable in the investigating officer trying to see for his moral satisfaction whether such persons point out the same place as the one previously shown by one of them.
Panchanama for recovery of stolen property otherwise than on house search-record or material facts.
1286.(1). When property is recovered by a Police Officer other than on a formal search a contemporaneous record of the facts relating to such recovery may be prepared in duplicate by him in form No.131 and may be attested by witnesses present at the time of such recovery. The record so made is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officer who prepared it or may be used to refresh his memory. The signatures of the attesting witnesses may be used in evidence only to corroborate the statement of the Police Officer that they were present at the time of the recovery and attested the record prepared by him. Statements which read as statements of persons other than the Police Officer who prepares the record and the accused should not be entered therein. The record should reach the Magistrate with the least possible delay.
2)Persons, who attested panchanama prepared for such recoveries, should invariably be examined as witnesses in Court.
Panchanama 24 Spl.C.No.911/2019 1287.(1) The only occasions on which a document which is popularly styled as a panchanama is required by law to be drawn up are when i) some articles are seized in the course of a search of a place u/s.100(5) Cr.P.C or ii) an investigation into the cause of death is made u/s.174 of Cr.P.C. The holding of panchanamas on other occasions is not a duty imposed upon a Police Officer by law, though, In practice a Police Officer resorts to it as a mode of procuring independent evidence to corroborate the results of his own inquiry and observation. In such cases a panchanama by itself has no evidentiary value. It is merely a memorandum of what has been observed by the witnesses and the Investigating officer, who are not forget many o the details observed by them, in the interval between the events themselves and the day on which they are called on to testify to them in Court. Hence, a panchanama is useful only as a piece of corroboration of the oral evidence of the witnesses(Panchayatdars), the investigating officer(Section 157 of Evidence Act) or as a memorandum of facts observed by them, which they may use to refresh their memory while giving evidence of those facts(Section 159, Evidence Act). For the latter purpose, it is essetial that the person using the panchanama must either have written it himself immediately after having observed certain facts or must have personally read it soon after it was written up by someone else, and found it to be correct. (2) In view of the above legal position of panchanama the witnesses to be selected, should be respectable and disinterested. (3) The witnesses should be present from the beginning to the end of the transaction. (4) the panchanama should begin with a mention of the full names, age, occupation and address of the panchayathadars followed by a preamble explaining the purpose, for with the 25 Spl.C.No.911/2019 panchanama is being held. It should contain full and accurate statements of the articles or other relevant circumstances found and the exact spots at which they were found. It should state clearly what articles, if any, were seized and from where they were seized. After it has been written up, it should be read over by or to the panchayatadars and they should be a true account of what they observed. The name of the writer should be mentioned and his signature taken. The time wen it was commenced and completed, the date and the place should be mentioned in it.
1302. Under Section 165(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Station House Officer or Investigating, Officer must, if practicable, perform the actual Searching, in person. 11 incapacitated from so doing. he must comply with Sub-section (3) of that section and deliver to his subordinate the prescribed order in writing. A verbal order given on the spot will not fulfill the requirements of the section. The Investigating Officer should use Form No. 290 when conducting a search.
PROCEDURE FOR SEARCH 1303. (1) At least two respectable witnesses of the locality shall be asked to be present at a search.
(2) The search shall be conducted in their presence and the list of things seized should be signed by the witnesses.
(3) The occupant of the place or his representative shall be allowed to be present during the search and a list signed by the witnesses shall be given to them.
(4) When any person is searched under sub- section (3) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a copy of the listof things taken possession of shall be given to him. 26 Spl.C.No.911/2019 (5) Before the commencement of the search, the person of the Police Officer and the witnesses should be searched, so thatt here may not be suspicion of something extraneous being planted in the house or the place to be searched.
(6) The law does not require a search under the Code of Criminal Procedure to be made only by daylight, but, normally, daylight should be awaited. If information is received after dusk necessitating the immediate search of a house and if it is apprehended that delay till daybreak might result in evidence being concealed or destroyed, the house should be sealed and guarded and if that is not possible, search should be conducted during the night itself. (7) Before entering the premises to be searched, the exterior of the place shall be inspected to see whether facilities exist for introducing property from outside, (8) Search must be systematic and thorough. (9) Women should be allowed to withdraw. (10) Indiscriminate search and damage to property should be avoided.
