Bangalore District Court
State By vs Jairam S/O Lt. Muninagappa on 13 February, 2023
1 CC.No.22218/2012
KABC0C0001552012
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 13th day of February 2023
PRESENT: Smt.ARATI B.KAMATE
B.A., LL.B.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No. 22218/2012
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
Indira Nagara Police Station
/vs/
Accused 1- Jairam S/o Lt. Muninagappa,
72 years.
2- J.Srinivas S/o Jairam, 44 years.
3- J.Padmaraj S/o Jairam, 33 years.
The above all are R /a No.7,
Old Binnamangala,
Indiranagar, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
1. The PSI of Indira Nagara police station has filed this charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/S. 447, 427, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and 3 (2) of KPDL Act 1981.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 7.3.2011 at 1.30 pm the accused persons trespassed into the property of BBMP near Srirama temple road, 2 CC.No.22218/2012 2nd main, Domlur and demolished the platform of the water tank constructed by BBMP causing wrongful loss to BBMP by damaging the public property. When CW1 questioned regarding the same, the accused threatened him with life. Hence, it is alleged that accused have committed the alleged offences.
3. On the basis of the FIS lodged by the informant, case was registered against the accused in Indira Nagara P.S., Cr.No.63/2011 and FIR was submitted to the court. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused. Accused persons appeared before the court through their counsel and they are on bail. Copy of chargesheet was furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused persons for the alleged offences u/s 447, 427, 353, 506 of IPC and Sec 3(2) of KPDL Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to 4, got marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to 9. The statement of the accused was recorded u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating materials available against them. They did not lead evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
3 CC.No.22218/2012
7. The following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on on 7.3.2011 at 1.30 pm, in furtherance of common intention, the accused persons trespassed into the property of BBMP near Srirama temple road, 2nd main, Domlur. And thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section. 447 R/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the same date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention the accused demolished the platform of the water tank constructed by BBMP causing wrongful loss to BBMP. And thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 427 R/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the same date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention the accused threatened CW-1 with life. And thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 506 R/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the same date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention the accused caused loss of public property by demolishing the water tank platform constructed by BBMP. And thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (2) of KPDL Act 1981?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that on the same date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention the accused deterred CW-1 with witn an intention to prevent him from discharging his duty as public servant. And thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 353 R/w 34 of IPC?
6. What order?
8. The above points are answered in the following manner;
4 CC.No.22218/2012
Point No.1 to 5 - Negative,
Point No.6 - As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 to 5: The criminal law was set into motion by
CW-1 by lodging FIS. He was examined by the prosecution as PW1. During his evidence he has stated that on 7.3.2011 when he had been to ward inspection at Rama temple road in Domlur, he found that the platform constructed to the water tank was being removed. When he objected saying that it was public road, the accused claimed that the place belongs to them. He asked the accused to bring the necessary documents to the office. The accused threatened him if he stops accused. In that regard he filed FIS as per Ex.P1. He also deposed regarding drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P2. He got marked the photographs as per Ex.P3 to 6 in respect of the damage done by accused to the platform in the road.
10. PW.2 in his evidence stated that on 07-03-11 accused damaged the water tank platform and road on the BBMP property. The accused also made galata with CW-1. He further stated that he has not seen the accused threatening CW1. He was turned hostile by the prosecution. During cross examination by the learned Sr.APP he has denied that in his statement he has stated that the 5 CC.No.22218/2012 accused persons picked up quarrel with CW1, they threatened CW1 with life and also damaged the public property causing loss to BBMP.
11. PW.3 is the then ASI of Indiranagar police station deposed regarding receipt of FIS and registration of FIR. He visited spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P9. He deputed the staff for apprehending accused. They brought accused and produced before him. He released accused after obtaining bond.
12. PW.4 Kempe Gowda the then PSI of Indiranagar police station. He deposed regarding further investigation of this case. He recorded the statements of CW.4 & 5 and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet before the court.
13. As per the case of prosecution the accused have damaged the water tank platform constructed by BBMP and when CW1 objected for the same they threatened him with life. PW1 has stated that when he had gone for inspection, the platform of water tank was removed by some persons and when he objected for the same saying that it was public road, the said persons claimed that the place belongs to them. He further stated that the accused threatened him if he stopped them. During his cross examination he has stated that he does not know whether Muniswamappa had filed OS 16166/06 alleging disturbance by BBMP in this property. He further stated that he does not know whether the suit was 6 CC.No.22218/2012 decreed. He stated that he has not produced any document to show that the property belongs to BBMP. It is alleged that that the water tank was constructed by the BBMP and the accused have damaged the same. PW1 has stated that he has not produced any document about work order for construction of platform and water tank in the said property.
14. It is stated in Ex.P1 that when PW1 had gone for inspection, the accused started altercation with Dinesh and Shrinivas with whom PW1 had gone for inspection. But they have not been examined in this case. It is further stated that Shrinivas Reddy and others came and witnessed the incident. But they have been not examined. There is also inconsistency in the evidence of PW2. PW3 and 4 have deposed regarding their official acts during investigation. PW3 has stated that he visited the spot and conducted mahazar in the presence of witnesses. But the witnesses to the mahazar were not secured. It is alleged that the accused damaged the platform with crow bar. But the same is not seized at the time of mahazar. PW3 has stated that he could not seize anything at the time of mahazar. He further stated that he could not seize any item from the spot as the bricks were broken into the pieces. PW4 has stated that he has recorded statements of CW4 and 5. But CW4/PW2 in his evidence stated that he has not given statement.
7 CC.No.22218/2012
15. The accused have taken specific contention that the said property does not belong to BBMP. The prosecution has to prove that the water tank was constructed in the public property and the same was demolished by the accused by trespassing in the public property. PW1 has stated that he has not produced any document in that regard. He has also not produced any document about work order. PW4 has stated that he has not investigated whether the property belongs to BBMP. He stated that he does not know whether there is an injunction order with respect to said property in OS No. 10733/87. He has stated CW6 has investigated with regard to permission for construction of basement. He also stated that the permission is not produced in this case.
16. There is inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. After considering the materials on record, if two views are possible in such circumstance, the one which is favourable to the accused be considered. If any doubt arises, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. The facts and circumstances revealing from the evidence by itself are sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused persons. By considering the facts and circumstances, the prosecution is not able to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.1 to 4 are answered in the Negative.
8 CC.No.22218/2012
17. POINT NO.5: For the afore said reasons, the following order is passed;
ORDER Acting u/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/S. 447, 427, 506, 353 R/w 34 of IPC and 3 (2) of KPDL Act 1981.
Bail bond of accused and surety stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 13th day of February 2023). Digitally signed
ARATI B by ARATI B KAMATE KAMATE Date: 2023.02.13 17:17:19 +0530 (ARATI B.KAMATE) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 M.D Hegde Nil
PW.2 Madhusudan
PW.3 Channa Veere Gowda
PW.4 Kempegowda
Exhibits Marked
Ex.P1 FIS
Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P1(b)Signature of PW.3.
Ex.P2 Mahazar
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2(b)Signature of PW.3
Ex.P3 to 6 Photographs
Ex.P7 Statement of PW.2
Ex.P8 FIR
Ex.P8(a)Signature of PW.3
Material Objects got marked
NIL
ARATI B Digitally signed by ARATI
B KAMATE
KAMATE Date: 2023.02.13 17:17:30
+0530
(ARATI B. KAMATE)
X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.