Bangalore District Court
Dorai vs Manjunath Alias Mavalli Manju on 29 May, 2025
1 C.C.No.6083/2020
KABC030273652020
Presented on : 17-06-2020
Registered on : 17-06-2020
Decided on : 29-05-2025
Duration : 4 years, 11 months, 12 days
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 29th day of May 2025
PRESENT: SRI.RANGEGOWDA.C
B.A.L., LL.B.,
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No. 6083/2020
COMPLAINANT :: State by - Police Inspector,
Bommanahalli Police Station
(Represented by Sr.APP)
Vs.
ACCUSED : Manjunath @ Mavalli Manju
37 years, No.05, 17th Cross
Chinnaiahnapalya, Bengaluru
(Represented by Advocate Sri.Narayana Swamy)
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C., 1973
1. Sl. No. of the Case 6083/2020
2. The date of commission 31-08-2019
of the offence
2 C.C.No.6083/2020
3. Name of the complainant Dorai
4. Name of the accused Manjunath @ Mavalli Manju
5. The offence complained of U/sec.341, 427, 504, 506 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused is acquitted
8. Date of judgment 28-05-2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is the case registered on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by PSI of Bommanahalli police station against the accused alleging the offences punishable u/s. 341, 427, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as fallows;
On 30-08-2019 at about 11.30 p.m. in Babureddy Layout, Roopena Agrahara, Bommanahalli, CW1 was walking in front of house No.07, at that time the accused No.1 came in a motor cycle along with accused No.2, wrongfully restrained CW1, picked up quarrel with him abused him in filthy language, gave life threat and went 3 C.C.No.6083/2020 away. On the same day at about 12.15 p.m., the accused No.1 and 2 came in a motor cycle and damaged the autorickshaw of CW1, which was parked in front of his house bearing Reg.No.KA-03-AA-9404 by breaking the front glass.
3. On the basis of the first information lodged by the informant CW-1, case was registered against the accused No.1 and 2. After completion of investigation IO filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the above mentioned offences.
4. After perusal of the charge sheet since there are sufficient materials which constitute the offences alleged, cognizance of the above said offences taken by this Court. The accused appeared before the Court and released on bail.
5. Copies of charge sheet supplied to accused u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard, the counsel for the accused on framing of 4 C.C.No.6083/2020 charge. On hearing the counsel for accused and on perusal of the materials on record there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the alleged offences, hence charge for the above offences framed and read over to accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Thereafter, in order to prove the accusation leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to 7 are marked.
7. On 20-08-2022 CW1 reported to be dead. Even after issuance of summons, warrant and proclamation against CW2 to 5, the prosecution has failed to secure the presence of said witnesses. Hence by rejecting prayer of Ld.Sr.APP CW2 to 5 are dropped. At the request of Ld.Sr.APP, CW7 is given up.
8. The statement of the accused recorded u/s.313 of 5 C.C.No.6083/2020 Cr.P.C. He denied the entire incriminating evidence available in the prosecution evidence. He did not chose to adduce defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
10. The following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 30-08-2019 at about 11.30 p.m., Babureddy Layout, Roopena Agrahara, Bommanahalli, CW1 walking in front of house No.07, at that time the accused No.1 came in a motor cycle along with accused No.2, wrongfully restrained CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused No.1 abused CW1 in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC?6 C.C.No.6083/2020
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time accused No.1 gave life threat to CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date and place at about 12.15 a.m., the accused No.1 and 2 came in a motor cycle and damaged the autorickshaw of CW1, which was parked in front of his house bearing Reg.No.KA-03-AA-9404 by breaking the front glass and caused loss to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC?
5. What order?
11. The above points are answered as follows;
Point No.1 - Negative Point No.2 - Negative Point No.3 - Negative 7 C.C.No.6083/2020 Point No.4 - Negative Point No.5 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
12. Point No.1 to 4: These points are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
13. In this case the complainant/CW1 reported to be dead on 20-08-2022. Even after issuance of summons, warrant and proclamation the prosecution has failed secure the presence of CW2 to 5. Hence they were dropped. The Ld.Sr.APP has given up CW7 on 19.02.2025. Therefore the evidence available on record is the evidence of PW1 Police Constable who apprehend the accused, PW2 PSI who registered FIR against the accused, conducted spot mahazar and PW3 PSI who further investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused.
14. In view of the death of complainant CW1, the non 8 C.C.No.6083/2020 examination of eye witnesses CW-4 and 5 and mahazar witness CW-2 and 3, is fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the accusation levelled against the accused No.1.
15. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW1 to 3 is not sufficient to hold that accused No.1 has committed the offence as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the accusation leveled against the accused No1 beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, Point No.1 to 4 is answered in the Negative.
16. Point No.5: For the foregoing reasons and findings on point No.1 to 4 the following order is passed;
ORDER Exercising the powers under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for 9 C.C.No.6083/2020 the offence punishable u/Sec.341, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC.
In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, personal bond and bail bonds of the accused and surety shall stand cancelled after 6 (six) months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of May 2025).
Digitally signed by RANGEGOWDA RANGEGOWDA CHIDANANDA CHIDANANDA Date: 2025.05.29 12:11:50 +0530 (RANGEGOWDA.C) CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution PW.1 Shivanagowda PW.2 B R Nagaraj PW.3 Shivappa Exhibits Marked 10 C.C.No.6083/2020 Ex.P1 Report Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW3 Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P3 FIR Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P4 Spot Mahazar Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P5 to 7 Photographs 3 nos. Material Objects got marked NIL Defense witnesses : NIL
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defense: NIL (RANGEGOWDA.C) CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY 11 C.C.No.6083/2020 29-05-2025 (Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order) ORDER Exercising the powers under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/Sec.341, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC.
In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, personal bond and bail bonds of the accused and surety shall stand cancelled after 6 (six) months.
CJM, BENGALURU CITY