(11) A search list in Form No. 291 shall be prepared on the completion of the search in quadruplicate, all the copies being signed by the Police Officer making the search and the witnesses to the search. One copy will be handed over to the owner or occupant of the house, the second copy should be sent to the Magistrate and the third copy should be sent with the case diary to the superior officer to whom case diaries are sent. The fourth copy will form the station record. If blank paper has unavoidably to be used, four copies of the list should be made and dealt with as above affixing the fourth copy to search list book, on return to the station.
SALIENT POINTS TO BE REMEMBERED WHILE CONDUCTING SEARCHES 27 Spl.C.No.911/2019 1304. The following are the salient points which should be borne in mind by officers while conducting searches;
(1) Conduct searches, as far as possible during daytime, except when circumstances otherwise warrant. (2) Before proceeding to conduct a search, prepare a record in Form No. 290 (triplicate) indicating-
(a) reasonable grounds for making the search;
(b) the place to be searched;
(c) the thing or things for which search is to be made, and
(d) why such thing or things cannot otherwise be obtained without undue delay.
(3) Send.-
(a) one copy of the record so prepared without delay to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(b) attach the duplicate to the case diary to be submitted to your officer; and
(c) file the triplicate in your case diary file. (4) Before selecting Panchas, ensure that they are,-
(a) respectable and
(b) inhabitants of the locality (5) As far as practicable, select Panchas from the neighbourhood of the place to be searched. (6) When it is not practicable to do so and Panchas have to be selected from any other place, make a record of the reasons in your case diary and search list.
(7) Avoid calling the same Panchas to witness several searches.
(8) If, for any reasons, the same Panchas have witnessed more than one search, make a record of those reasons in your case diary. (9) When the Panchas are selected, serve an order on each of them requesting them to attend and witness the search.
(10) Commence the search only after securing the presence of witnesses and explaining to 28 Spl.C.No.911/2019 them the object of the search and the articles for which it is made.
(11) Before commencing the search, call out the inmates and have their bodies searched observing due formalities.
(12) Before commencing the search, request the occupants of the place to be searched to be present and to attend the search.
(13) When the occupant deputes another person on his behalf, allow the deputee to be present and to attend the search.
(14) If the occupant is not willing or fails to be present to attend the search, make a record of it in the search list and the case diary. (15) If you reasonably apprehend that the delay caused in securing the attendance of the occupant frustrates the very object of search, proceed with the search in the presence of whosoever is present on his behalf and record the reasons for so proceeding, in your case diary and search list.
(16) Get yourself and the witnesses searched in the of the owner or occupier or any other adult male member of the house, if available, before the commencement of the search.
(17) When once the search is started, do not allow persons inside the house to go Out or those outside to come in (18) Conduct the search in each room in the actual presence of the witnesses.
(19) After the search is completed and the which the search was conducted and any other incriminating articles are found or brought out, get yourself and the witnesses again searched and make a record of it in the search list. (20) Mention clearly in the search list every item of property seized, the exact place where it was found and how and by whát means it was taken out from that place.
(21) Note in the search list the descriptive particulars and identification marks of the incriminating articles recovered. 29 Spl.C.No.911/2019 (22) Make out the search list on the spot even if no articles are seized.
(23) Record the number of the house and other particulars including the occupant's name, parentage and occupation.
(24) Recover documents, if any, to prove the ownership or occupancy of the person from the place where incriminating articles are recovered and record such recovery in the search list.
(25) Sign with date on all pages of all copies of the search list and obtain the signatures of the witnesses on all pages of all the copies. (26) Give under acknowledgment a copy of the search list immediately to the occupant of the house searched.
On completion of the proceedings-
(a) send without delay one copy of the search list to the jurisdictional Magistrate;
(b) attach another copy to the case diary of the relevant date to be sent to your officer;
(c) file the third copy in your case diary file; and
(d) attach the fourth copy to the final report to be sent to the Court.
