Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka New Town vs Naveenkumar S/O Late Munegowda on 19 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Smt. Vineetha P.Shetty B.Sc., M.A., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 19th day of December 2015
C.C. NO.37421/2010
Complainant : State by Yelahanka New Town
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : Naveenkumar s/o Late Munegowda,
24 yrs, R/at Nagenahalli Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka New
Town, Bengaluru.
Date of offence : 20-06-2010
Offence : U/S 504, 326 IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not
guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Order : 19-12-2015
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The ASI attached to Yelahanka New Town Police
Station has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 504 and 326 IPC.
2 CC No.37421/2010
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 20-06-2010 at 1 p.m., there was a cricket match
scheduled to be held at Nagenahalli, Bengaluru, and the
accused and CW5 to 7 were the players. At that time, CW4
Vishwas, the son of CW1 Ashwathaiah handed over the ball
to CW7, and the accused therefore picked up quarrel with
CW4, and abused him in filthy language and also assaulted
CW1 with a cricket bat, as a result of which CW4 sustained
grievous injuries. Hence, aforesaid charges are leveled
against the accused.
3. The accused appeared before the court. He is on bail
and he engaged advocate for the defence. After furnishing
the copies of charge sheet, charge against accused was
framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 are examined,
Exhibits P.1 to P.6 and MO1 are marked. Thereafter, accused
is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the
3 CC No.37421/2010
incriminating evidence which appeared against him. Heard
the arguments.
4. The following points would arise for my determination-
1) Whether the prosecution proves
that on 20-06-2010 at 1 p.m. in the
playground at Nagenahalli,
Bengaluru, the accused abused
CW4 Vishwas in filthy language?
2) Whether the prosecution further
proves that on the above said date,
time and place, accused assaulted
CW4 with a cricket bat and caused
grievous bleeding injury?
3) What order?
5. My findings on the above points are as under-
Point No-1: In the Negative
Point No-2: In the Negative
Point No-3: As per final order for
the following reasons
4 CC No.37421/2010
REASONS
Point No-1 and 2:
6. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid the
repetition of discussion, I have taken up Point No-1 and 2
together.
7. P.W.1 Ashwathaiah - the complainant deposed that
on 20-06-2010 at 1 p.m., there was a cricket match at
Nagenahalli Playground, and his sons CW5 and 6 had
participated. That he was informed by his son Vishwas, that
the accused caused hurt to him, by assaulting with a cricket
bat. When he enquired with the accused, the accused
threatened him of assaulting him also. According to PW1, his
son took treatment at Ashwini Hospital as an in patient and
on 02-07-2010 he lodged a complaint before the police as per
Ex.P.1. The police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and
seized the cricket bat.
5 CC No.37421/2010
8. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that one
Vinakumar had informed him about the incident, and he is
not personally aware about the incident. The relevant portion
in his evidence reads- "UÀ¯ÁmÉ DzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß «£ÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ CªÀgÀÄ
w½¹zÀgÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ §UÉÎ UÉÆwÛgÀ°®è". He denied the suggestion
that as there was no such incident occurred on 20-06-2010,
no complaint was lodged on the said day. It is elicited that
on 21-06-2010, for the first time, his son was taken to
Sanjeevini Hospital, and thereafter to Ashwini Hospital. It is
found in his evidence that the accused is his relative.
9. PW2 Shivanna is the spot mahazar witness, who
deposed that police conducted Ex.P2 spot mahazar in his
presence and seized MO1. During cross-examination, he
pleaded inability to state as to who handed over MO1 to
police.
10. PW3 is the brother of CW4. He deposed that on 20-
06-2010, accused chased CW4, as CW4 handed over the ball
6 CC No.37421/2010
to CW7, and abused CW4 in filthy language and also
assaulted with a bat. It is PW3, who informed about the
incident to PW1. During his cross-examination, PW3
admitted that he had not gone to police station on 06-07-
2010, and gave any statement before the police. The relevant
portion in his evidence reads-"6.7.10 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇà oÁuÉUÉ
ºÉÆÃV®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ¢ªÀ¸À £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉ ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖ®è".
11. PW4 Dr. Shivakumar is the medical officer who
examined the injured on 06-07-2010 and issued a wound
certificate as per Ex.P3, noting the fracture at the back bone.
During cross-examination, it is elicited that injured had
directly approached him. It is further elicited that if an
accident occurs, the injuries noted in Ex.P3 may be caused.
12. PW5 Shashidhar is the alleged eye witness. He
deposed that on 20-06-2010, the cricket match was about to
commence and at that time, the accused picked up quarrel
with PW7 Vishwas, and abused him in filthy language, and
7 CC No.37421/2010
also assaulted with a cricket bat. During cross-examination,
PW5 admitted that there were 40-50 persons assembled at the
time of incident. He has admitted that PW7 was not taken to
hospital by him, and that the complainant and his friends are
known to him.
13. PW6 Ananda is yet another alleged eye witness. He
deposed that the accused assaulted PW7 with MO1, and
hence the father of PW7 accompanied him to hospital.
During cross-examination, PW6 deposed that it was he who
had pacified the quarrel. It is elicited that PW6 is acquainted
with PW7 and his father since long time.
