Bangalore District Court
State By Rmc Yard Police Station vs Nos.1 To 3 For The Offences Punishable ... on 28 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 28th day of August 2015
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 15432/2013
2.Date of Offence 7-7-2013
3.Complainant State by RMC Yard Police station
4.Accused 1. Krishnamurthy @ Krishna
s/o. Late Lakshmana, aged 19 years,
R/a No.16, Lakshmidevamma
building, 10th Cross,
Goruguntepalya, Bangalore.
2. Praveena
s/o. Pathalingappa, aged 20 years,
R/a No.16, Lakshmidevamma
building, 10th Cross,
Goruguntepalya, Bangalore .
3. Manthesha @ Manu
s/o. Late Krishnappa, R/a No.16,
Lakshmidevamma building,
10th Cross, Goruguntepalya,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 341, 323 and 326 of IPC r/w 34
of of IPC
6.Plea/charged framed Accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not
on guilty
2 C.C.No.15432/2013
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 28-8-2015
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, RMC Yard Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under
section 341, 323 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,
on 7-7-2013 at 2-00 p.m., in playground adjacent to FFI
Garments at Yeshawanthapura Industrial area within the
limits of RMC Yard Police Station, the group of C.W.1
Arunachalam and group of accused persons were playing
cricket. After finishing the said cricket match, when they
were returning, these accused persons with common
intention picked up quarrel with C.W.1 pertaining to
result of the match, wrongfully restrained him and
thereby accused Nos.2 and 3 voluntarily caused simple
hurt to him with hands and accused No.1 voluntarily
caused grievous hurt with stone on his left leg and
thereby committed aforesaid offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on bail. On receipt of
chargesheet, this court took cognizance of the offences
and furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the
3 C.C.No.15432/2013
accused persons. After hearing on charges, this court
framed the charge for the offences punishable U/s. 341,
323 and 326 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and read over to the
accused Nos.1 to 3 in the language known to them, they
denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove guilt against
accused Nos.1 to 3 has examined five witnesses as
P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked six documents at Exs.P1 to
P6. Since C.Ws.3, 6, 7 and 9 to 12 did not turn up before
this court, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP, this court
dropped the examination of said witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused
Nos.1 to 3 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused
persons denied the incriminating evidence appeared
against them and submitted that they have no defence
evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the
accused persons has examined five witnesses. P.W.1
Dr.S.G. Shetty is the Medical Officer who treated P.W.2
the injured. P.W.2 Arunachalam is the complainant and
injured witness. P.W.3 Ranjith, P.W.4 Raghu and P.W.5
Madhu are the eyewitnesses. It appears, in spite of
giving sufficient opportunities the prosecution has not
4 C.C.No.15432/2013
examined the mahazar witnesses, the police constable
who assisted the investigation officer in arresting the
accused persons and the Investigating Officer.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence on record.
The testimony of P.W.2 Arunachalam the complainant and
injured indicating that on 7-7-2013, at 2-00 p.m., they
were playing cricket match in a ground attached to FFI
factory at Peenya. In the said cricket match, his group
had won the same. Accordingly, he and his group
members demanded the accused persons to pay betting
amount of Rs.100/- but they did not pay. Thereafter,
when he and his team members were returning to their
home, the accused persons wrongfully confined his team
members. When he and others questioned the accused
persons, intern they picked up quarrel with him and
thereby accused No.2 assaulted him with cricket bat on
his left leg and caused fracture injury. Immediately, his
friends shifted him to the Rajarajeshwari Hospital for
treatment. His testimony further indicating that, the other
accused persons have also assaulted him with hands. It
appears P.W.2 has not identified the seized stone produced
before the court as the weapon used by the accused
persons for the commission of the offences. Since, P.W.2
has not deposed as per the case of the prosecution the
Learned Sr.APP treated him as hostile and cross-
5 C.C.No.15432/2013
examined. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted
that the accused persons wrongfully restrained him and
thereby accused Nos.2 and 3 voluntarily caused hurt to
him with hands. He further admitted the suggestion that
the accused No.2 caused fracture injury with stone.
