Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1: Sri.Shekhar on 3 September, 2016
1 C.C.No.11564/2012
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 3rd September 2016
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No:11564 /2012
Complainant : The State represented by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kengeri Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1: Sri.Shekhar,
S/o Sri.Anjinappa,
Aged about 21 yrs,
A2: Sri.Marathi,
S/o Sri.Anjinappa,
Aged about 21 yrs,
2 C.C.No.11564/2012
A1 & A2 R/at:No:73,
Kasturamma Badavane,
Kengeri,
Bengaluru-60.
A3: Sri.Srinivas,
S/o Sri.Narasimaiah,
Aged about 21 yrs,
Kasturamma Badavane,
Mysore Road,
Kengeri,
Bengaluru-60.
A4: Sri.Manjunatha @ Manju,
S/o Sri.Narayanappa,
Aged about 22 yrs,
R/at:No:73,
Kasturamma Badavane,
Kengeri,
Bengaluru-60.
(By Sri. MKD Adv., Bengaluru)
---
JUDGEMENT U/Sec.355 of Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.11564/2012
Date of offence : 5/9/2011
3 C.C.No.11564/2012
Complainant : Sri.Appaji
Accused : As detailed above
Offence : U/Sec.427, 448, 324, 504
and 506(B) R/w section
34 of IPC
Charge : Accused persons claimed
to be tried
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 3/9/2016
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
JUDGEMENT
The PSI of Kengeri Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Sec.427, 448, 324, 504 and 506(B) R/W section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
4 C.C.No.11564/2012
It is the case of the prosecution that on 5/9/2011 at about 8-30 p.m. all the accused persons with an common intention trespassed the House No.96 and caused damage to the door by making use of stone, trespassed the house, abused CW1 in filthy language, the accused No.1 caused injury to CW1 by making use of a knife, the accused No.4 assaulted CW1 on his head by making use of a stone, the accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated the other accused and all the accused persons threatened with dire consequences. On the complaint of CW.1 by name Sri.Appaji the Kengeri Police have registered a case in Crime No.251/2011 and after completion of investigation filed the chargesheet.
3. The accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged the services of a counsel. The charges framed by the learned Predecessor and the accused persons claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PW1 and relied upon the documents as per Ex.P1 and the material objects as per Mo.Nos.1 to 3. The 313 Cr.P.C., statement of the accused 5 C.C.No.11564/2012 persons is recorded. No defence evidence adduced by the accused persons.
4. Heard, perused the entire case records.
5. The only point that arises for my consideration is:
1.Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.427, 448, 324, 504 and 506(B) R/w section 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order For the following:
::REASONS::
7. Point No.1: In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined one Sri.Appaji as PW1. By identifying the accused persons it is his evidence the 6 C.C.No.11564/2012 accused persons are residing adjacent to his house. It is his evidence as per the contents of the complaint marked as per Ex.P1 and identified the signature as per Ex.P1(a). It is his contradictory evidence about the identity of material objects shown to him. In view of the nature of evidence the witness has been treated as hostile and inspite of suggesting the material objects as per Mo.Nos.1 to 3 the same has been denied. On behalf of the accused persons the witness was not subjected for cross examination.
8. On consideration of the materials available on record the order sheet reveals inspite of repeated summons, bailable warrant and NBW have been issued against the charge sheeted witnesses the concerned investigation agency failed to secure any of the witnesses before the Court except PW1. Thereby, there is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Consequently, resulting in failure to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The available evidence is not helpful to 7 C.C.No.11564/2012 the case of the prosecution as the PW1 turned hostile and failed to identify the material objects said to have been used by the accused persons. Under the said circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the accused persons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
9. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Sec.248(1) of
Cr.P.C. the accused persons are
hereby ACQUITTED for the offences U/Sec.427, 448, 324, 504 and 506(B) R/W section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused persons and that of the surety stand cancelled.8 C.C.No.11564/2012
The MO.Nos.1 to 3 being
worthless is ordered to be
destroyed after appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 3/9/2016).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.Appaji
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.p1(a) : Signature of PW1
3. Material objects marked :
MO1 : Stone
MO2 : Knife
MO3 : Broom sticks
4. Defence Evidence : NIL
---
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
9 C.C.No.11564/2012
10 C.C.No.11564/2012