1307: According to section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. If the property is subject to speedy or natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Thus this section provides for the interim custody of property." 30 Spl.C.No.911/2019 1578: In the case of judgments in which there are strictures, the following action should be taken-
(1). As soon as a judgment in a criminal case filed by the police is concluded in the court, the concerned Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer will examine the judgment for any strictures or other remarks, either generally on the investigation or prosecution of the case of specially against any Police Officer or other Government servant.
(2). When there are strictures or other remarks, the Prosecutor will at once obtain a copy of the judgment and send it with his remarks to the Deputy Director of Prosecutions who will then examine the judgment and forward it to the concerned Range Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police with his report and arrange to take appropriate action against the concerned Police Officer for the judicial strictures passed against them. He will then submit the records to the Director General along with his report indicating the nature of action taken in the matter.
(3). In the case of strictures or other remarks in judgments pronounced by the High Court, the Advocate General will send with his comments, a copy of the judgments to the Director of Prosecutions who will transmit them to the Director General along with his remarks for appropriate action. (4). The Superintendent while furnishing his remarks required under Sub-Order (2) will specifically mention whether or not the strictures or remarks are justified; and if unjustified, what action he has taken for their expunction. The IGP/Deputy Inspector 31 Spl.C.No.911/2019 General will also furnish his specific opinion that behalf.
(5). If any strictures or other animad versions, either against a Police Officer generally on the investigation or prosecution of the case, are wholly unjustified or excessive and deserve expunction, the Superintendent will take prompt action to obtain the opinion of the Advocate-General and for addressing the Government for sanction to move the High Court for expunction.
(6). If the advocate general makes a recommendation and the Government sanction the filing of a revision for the expunction of the strictures or other remarks, the Superintendent should promptly send to the Director General a copy of the Government order and make availiable to the Advocate General all relevant records he may require in that behalf for filing the revision.
(7). If the Advocate General does not make a recommendation and the Government consider that no action is called for, the opinion of the Advocate General and the orders of the Government will indicate to what extent the strictures or other remarks are justified. The Superintendent will then take appropriate action against the defaulting Police Officers.
(8). In either of the cases mentioned in Sub- Orders (7) & (8) the Superintendent will send a copy of the order of the Government to the Director General.
(9).When a revision is filed in the High Court for the expunction of the strictures or other adverse remarks, the Superintendent will obtain from the Advocate General, a copy of the judgment and send it to the Director General.
32 Spl.C.No.911/2019(10).If the High Court dismisses the revision petition refusing to expunge the strictures or other remarks, and observes that they are justified, the Superintendent will take appropriate action for their avoidance in the subsequent cases and also institute departmental proceedings against the defaulting Police Officers. He will send a report of action taken to the Director General.
(11).Every Commissioner/Range Inspector General and Superintendent of Police will maintain a register of judicial strictures and commendations in form No.161. The registers are useful for the officers to have an overall impression of the judicial appreciation of the standards of investigation and prosecution in a district; (12).the Inspecting Officers at the time of their inspections will ensure that the registers have been properly maintained by the Commissioner/Inspector General/ Deputy Inspector General/Superintendent and that he has issued appropriate instructions for improving the investigation and prosecution his district/range. The Inspecting Officers will make a specific mention about their having checked the register in their inspector notes. (13)Every judgment sent under this order should reach the Director General within one month from the date of its pronouncement. (14).As soon as a copy of the judgment with the remarks of the officers as indicated in sub-Orders(2), (3) and (4) is received in Chief Office, the crime branch will examine it with reference to the relevant heinous crime file, if it is a judgment in a heinous crime and send the file to the law section obtaining the orders of the concerned Deputy Inspector General in the Chief Office. 33 Spl.C.No.911/2019
(15). The law section will examine the judgment and the remarks furnished by the various officers and take action for the issue of appropriate instructions by law circulars and law bulletins, for the rectification of the defects and lapses pointed out in the judgment.
(16).When a copy of the judgment is received in other sections of the chief Office and it contains strictures or remarks against any Police Officer or on the investigation or prosecution of a case, the concerned Section Superintendents will obtain the orders of the concerned Assistant Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General, PRS and send the judgment to the law section. The law section will take action as indicated in Sub-Order(15).
