Bangalore District Court
State By vs Vasuraju S/O.Chunchuraj on 18 June, 2018
1 CC.No.51832/2013
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL.C.M.M
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 18th day of June 2018
PRESENT: Sri. PRAKASH NAYAK,
B.A.(LAW)., LL.B.,
XLIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
CC.No.51832/2013
Complainant: State by, M.D.Pura Police Station
(By Sr.APP)
Accused: 1. Vasuraju S/o.Chunchuraj
Aged about 31 years
R/at.No.55, PWD Road.,
B.Narayanapura, Bengaluru
2. Bramhaiah S/o.Late.Kondaiah
Aged about 33 years
R/at.No.402, Ramaiah Enclave,
1st Main Road, 8th Cross,
Pai Layout, Bengaluru
3. Kondareddy S/o.Malu Kondaiah
Aged about 38 years
R/at.No.559, Narayanappa Building,
Udayanagar, Bengaluru
4. Prasad S/o.Venkataswamy
Aged about 36 years
R/at.No.6 & 7, Anugraha Layout,
B.Narayanapura, Bengaluru
5. Madhavaraj S/o.Subramanya
Aged about 30 years
2 CC.No.51832/2013
R/at.No.25/3, Venkateswara Layout,
B.Narayanapura, Bengaluru
(By Sri.A.T.N. Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The PI of M.D.Pura P.S filed the instant charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for offence punishable u/s. 304(A) of IPC. Since accused No.4 was absconding, case against him is split up.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused were constructing a building at sy.no.25/3 of PWD Road, A.Narayanapura which comes within the limits of M.D.Pura P.S., and in the said constructing building the accused have not provided sufficient light and also not taken precautionary measures in respect of protection of the workers working there and the accused instructed the labours to stay in the night in the said under constructed building itself in spite of having knowledge that there is a chance of danger to the life of the labours. It is further alleged that on 24-04-2013 at 9-30 p.m. one Veeresh while went to the 3rd Floor of the said under construction building fell down, since there was no sufficient light and protection and sustained grievious injuruies on his head and subsequently died at Jeevika Hospital and the said unfortunate incident took place due to the negligent act of accused and thereby the accused have committed aforesaid offence. Concerned police registered Cr.No.274/2013.
3 CC.No.51832/20133. The accused No.1 to 3 & 5 in response to the summons appeared before the Court through his counsel and he is on bail. As contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., the copy of charge sheet furnished to the accused No.1 to 3 & 5. Subsequently, charge is framed and read over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined Pw.1, Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 got exhibited. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 to 3 & 5, statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
5. Heard. The learned Sr.APP for prosecution and learned counsel for accused and perused the records.
6. The following points arise for consideration of the Court.
1. Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt Proves that the accused No.1 to 3 & 5 committed offence punishable U/s. 304(A) of IPC?
2. What order?
7. My answer of the aforesaid points.
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - As per final order for the following
REASONS
8. Point No.1: In order to substantiate its case the prosecution has initially examined Cw.1 Shekar as Pw.1, who is the complainant, 4 CC.No.51832/2013 who in his examination in chief has though identified his signature on Ex.P1 FIS & Ex.P2 panchanama, denied its contents. He deposed that he do not know due to whose mistake or negligence said Veeresh was died. Since Pw.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution he was subjected to cross examination by Lr.Sr.APP. In his cross-examination Pw.1 has reiterated that he do not know the contents of Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. However he admitted that the dispute between himself and the accused is amicably settled. But he denied that for the said reason he is deposing falsehood before the court. In this case there is no dispute about death of said Veeresh. However the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the said untimely death of Veeresh was caused due to negligence of accused No.1 to 5. The materials on record reveals that the prosecution has not adduced required oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the said allegation leveled against accused No.1 to 3 and 5. Taking into consideration the fact of amicable settlement of the dispute and the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record the court has rejected the prayer of Lr.Sr.APP to issue process to remaining witnesses, for the said reason the court opines that no purpose will be served by examining the other witnesses. Taking into consideration all these facts, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of mandatory ingredient to attract the offence alleged against the accused. Therefore under 5 CC.No.51832/2013 the said existing circumstances of the case on hand the court is of the opinion that the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused No.1 to 3 & 5.
,, ,
9. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record clearly reveal that the prosecution has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of Pw.1 is not sufficient to accept the case of the prosecution. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons which establishes the guilt of the accused persons. In view of the aforesaid materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further it is settled law that on assumptions and presumptions the case of the prosecution cannot be proved and accepted. Further it is settled law that when two views are possible the view which is favourable to the accused has to be accepted. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the aforesaid reasons the Court proceed to answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
10. Point No.2 : For the aforesaid reasons, the Court proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 3 & 5 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 304(A) of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 & 5 shall stand cancelled.
6 CC.No.51832/2013Office to preserve the file till disposal of split up case registered against accused No.4.
(Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 18th day of June 2018) (Prakash Nayak) XLIII ACMM, BENGALURU ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED:
Pw.1 - Shekar
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED:
Ex.P.1 - Compliant
Ex.P.1(a) - Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 - Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) - Signature of Pw.1
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED:
Nil
(Prakash Nayak)
XLIII ACMM, BENGALURU
7 CC.No.51832/2013
8 CC.No.51832/2013