Bangalore District Court
State By Jjr Nagara Police Station vs Has Examined Eight Witnesses As Pw1 To 8 ... on 21 October, 2021
1
CC.No.29851/2010
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2021.
Present:
Sri B.MOHAN BABU, B.A., L.L.B.,
XXXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
C.C. No.29851/2010
1. Complainant: State by JJR Nagara Police Station.
2. Accused: AKSHAY
S/o Mahadeva,
Aged 22 years,
R/at No.26, 2nd Cross,
5th Main Maruthinagar,
Nagarabhavi Main Road,
BANGALORE.
3.Date of offence: : 04062010
4. Offences complained of: U/s. 323,504,353 of IPC.
5. Plea: Accused Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final Order: Accused is Acquitted .
7. Date of Order: 21102021.
*****
2
CC.No.29851/2010
The PoliceInspector, JJR Nagar Police Station, Bangalore has
filed this charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable
U/s. 323,504,353 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
That on 04062010 at about 950 a.m. when CW1 was clearing
the traffic and discharging his duties at Padarayanapura, Hosahalli
Main Road, 11th Cross near Railway Gate, at that time, the accused
came on Pulsor Motorcycle from right side road by overtaking and
caused disturbance to opposite coming vehicles, when CW1
questioned, enraged by the same, the accused all of a sudden abused
him in filthy words and picked up quarrel with him. It is further
alleged that, in continuation of the above offence the accused stated
that he is going to dismiss him, dragged his uniform, torn the uniform
buttons thereby accused has caused disturbance, nuisance while
discharging his duties as Govt.servant and committed the offences
punishable U/s.504,323,353 of I.P.C.
3
CC.No.29851/2010
3. The Accused was enlarged on bail. On receipt of charge sheet,
this court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and furnished
copy of the prosecution papers to the Accused persons. After hearing
on charge, my predecessor has framed charge for the offences
punishable U/s.504, 323, 353 of IPC., and questioned the Accused
regarding the charge made against him, Accused denied the charge
and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, the prosecution
has examined 08 witnesses as PW1 to 8 and got marked documents
at Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. This Court examined the Accused as required
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the Accused denied the incriminating evidence
appeared against him and submitted that he has no defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP., for the
prosecution and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the
materials available on record.
6. On the basis of the above said facts, the following point arise
for my consideration are that:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on 04062010 at about 9
50 a.m. when CW1 was clearing the traffic and
4
CC.No.29851/2010
discharging his duties at Padarayanapura,
Hosahalli Main Road, 11th Cross near Railway
Gate, at that time, the accused came on Pulsor
Motorcycle from right side road by overtaking
and caused disturbance to opposite coming
vehicles, when CW1 questioned, enraged by the
same, the accused all of a sudden abused him in
filthy words and picked up quarrel with him and
stated that he is going to dismiss him, dragged
his uniform, torn the uniform buttons thereby
caused disturbance, nuisance while discharging
his duties as Govt.servant and thereby he
committed the offences punishable
U/s.504,323,353 of I.P.C.?
3) What Order?
My finding on the above Points are as under:
Point No.1.......In the Negative .
Point No.2......As per final Order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT No.1: The prosecution to prove the guilty of the
Accused, has examined eight witnesses as PW1 to 8 and got marked
fifteen documents as per Ex.P1 to 15. The PW6 Rangaswamaiah, ASI,
Yashwanthpura Tr. PS is the victim and the complainant, he has
deposed that on 04062010 from 8 a.m. he was deputed on official
5
CC.No.29851/2010
duty and he was patrolling on Cobra bike No. KA04G491 at JJ
Nagar 11th cross near Railway bridge. At that time the accused came
on bike No.KA03TC14 from Vijayanagar Hoshalli towards JJ Nagar
by overtaking caused disturbance to other vehicles which were coming
on opposite direction , when he questioned, to which accused abused
him in filthy language, dragged his uniform, torn buttons caused
insult to him. He further deposed that he gave complaint as per Ex.P6
before JJR Nagar P.S. He produced torn uniform before PI
Kodandaramaiah, he seized under seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1. The
Uniform is marked as MO No.1. The police Inspector visited the spot,
conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P3 and two uniform button were
seized in the presence of panchas Girish and Shaffi. Two buttons are
marked as MO.No.2 and he deposed that he can identify the accused.
8. The PW1 Subramanya, Traffic HC 4929 has deposed that on
04062010 at about 950 a.m., near the railway bridge of
Padarayanapura, somebody was making galata with Rangaswamaiah.
By seeing the said galata he reached the spot and witnessed that the
said person was abusing Rangaswmaiah in filthy words Sulemagane
etc., and pulled his Uniform and thereby obstructed in discharging his
6
CC.No.29851/2010
official duty. He identifies the accused and he has given statement
before the I.O.
9. The PW5 Eshwarachar, PSI has deposed that on 04062010
at 950 a.m. somebody making galata with Rangaswamaiah at
Padrayanapura Bridge, he visited the spot and when he enquired to
the public they told him that one person who came by motorcycle
quarreled with CW1 and deterred CW1 from discharging his public
duty by abusing him in filthy language and by pulling him by holding
his uniform hence, CW1 lodged complaint against the accused and he
has given statement before the I.O.
10. The PW2 Mohim Ahmed and PW3 Shaffi have deposed in
their evidence that they were called to the police station wherein they
obtained their signature and no mahazar was conducted in their
presence. They further deposed that no articles were seized in their
presence and they do not know the contents of the mahzar. These two
witnesses were treated hostile by the prosecution.