14. PW7 Vishwas is the injured. He deposed that on 20-
06-2010, there was a cricket match, and the accused was
busy practicing in the playground. As PW7 handed over the
ball to CW7, the accused abused him in filthy language,
chased and assaulted him with a bat on his waist. According
to PW7, he was taken to Ashwini hospital, and he came to
8 CC No.37421/2010
know about the fracture injury in the said hospital. During
cross-examination, PW7 admitted that he had not visited the
police station on 06-07-2010 to give statement before the
police. According to him, the police had enquired him
immediately after three days of the incident.
15. PW9 Vishwanath is yet another alleged eye witness.
PW9 has not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, he
was treated hostile. But, nothing favourable to the case of
prosecution is brought out during his cross-examination, and
he denied of having given a statement before the police as per
Ex.P5.
16. PW10 Krishnaiah, the ASI attached to Yelahanka
New Town P.S., has spoken about the registration of the case
on the basis of complaint at Ex.P1, submission of FIR as per
Ex.P6, conducting of spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, and seizure
of MO1, recording of the statements of CW2 and 3. PW8
T.K.Srinivas is the ASI attached to same police station, who
9 CC No.37421/2010
conducted further investigation by recording the statements
of remaining witnesses, obtaining the wound certificate,
arrested the accused and filed charge sheet after completion
of investigation.
17. Thus, on scanning the entire evidence available on
record, it is seen that one of the eye witness PW9 has not
supported the case of prosecution. The remaining eye
witnesses i.e., PW5 and 6 are closely acquainted with PW1.
Both of them have categorically admitted that they have not
taken the injured to hospital. If really they were present at
the relevant time, they would have assisted PW1 in taking the
injured to hospital immediately, and no convincing reasons
are found in their evidence for not taking the injured to
hospital. Hence their presence at the relevant time appears to
be doubtful.
18. Even when the evidence of PW1, PW5 and 6 are
appreciated together, and carefully scrutinized, they are in
10 CC No.37421/2010
contradiction with each other. PW3 and 7 have admitted that
they have not given any statement before the police on 06-
07-2010, and the prosecution relied on their statements
alleged to be made before the police as on 06-07-2010.
19. As per the evidence adduced by prosecution, there
were number of teams arrived for cricket match, but none of
the players have been examined by the prosecution. PW1, 3
and 7 being the father and sons, their evidence touching the
alleged incident is not supported by any of the independent
witnesses, though the incident had taken place in a
playground. As these witnesses being the father and sons are
obviously interested witnesses, and non-corroboration of
their evidence by the independent eye witnesses takes me to
view their evidence under the shadow of doubt.
20. There is no seizure of any incriminating article,
which allegedly caused bleeding injury to PW7. No blood
stained cloth has been seized in the instant case, though it is
11 CC No.37421/2010
alleged that bleeding injuries were caused to PW7. Further,
though the alleged incident occurred on 20-06-2010, the
complaint is lodged only on 02-07-2010. This inordinate
delay in lodging the complaint is not satisfactorily explained
in the evidence of P.W.1.
21. As per the evidence of the Medical Officer, the
injured was treated for the first time only on 06-07-2010, and
there was absolutely no bleeding injury noted by him.
Instead, he has noted the fracture of the bone and opined that
the same may be caused even due to any accident. The
evidence of Medical Officer is not sufficient to hold that
injuries noted by him are caused only due to alleged assault
with the bat.
22. Apart from this, there is no convincing evidence as
to from where MO1 bat was brought. PW1 has stated that
the cricket bat was seized from the place of incident. PW2
spot mahazar witness has stated that he is not aware as to
12 CC No.37421/2010
who gave MO1 and where was it lying. PW6 pleaded
ignorance over the suggestion that MO1 was brought by PW1
himself from his house. PW7 also deposed that he did not
remember as to whether MO1 was taken back by the accused.
Thus there are contradictions in respect of the place from
where the MO1 cricket bat was brought.
23. All these latches and infirmities lean in favour of
the accused. In the presence of these latches and infirmities,
I am of the considered view that it is not safe to attach with
credence to the interested testimony of PW1, 3 and 7. In view
of these reasons, therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not
established its case beyond all reasonable doubts, as
projected in the charge sheet. Hence, I answer Point No-1
and 2 in the Negative.
Point No-3:
24. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
13 CC No.37421/2010
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 326 and 504 IPC.
His bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of December 2015) (Vineetha P.Shetty), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : Ashwathaiah
P.W.2 : Shivanna
P.W.3 : Vinaykumar
P.W.4 : Dr. Shivakumar
P.W.5 : Shashidhar
P.W.6 : Ananda
P.W.7 : Vishwas
P.W.8 : T.K.Srinivas
P.W.9 : Vishwanath
P.W.10 : Krishnaiah
14 CC No.37421/2010
List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.4 : Report of CW10
Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW9
Ex.P.6 : F.I.R.
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Cricket Bat List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.15 CC No.37421/2010
19-12-2015 Judgment pronounced vide separate sheets.
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 326 and 504 IPC.
His bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.