Bangalore District Court
R.L. Durgesh vs Manjunatha .G.R on 3 January, 2024
1
KABC030596112018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
PRESENT:- SRI.SANJEEV KUMAR S. HINDODDI
B.COM., LL.M.
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024.
C.C. NO.22191/2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 22191/2018
2. The date of commission of 07.10.2017
the offence
3. Name of the complainant Bagalagunte Police Station.
4. Name of the accused Manjunatha .G.R.,
S/o.E.Rajanna, 32 Years,
R/at. No 410, 7th Cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
T.Dasarahally,
Bengaluru.
5. The offence complained of U/sec.341, 324, 504 , 506(B)
or proved of IPC.
2
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented by: Sri.CRV Advocate,
Bengaluru.
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 03/01/2024
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 324, 504 , 506(B) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 07.10.2017 at about 10.15 p.m. near House No.436, situated at T.Dasarahalli. within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station, when CW.1 requested to send his wife i.e., CW.3 to his house with accused at that time accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and in the above said transaction wrongfully restrained 3 him from moving further and assaulted with stone on the left side head of CW.1. Again accused abused CW.1 in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences by showing knife and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 324, 504, 506(B) of IPC. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined CW.4 as PW.1 and CW.1 as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3. CW.2, 3, and 5 to 8 are dropped. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6.The following points that arise for my consideration are:
4
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on
07.10.2017 at about 10.15 p.m. near House No.436, situated at T.Dasarahalli. within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station, when CW.1 requested to send his wife i.e., CW.3 to his house with accused at that time accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and and in the above said transaction wrongfully restrained him from moving further and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with with CW.1 and in the above said transaction assaulted with stone on the left side head of CW.1 thereby caused simple bleeding injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.324 of IPC.?
5
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with with CW.1 and in the above said transaction abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC.?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and in the above said transaction threatened CW.1 with dire consequences by showing knife thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 506 (B) of IPC.?
5. What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
6 REASONS
8.Point Nos.1 to 4:-
The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
9.In order to substantiate the contents of complaint, very complainant is examined as PW.2 and his wife is examined as PW. 1, but they fully turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In their evidence they have deposed that accused is the brother of PW.1 and PW.2 is the ex-husband of PW.1. They further deposed that accused have neither restrained CW.1 wrongfully nor assaulted with any weapon. They further deposed that accused have neither abused CW.1 in filthy language nor put any kind of life threat. They further deposed that PW.1 has simply identified his signatures in complaint and Mahazar, which are marked as Ex.P2 and 3. In-fact PW.1 does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and
3. PW.1 denied for having given statement as per Ex.P1.
10. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has 7 specifically denied about filing of complaint before the police as per Ex.P.2. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. As I discussed above, after evidence of PW.1 & 2, learned Sr.APP has prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. In this case, PW.1 & 2 being the complainant and victim have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the cross- examination PW.1 and 2 have clearly admitted that matter is ended in compromise. Admittedly investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.324 of IPC., which is non-compoundable in nature. In my considered view, due to compromise, PW.1 and 2 might have said goodbye to the case of prosecution.
12.Apart from this, when PW.1 & 2 being the complainant and victim have not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Moreover, in order to maintain cordial relationship between accused and complainant in future days and to save the precious time of 8 court, other witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.
13.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence of the victim as well as other independent witnesses, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt against the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above point Nos. 1 to 4 are in the negative.
14. Point No.5:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.341, 324, 504 , 506(B) of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today. 9 Property seized in PF.No.130/2017 dated 08.10.2017 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer and some part of manuscript text edited by her and then print out taken by her is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03- 01-2024.) (Sanjeev Kumar S.Hindoddi) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
1. Smt.Latha
2. Dharagesh.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Statement of PW.1
2. Complaint
3. Mahazar
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- -NIL -
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
10 11 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.341, 324, 504 , 506(B) of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
Property seized in PF.No.130/2017 dated 08.10.2017 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
12 13 KABC030217302023 IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
PRESENT:- SRI.SANJEEV KUMAR S. HINDODDI B.COM., LL.M. XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.