However, he voluntarily stated that the said accused hit
him with cricket bat and thereafter with stone. He denied
the suggestion that though the accused No.1 assaulted
him with stone and caused fracture injury, he is deposing
falsely that the accused No.2 Praveen assaulted him with
cricket bat and caused fracture injury. It appears the
testimony of P.W.1 is self-contradictory and his evidence is
not in corroboration with his complaint averments.
However, in the cross-examination of the learned counsel
for the accused persons, P.W.2 has admitted that he does
not know the contents of complaint. Ex.P1 is the
complaint. In Ex.P1, P.W.2 has not mentioned the fact
that accused No.2 Praveen caused fracture injury with
cricket bat. However, he stated that all the accused
persons caused fracture injury with stone. In my opinion,
the testimony of P.W.2 is not trustworthy to believe.
Moreover, P.W.2 in his further cross-examination of
learned counsel for accused persons dated 29-7-2015, has
admitted that he cannot say exactly who caused fracture
injury to him with which object. This admission of P.W.2 is
contradictory to the case of the prosecution. However, in
6 C.C.No.15432/2013
the further cross-examination of Learned Sr.APP, he
admitted that after his examination before this court, he
and accused persons have entered into compromise.
Since, P.W.2 and accused persons have compromised the
matter outside the court. In my opinion, since accused
persona and P.W.2 have compromised the matter that is
the reason why P.W.2 in his further cross-examination has
go bye to the case of the prosecution and stated that he
cannot say who caused fracture injury to him with which
object. Anyhow, the testimony of P.W.2 is not in
corroboration to his complaint averments. Therefore, in
order to believe the testimony of P.W.2, corroboration by
medical evidence and the evidence of eyewitnesses are
necessary.
9. As stated above, P.W.1 is the Medical Officer. His
testimony indicating that on 4-7-2013, at 3-00 p.m., one
Arunachalam P.W.2 herein visited his hospital with a
history of assault. On examination, he found blunt injury
in his leg and at the request of P.W.2 he referred to the
government hospital for further treatment. It is to be
noted here that, at the request of Learned Sr.APP, the
further examination of P.W.1 was deferred. Unfortunately
thereafter, P.W.1 has not tendered himself for further
examination. As per the well settled law, if the evidence of
any witness is recorded in part, for some reason, the
7 C.C.No.15432/2013
further examination of the said witness defers,
subsequently, if the said witness did not turn up before
the court, in such circumstances, whatever the part
evidence of the said witness cannot be looked into. In the
instant case, admittedly, P.W.1 has not tendered for
further examination therefore his testimony cannot be
looked into. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined
another medical officer who treated P.W.2 in Government
Hospital. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to give
corroboration of medical evidence to the testimony of
P.W.2.
10. P.Ws.3 to P.W.5 the eyewitnesses have totally
turned hostile. The Learned Sr.APP treated these three
witnesses as hostile and further cross-examined them, but
nothing worth is elicited from them. Therefore, the
prosecution has also failed to give independent
corroboration to the testimony of P.W.2.
11. As stated above, at the repetition of cost, in
spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has
not examined other witnesses on record. It appears even
though the prosecution to prove guilt against accused
persons has examined five witnesses it has failed to bring
home the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. As stated above, at the repetition of cost, the
injured P.W.2 and accused persons have compromised the
8 C.C.No.15432/2013
matter out side the court. Therefore, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence
available on record, I am of the considered opinion that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the
accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for benefit
of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under section 341, 323 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
Hence, acting under sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The property seized under PF No.87/2013 one stone is being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and computerized by him and print out taken by him is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of August 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
9 C.C.No.15432/2013ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Dr. S.G. Shetty, P.W.2 Arunachalam, P.W.3 Ranjith, P.W.4 Raghu P.W.5 Madhu
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Certificate issued by PW-1 Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2 Complainant of P.W.2 Ex.P2(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P3 Further statement of complainant Ex.P4 Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5 Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P6 Statement of P.W.5 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.O.1, Stone LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.