11. The PW4 Mahadeva has deposed that on 04062010 JJR
nagar police called him to the Hosahalli main road and taken his
signature by stating that in that place by jumping the traffic the
7
CC.No.29851/2010
vehicle was overtaken. He identified his signature on Ex.P1 as
Ex.P1(a) and pleaded his ignorance about the contents of Ex.P1. This
witness was treated hostile by the prosecution.
12. The PW7 Kodandaram, DYSP has deposed that on 0406
2010 at 1145 a.m. complainant appeared before him with a written
complaint as per Ex.P6, based on it, he registered the case in
Cr.No.138/2010 and submitted FIR to the court as per Ex.P7 and he
identified his signatures as per Ex.P6(b) and Ex.P.7(a), he seized the
Mo1 shit under seizure mahazar Ex.P1. He further deposed that, he
visited the spot, conducted spot mahazar and seized two shirt buttons
under seizure mahzar Ex.P3, prepared rough sketch as per Ex.P9,
recorded the statement of CW 2,3 and 4 as per Ex.P2, Ex.P5 and
Ex.P4. He further deposed that he sent requisition to the PI. Magadi
Tr. Police to submit the certified copy of daily book. On 1162010 he
received Ex.P12, after obtaining B Extract as per Ex.P14 after
completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the
accused.
13. Now on going through the oral evidence of all the
prosecution witnesses, it is found that except PW1, PW5 and PW6
8
CC.No.29851/2010
none of the other independent witnesses have supported the case of
the prosecution. The PW5 is cited as eye witness to the incident, but
in the chief examination, he deposed that, he came to the place of
incident, at that time except the public no body were there, through
the public, he heard about galata, as such, he did not witness any
incident. From this it has to be inferred that the PW.5 was not an
eyewitness to the incident.
14. The PW1 is another eye witness to the incident, he has
supported the case of prosecution, but in his examinationinchief, he
has not deposed the details of the incident as to how and why the
incident is happens. As per the version of victim, at the time of
incident, himself, PW1 and PW5 were present, but the PW1 deposed
that he was far away about 150 to 200 meters from the place of
incident. It is also alleged against the accused that he has dragged the
shirt color with hands but, on perusal of evidence of PW1 he has not
specifically stated as to which part of the shirt of victim/PW6 the
accused has dragged with hands. He simply stated that he dragged
the shirt of PW6 with hands but, the particular act of accused has not
9
CC.No.29851/2010
been specifically deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore,
there is no corroboration with the evidence of PW1 and 6.
15. The PW6 is the victim as well as the complainant, he has
supported the version of prosecution, but his ocular evidence is not
supported by any other independent eye witness. It is the simple
defence of the accused that, the PW6 is deputed to to control the
traffic near railway bridge in 11th cross, but the PW6 is busy with
talking with his colleague staff who is came from police commissioner
office, for which the public started quarrel with PW6, the accused
was standing in front side, the PW6 assaulted the accused, as such
the public have made protest against the PW6 in front of the police
station. And the accused has lodged a complaint against the PW6, in
order to escape from the said case, the PW6 has filed this false
complaint against the accused. The same is suggested to PW6 during
his cross examination, but he denied the same. However, in the
further cross examination her admitted that the complaint lodged
against him by the accused is registered in Cr.No.138/2010. Even the
PW7/IO in his cross examination, he admitted that as the PW6 is
being his colleague officer, to safe guard his interest, he has not taken
10
CC.No.29851/2010
the complaint given by the accused. Therefore, it is clear that, in order
to escape from the complaint given by the accused in
Cr.No.138/2010, the PW6 might have lodged a false complaint
against the accused.
16. As said above both the PW1 and 6 are working in the same
department. Therefore, the PW1 is interested witness. Therefore the
oral testimony of PW1 is not reliable. The PW3 who is said to be the
independent eye witness, he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
The public who were pacify the galata are not cited as witness in the
present case. The PW2 and 8 are the witnesses to the spot mahazar
and seizer witness. Even they have turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. In absence of reliable evidence of independent witness
only on the strength of evidence of PW6, the case of the prosecution
cannot be said to be proved as against the accused. As such the
accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I hold that, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the
offences punishable U/S.323, 504, 353 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
11
CC.No.29851/2010
17. POINT No.2: For the foregoing reasons and discussion, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.323,504,353 of I.P.C.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled.
Mos.1 and 2 being worthless, it is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 21st day of October, 2021) ( B.MOHAN BABU) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 : Subramanya
PW2 : Mohin Ahamed
PW3 : Shaffi
PW4 : Mahadeva
PW5 : Eshwarachar
PW6 : Rangaswamy
PW7 : T.Kodandaram
12
CC.No.29851/2010
PW8 : Girisha
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Mahzar Ex.P.1a,b,c,d: Signature of PW2,4,6,7 Ex.P.2 : Statement of PW2 Ex.P.3 : Mahzar Ex.P.3a,b,c,d: Signature of PW 3,6,7,8 Ex.P.4 : Statement of PW3 Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW4 Ex.P.6 : Complaint Ex.P.6a,b Signature of PW6,7 Ex.P.7 : FIR in Cr.No.138/2010 Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.8 : P.F.No.75/10 Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.9 : Sketch Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.10 : PFNo.76/2010 Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.11 : Police diary requisition Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.12 : True copy of police dairy Ex.P.13 : Police dairy requisition Ex.P.13a : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.14 : Requisition of Motorcycle report Ex.P.14a,b : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.15 : Statement of PW8 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
13CC.No.29851/2010 MO1 : Uniform Shirt MO2 : Two Uniform buttons LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL.
XXXVII ACMM., BANGALORE.14
CC.No.29851/2010 21102021 Judgment. Judgment pronounced in the open court ( vide separately) ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.323,504,353 of I.P.C. The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled. Mos.1 and 2 being worthless, it is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over. 15 CC.No.29851/2010 XXXVII ACMM., B'lore.