(17). When a copy of the judgment referred to in sub-Order (9) is received in the chief Office, the crime section will endorse it to the law section and the law section will examine the judgment and take appropriate action.
(18).On receipt of a copy of the order referred to in Sub-Order (8) the crime section will immediately endorse a copy to the law section and the law section will examine the order and take action to issue suitable instructions.
(19).All departmental action arising out of judicial strictures in the judgment of courts will be pursued by the crime section of the Chief Office till final disposal.
(20).the law section in Chief Office will maintain registers of judicial strictures and judicial commendations in form No.161. REVIEW OF JUDICIAL STRICTURES AND COMMENDATIONS:
1579. (1) A quarterly statement of judicial strictures and judicial commendations in 34 Spl.C.No.911/2019 form No.161 for quarter ending with 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December should be sent to chief Office on or before 10th of the succeeding month of the quarter.
(2).The law section in chief Office will compile and review the strictures. The review will be sent to the Commissioner, Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General and Superintendents.
CASE DIARIES-ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE SENT TO GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS A SENTENCE OF DEATH IS PASSED OR CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT 1580. (1). When a petition of mercy from a convict under sentence of death is to be forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by the State Government, it should invariably be accompanied by an English translation of the police diary along with the other records of the case.
(2). Superintendents shall, therefore, send direct to the Government in the Home Department two certified copies of the English translation of the police diary in all cases in which the accused are sentenced to death. The records should be sent to Government with the least possible delay as soon as the sentence of death is confirmed by the High Court or is inflicted by that court in enhancement of the sentence passed by the Sessions Court".
23. In the case on hand, in the absence of evidence supra from the independent witnesses, with regard to incident being happened as on the alleged dates of 35 Spl.C.No.911/2019 incident on 10.02.2019, it is admittedly the police have registered crime and NCR has been issued. As admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination, he has not made any challenge with regard to the NCR registered by the police in case of his cross examination dated:18.04.2023. Under such circumstances this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.2 in the Negative.
24. POINT NO.3: The prosecution in proof of offence punishable u/s.506 of IPC., the complainant with regard to threat given by the accused persons, has specifically mentioned in page-7 of his complaint that the accused persons threatened his son that he will not move in the common passage alongwith his friends and should not touch the gate and he has been treated as a low caste people. On the same day, i.e on 14.02.2019 though complaint has been made police have not taken any action. Further complainant had made report to the ACP, V.V.Puram and Commissioner but they have not lodged any complaint. In page-7 of the complaint, in PCR complainant has specifically mentioned when he has been assaulted on 23.08.2018 accused again gave 36 Spl.C.No.911/2019 life threat i.e he will kill. In consonance with the same, in the evidence of complainant, complainant has specifically deposed in page-5 of his examination that accused assaulted him on the head and neck, however he does not specified that accused did gave life threat. In fact in the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, they does not specified having life threat given by any of the accused persons other than abusive words and accused abused him. Therefore, this court in the absence of corroborative evidence with regard to giving life threat by the accused persons is specified. Accordingly, this Point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
25. POINT NO.8: In the case on hand, in proof the allegations made by the complainant with regard to obstruction caused by the accused persons for using the right of way in the premises, common passage the complainant has specifically mentioned in page-7 that accused persons abused the son of the complainant from not using of the passage for ingress and egress. Further he has been abused as low caste person. The complainant has specifically mentioned his son became 37 Spl.C.No.911/2019 bed ridden and has been hospitalized and unable to attend his classes. The complainant lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police on 14.02.2019 however police did not took any action. Further he has made report to the Commissioner of police, Assistant Commissioner of police and even Human Rights Commission on 22.09.2019 and also written the same to Home Minister on 22.09.2019, however