C.C. NO.12151-2023 JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
11. Sl. No. of the Case 12151-2023
12. The date of commission 23.09.2022 of the offence
13. Name of the complainant Bagalagunte Police Station.
14. Name of the accused 1) Chetan @ Tube Chetan S/o.Shivanna, 32 years, R/at. Sighehalli Gate, Ksrtc Bus Stop Behind, 14 Bengaluru.
2) Mohan @ Moni @ Gandhi S/o.Shivanna, 22 years , R/at. Sighehalli Gate, Ksrtc Bus Stop Behind, Bengaluru.
3) Nithin D @ Fox, S/o.Doddegowda, 20 years, R/at No. 53 6th Cross, Gayatri Layout Ramasandra,Bengaluru.
15. The offence complained U/sec.341, 323, 324, 504 , 506 of or proved r/w 34 of IPC.
16. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty his examination
17. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
18. Accused represented Sri.KNS Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
19. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused -1 to 3 are acquitted.
20. Date of such order 26/10/2023 For the following:-
15 JUDGMENT The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 323, 324, 504 , 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 23.09.2022 at about 5.00 p.m. near the park of Gangamma Police Station., within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station, accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence wrongfully restrained CW.1 and 2 and stabbed with knife to the back head of CW.1. Again accused have assaulted with hands on the cheek of CW.2, abused CW.1 and 2 and threatened them with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused -1 is in judicial custody. Accused -2 and 3 are on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the 16 offences punishable U/sec.341, 323, 324, 504 , 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined CW.1 as PW.1 and CW.2 as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 and 2. CW.3 to 9 are dropped. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6.The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 23.09.2022 at about 5.00 p.m. near the park of Gangamma Police Station., within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station, accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence wrongfully restrained CW.1 and 2 from moving 17 further and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 r/w 34 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence stabbed with knife to the back head of CW.1 thereby caused bleeding injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence assaulted with hands on the cheek of CW.2 thus voluntarily caused hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.323 r/w 34 of IPC.?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of 18 common intention to commit an offence abused CW.1 and 2 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 r/w 34 of IPC.?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence threatened CW.1 and 2 with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 506 r/w 34 of IPC.?
6. What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 5: In the negative Point No.6: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point Nos.1 to 5:-
19 The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
9.In order to substantiate the contents of complaint, very complainant is examined as PW.1 and CW. 2 is examined as PW.2, but they fully turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In their evidence they have deposed accused have neither restrained them wrongfully nor assaulted with hands or with any weapon.
They further deposed that accused have neither abused nor put any kind of life threat. PW.1 further deposed that, due to some misunderstanding with accused he had been to Police Station, wherein police took his signatures on documents as per Ex.P1 and P2, but he denied the contents of the complaint - Ex.P.1 and Mahazar Ex.P2. PW.2 denied for having given statement as per Ex.P3.
10. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has specifically denied about filing of complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 20
11. As I discussed above, after evidence of PW.1 & 2, learned Sr.APP has prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. In this case, PW.1 & 2 being the complainant and victim have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the cross- examination PW.1 and 2 have clearly admitted that matter is ended in compromise. Admittedly investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.324 of IPC., which is non-compoundable in nature. In my considered view, due to compromise, PW.1 and 2 might have said goodbye to the case of prosecution.
12.Apart from this, when PW.1 & 2 being the complainant and victim have not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Moreover, in order to maintain cordial relationship between accused and complainant in future days and to save the precious time of court, other witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.
21
13.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence of the victim as well as other independent witnesses, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt against the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above point Nos. 1 to 5 are in the negative.
14. Point No.6:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused - 2 and 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.341, 323, 324, 504 , 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused -2 and 3 and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Issue direction to jail authority to release accused -1 forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Property seized in PF.No.161/2022 dated 25.09.2022 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer and some part of manuscript text edited by her and then print out taken by her is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26-10-2023.) 22 (Sanjeev Kumar S.Hindoddi) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
3. Madhusudan.P
4. Dhanushree.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar
3. Statement of PW.2
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- -NIL -
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
23 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused - 2 and 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.341, 323, 324, 504 , 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused -2 and 3 and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Issue direction to jail authority to release accused -1 forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Property seized in PF.No.161/2022 dated 25.09.2022 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
24 25