Bangalore District Court
Shivakumar vs Anne Richel Gotham on 3 February, 2025
KABC030053562024
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025 .
Present : Sri.Puttaraju., B.A.,LLB.
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C. NO. 2718-2024
Complainant : State by Kodigehalli Police Station .
(By Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused Nos. 1 1.Anne Richel Gotham,
R/at 355, CQAL Layout,
4th Maijn, Sahakara Nagara,
Bengaluru.
2.Dommaranandyal Manchala Isaac,
R/at 355, CQAL Layout,
4th Maijn, Sahakara Nagara,
Bengaluru.
Date of occurrence of offence 19.12.2023
2 C.C. NO. 2718-2024
Date of report of offence 19.12.2023
Name of the Complainant Shivakumar
Date of Commencement of recording Evidence 08.01.2025
Date of Closing of Evidence 08.01.2025
Offences complained of U/s. 289, 324 of IPC .
Opinion of the Judge Accused -1 & 2
found not guilty.
PSI., of Kodigehalli Police Station has filed
charge sheet against the accused persons for the
offences punishable U/s. 289, 324 of IPC .
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as under :
It is alleged in the chargesheet that on
19.12.2023 at about 7.45 a.m. infront of House
No.353, situated at 4th Main Road, CQAL Layout,
within the jurisdiction of Kodigehalli Police Station,
accused -1 and 2 intentionally picked up quarrel with
CW.1 and in the said process voluntarily used their
pet dog i.e., German Shapard as a weapon of crime
and left the dog on CW.1 and the said dog attacked
3 C.C. NO. 2718-2024
and bitten on the right thigh and right abdomen of
CW.1 as a result CW.1 has sustained severe injuries
and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s.
289, 324 of IPC .
3. After receipt of first information by CW-1,
Crime was registered in Crime No.402/2023, dated
19.12.2023 and investigation was taken up. After
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused for the aforementioned
offences.
4.Accused -1 & 2 are on court bail. Charge sheet
materials supplied as per provisions U/s 207 of
Cr.P.C. Heard on both side, charge is framed and read
over for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to
be tried.
4 C.C. NO. 2718-2024
5. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 and
got marked Ex.P.1 and 2 on its behalf. Since, PW-1
has completely turned hostile prayer of Ld.Sr.APP for
issuance of summons to other witness was rejected
and evidence of other witnesses dropped. As there is
no incriminating evidence available against the
accused recording of Statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C.,
is dispensed.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that
accused have committed the offences
U/s. 289, 324 of IPC.?
2. What order ?
8. The above points are answered as under :
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :
5 C.C. NO. 2718-2024
REASONS
9. Point No.1 :
It is the case of the prosecution that
accused -1 and 2 intentionally picked up quarrel with
CW.1 and in the said process voluntarily used their
pet dog i.e., German Shapard as a weapon of crime
and left the dog on CW.1 and the said dog attacked
and bitten on the right thigh and right abdomen of
CW.1 as a result CW.1 has sustained severe injuries.
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined PW.1, who being the
complainant/victim during the course of chief-
examination has completely turned hostile and stated
that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 and 2. He
signed Ex.P1 and 2 at Police Station. Accused have
neither used their pet dog as a weapon of crime nor
caused any severe injuries. The learned Sr.APP has
cross-examined him at length. Even during the cross-
6 C.C. NO. 2718-2024
examination nothing worth has been elicited to
disbelieve the version of PW.1. During the course of
cross-examination learned Sr.APP suggested regarding
compromise, though PW.1 admitted, but he denied
that by compromising the matter deposing false
evidence .
11.Admittedly, except hostile evidence of PW.1,
there is nothing on record to show that accused
have committed the offenses as alleged in the charge
sheet. As such benefit of doubt will have to be
extended in favour of accused. Hence, for the above
reasons. I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. Point No.2 : In view of the above discussion,
accused found not guilty and hence, I proceed to
pass the following :
ORDER
Acting U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused -1 & 2 are hereby acquitted 7 C.C. NO. 2718-2024 of the offences punishable U/s. 289, 324 of IPC .
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and typed by him revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on 3 rd day of February, 2025 ).
( PUTTARAJU ) VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the Complainant :
PW.1 Shivakumar List of documents marked for the Complainant :
Ex.P.1 Complaint, Ex.P.2 Mahazar. List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil. List of documents exhibited for the Accused Nil. List of Material Object marked for prosecution Nil.
VII Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
8 C.C. NO. 2718-2024Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused -1 & 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 289, 324 of IPC .
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
7Th ACJM, Bengaluru.
9 C.C. NO. 2718-2024