police did not taken any action. However he forced the complaint to lodge PCR. The complainant has specifically mentioned about the victim/complainant is a SC/ST person, he has been prevented from moving in the passage which is a customary right of passage and which has been obstructed by the accused persons. In the evidence of complainant, page-2 has specifically deposed that accused No.1 had mentioned on 22.02.2017 that victim should not use the common passage for construction or for ingress and aggress and abused him. Further complainant deposed in page-3 that accused No.1 abused him in filthy language and accused No.2 made caste abuse and also complainant 38 Spl.C.No.911/2019 has also mentioned in page-4 of his examination in chief that accused even threatened the tenants not to occupy the house of the victim. In the cross examination of P.W.1 dated:18.04.2023 in page-10 he admits accused has not made any objections with regard to site being purchased by the complainant and he has not filed any civil suit with regard to ingredients ingress and egress being prevented by the accused. This witness admits he had no any impediment to file civil suit with regard to ingress and aggress nor he made any complaint before the BBMP. In page-11 of cross examination of P.W.1, he deposes any of the tenants of accused have not given any complaint against him with regard to the further statement by the complainant before the police. As on 27.09.2024 the victim deposed he has not given statement as read over to him :
"ದಿಃ 17.10.2017 ರಂದು ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮನೆಯ ನೆಲಮಹಡಿ ದತ್ತಾತ್ತೇಯ ಮತ್ತು ಮುನಿಲಿಂಗ ಎಂಬುವವರಿಗೆ ಲೀಜ್ಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿಃ 22.10.2017 ರಂದು ಮನೆಯ ಗೃಹಪ್ರವೇಶ 39 Spl.C.No.911/2019 ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿತ್ತು . ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಮುನಿಲಿಂಗ ಸೇರಿಕೊಂಡು ಮಾರ್ಕೆಟಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಪೂಜಾ ಸಾಮಾನುಗಳನ್ನು ತಂದು ಕಾಮಾನ್ ಪ್ಯಾಸೇಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಮಾನುಗಳನ್ನು ಇಳಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಮುನಿಲಿಂಗ ಇವರಿಗೆ ನೀನು 20 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ರಾಕೆಟ್ ಪಟಾಕಿ ಹೊಡೆದು ತೊಂದರೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೆ . ಈ ದಿನ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಬಳಿ ಯಾಕೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದೀಯಾ ಎಂದು ಬೈಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ರು. ಆಗ ನಾನು ಮದ್ಯ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿ ನೀನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟ ಬಾರದಿತ್ತು . ನಾನು ಉತ್ತಮ ಜಾತಿಯವನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಬರುವವರನ್ನು ಬೈಯುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಜಗಳ ಮಾಡಿದನು. ಆಗ ನಾನು ಜಗಳ ಮಾಡಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡರೂ ಕೂಡ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನಮಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದ ಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ.".
26. The witness deposes at the time of giving private complaint, the tenant Munilinga or Dathathreya had not approached him to be tenants which fact contradicts with the case of the complainant since as mentioned in the further statement has been recorded only in the 40 Spl.C.No.911/2019 year 2019, however the PCR has been lodged on 16.04.2019 is presented only on 02.03.2019. Therefore the evidence of the complainant contradicts with the deposition dated:27.09.2024. Therefore, there is omission and contradiction on the part of the complainant is evident. The P.W.1 in page-13 has specifically deposed as follows:
"ದಿಃ 10.02.2019 ಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನಿಗೆ 10 ವರ್ಪ ವಯಸ್ಸಾಗಿತ್ತು . ನಾನು ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕದಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಮುಂದೆ ಇರುವ ದಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಹಾಗೂ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ಓಡಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿಃ 10.02.2019 ರಂದು ಮಾತ್ರ ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಸದರಿ ದಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಓಡಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ದಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ಸಾರಿ ಓಡಾಡುವಾಗ ಆತನಿಗೆ ಬೈಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ."
27. Therefore with regard to the obstruction caused by the accused persons, the corroborative evidence is not placed by the prosecution even in the evidence of PW.5, this witness has deposed in page-2 that on 10.02.2019 as he had come along with Vinay and this accused, the son of the victim was sleeping when victim enquired that he has been informed that Srinivas 41 Spl.C.No.911/2019 had abused "holeya madiga, bolimakkala" and as such, the child was terrified and got fever. In the evidence of P.W.4 he was not present when the accused have threatened the son of the victim. Therefore in the absence of corroborative evidence to prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(1)(y) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, this court is satisfied to answer Point No.8 in the Negative.
28. POINT NO.5: In the case on hand, the complainant has specifically complained about abusive words and caste abuse made by the accused in the passage. The learned SPP argues the place of incident is having public access, as such it is in public view. However in the case on hand, to consider the abuse made by the accused persons, the complainant as per his complaint in his evidence has specifically deposed in page-2 about abuse made by the accused especially as per page-3 of P.W.1 evidence, accused No.2 had abused him by taking his caste. However on lodging the complaint by the complainant, accused No.1 was called to the police station and he had given statement in 42 Spl.C.No.911/2019 writing before the police that he will not trouble the complainant in future makes clear that the abusive words were made in the presence of public or in public view other than the evidence of complainant none of the material witnesses have supported the same. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.3 which clearly proves the prosecution case since this witness has admitted in cross examination that spot Mahazar has been prepared in lap-top in the police station rather in the spot. Therefore there are material discrepancies in conducting investigation by the Investigating Officer which are incurable. Accordingly, based on the material on record, this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.5 in the Negative.
29. POINT NO.6: To prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, intimidation made by the accused has not been specified even in the evidence of complainant. Moreover in the absence of corroboration to that effect, this court finds no any ingredients for the alleged offence being proved. Under these circumstances, this 43 Spl.C.No.911/2019 court is satisfied to answer this Point No.6 in the Negative.
30. POINT NO.7: In the case on hand, in proof the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 the property is belonging to the victim is not at all in dispute. In fact the accused have entered into the premises and caused obstruction is not forthcoming from the evidence placed on record. In the cross examination of P.W.1 has specifically admitted he has not filed any civil suit. The complainant was specified with regard to the promise made by the police when he made complaint on 22.10.2017 before Hanumanthanagar police since as NCR No.447/2017 placed by the complainant and Annexure-F and G which are not marked in the premises was acceptable to the complainant as per Annexure -C NCR 447/2017 placed by the complainant notarised copy. Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied to answer this Point No.7 in the Negative.
31. On the basis of the material on record, on going through the Investigating Officer has failed to file 44 Spl.C.No.911/2019 appropriate charge sheet by conducting investigation in accordance with law. Accordingly as brought to the court notice the discrepancies in the investigation are to be addressed properly. Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied to answer all these Point Nos.1 to 8 in the Negative.
32. Point No.9: The accused No.1 did complied the provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing personal bond before this court, for his appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate court. In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby
acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341,504,506,324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(g)(y) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
The accused No.1 is set at liberty.
45 Spl.C.No.911/2019
However, the bond executed in compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of February, 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Nagararju.B P.W.2 Suhas P.W.3 K.Yeriswamy P.W.4 Manjunath P.W.5 G.M.Gowda P.W.6 Nagendrappa P.W.7 Ravi.C.V. P.W.8 Vali Basha
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 :PCR Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) :Signature of P.W.1
46 Spl.C.No.911/2019
Ex.P.2 :Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a)(b)(c)(d) :Signature of P.W.1,2,3,8 Ex.P.3 :Notice Ex.P.3(a)(b) :Signature of P.W.3,8 Ex.P.4 :162 Cr.PC of P.W.6 Ex.P.4(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.5 :FIR Ex.P.5(a) :Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.6 : Complaint Ex.P.6(a) :Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.7 :DCP Order Ex.P.7(a) :Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.8 :Requisition Ex.P.8(a) :Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.9 :Wound certificate Ex.P.9(a) :Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.10 :Requisition Ex.P.10(a) :Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.11 :Requisition Ex.P.11(a) :Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.12 :Caste report of complainant Ex.P.12(a) :Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.13 :Caste report of accused 47 Spl.C.No.911/2019 Ex.P.13(a) :Signature of P.W.8
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
NIL (Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.48 Spl.C.No.911/2019
(Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate Judgment):
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341,504,506,324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(g)(y) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
The accused No.1 is set at liberty.49 Spl.C.No.911/2019
However, the bond executed in compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal period.
(Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.