Bangalore District Court
Mahalingaiah, Hc-6680 vs Rahul R on 12 June, 2024
1
CC.No.16395/21
KABC030480232021
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024
Present: SRI.VISHWANATH C.GOWDAR
B.A.L, LL.M.,
C/C.XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. No.16395/21
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka through
: K.G.Nagar Police station
(Rep by Learned APP)
V/s.
Accused Rahul.R
: S/o Rangaiah
Aged 2 years
R/at. Near Krishnaswamy Temple
Ranganatha Layout
Harohalli, Kanakapura Tq,
Ramanagar.
Rep.by Sri.RDV-Adv
1. Date of commission of : 10/02/2021
offense
2
CC.No.16395/21
2. Date of report of offence 10/02/2021
3. Date of arrest of the : Accused is on bail.
accused
4. Name of the complainant : 11/02/2021
5. Date of commencement of : 23/02/2023
recording of evidence
6. Date of conclusion of : 12/06/2023
recording of
7. Offence complained of : Offences punishable under
Sections 25-1(B) (b) of Arms
Act and U/s.229A of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge Accused is not found guilty
of the offences under Sec. 25-
1(B) (b) of Arms Act and
U/s.229A of IPC.
C/C.XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.G.Nagar Police station has filed chargesheet against accused for the offences punishable u/s. 25-1 (B) (b) of Arms Act and Sec.229A of IPC.
2.THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE IS AS UNDER :
That the accused in the case on hand had obtained bail from the Honble Sessions Court ie CCH 69 in S.C.No.1256/2017 and on obtaining the bail, since the accused failed to appear 3 CC.No.16395/21 before the court and violated the conditions of bail, NBW was issued against said accused. That on 10.02.2021 at about 8.15.p.m the accused was found to be possessing deadly weapon ie dragon of 18 inches near Sree Bandikalamma Temple, within the limits of K.G.Nagar police station with an intention to use said deadly weapon ie draggon (ಕತ್ತಿ) by exhibiting the same to the public and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.251-B (b) of the Arms Act and Sec.229A of IPC.
3. On receipt of First Information by the complainant/PW1, K.G.Nagar Police have registered the case in Cr.NO.13/2021 for the offences punishable u/s.25-1B(b) of Arms Act and Sec.229A of IPC and transmitted the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. After completion investigation, the IO has filed the final report against the accused for having committed the offence punishable U/s.25-1B(b) of Arms Act and Sec.229A of IPC.
4. Thereafter, my predecessor in office after careful examination of the charge sheet and prosecution papers has taken cognizance of offences U/s.25-1B(b) of Arms Act and Sec.229A of IPC.
5. On service of summons, the accused appeared through counsel and filed bail application. The same was considered and the accused has been enlarged on bail.
4 CC.No.16395/21
6. After appearance of accused, charge sheet copy, statement of the witnesses and documents along with the charge sheet has been supplied to the accused in compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. . Thereafter, my predecessor in office has heard the learned Sr.APP and the counsel for accused and framed charge by reading over and explaining the allegations of the prosecution to the accused for the offence punishable U/s.25-1B(b) of Arms Act and Sec.229A of IPC. The accused has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked in all three documents as Ex.P.1 to P.3 and got admitted M.O.No.1and closed its evidence. The statement of the accused as contemplated u/s.313 of Cr.P.C is recorded. The accused denied incriminating materials appearing against him and submitted that he has no defense evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard both the sides. Perused final report , oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution .
9. On the basis of the above, the following points arise for consideration of this court:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused by obtaining bail in SC.No.1256/17 on the file of the Honble Sessions Court ie CCH 69 Bengaluru, without appearing before 5 CC.No.16395/21 the court for trial, violated the conditions of bail and thereby committed the offences u/s.229A of IPC ?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 10/02/2021 at about 8.15 pm., near Bande Mahakalamma temple, the accused found possessing deadly weapon without obtaining valid license and by showing the same to public, created fear and thereby committed the offences u/s.25- 1(B) (b) of Arms Act ?
3) What order?
10. My answer to the above points is as under:
Point No.1 &2 : In the Negative Pointe No.3 : As per final order for the following REASONS
11. Point No.1&2 : These points are interlinked to each other. In order to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up for discussion together .
12. The prosecution burdened to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt has got examined three 6 CC.No.16395/21 witnesses as PW's 1 to 3 and got marked in all 3 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and got admitted M.O.No.1 .
13. It is the prosecution's case that, on 10.02.2021 at about 8.15.p.m the accused was found to be possessing deadly weapon ie dragon of 18 inches near Sree Bandikalamma Temple, within the limits of K.G.Nagar police station with an intention to use said deadly weapon by exhibiting the same to the public and committed an offence and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant by the informants of the complainant. At that time, the complainant and his colleagues having rushed to the spot, they got to know that NBW is issued by the Honble CCH69 in S.C.No.1256/17 against the accused and thereby the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s.2501(B) (b) of Arms Act and u/s.229A of IPC.
14. The complainant arrayed as CW 1 is examined as PW 1 and he has deposed as to that, on 10.02.2021 , the SHO deputed him and CW's 4 and 5 to secure Accused No.1 in Cr.No.19/2017 and NBW was issued against him by the Honble Sessions Court in S.C.No.1256/2017. He has also deposed 7 CC.No.16395/21 regarding having received credible information from the informants as to said accused being found near Bandimahakalamma Temple, K.G.Nagar at about 8.30p.m . Thereafter said PW 1 along with his colleagues having rushed to the aforesaid spot, they found that the accused was possessing dragon with an unlawful intention to use the said deadly weapon against the public to commit an offence.
15. The said witness has also accounted regarding the accused being produced before the SHO at about 8.20p.m. with a report. The witness has identified said report and the same is marked as Ex.P.1 and the signature is marked as Ex.P1(a). The katti has been identified by the witness and the same is admitted as M.O.No.1.
16. PW 1 has been subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for accused wherein he has deposed as to the credible information received from the informants at about 8.10p.m. It is also accounted as to the witness along with his colleagues having been to the house of accused wherein the accused was not found. The witness has pleaded ignorance regarding the accused 8 CC.No.16395/21 having displayed said deadly weapon to the public. The other suggestions as to the witness is deposing falsely at the instance of his superiors has been specifically denied by the witness.
17. The independent witness to the seizure mahazar Cw 2 is examined as PW 2. The said witness has identified the accused and deposed as to that, on 10.02.2021 , he had been to K.G.Nagar police station at about 9.00p.m at the request of the police officials on being served with notice. He has also accounted regarding the police officials having seized the deadly weapon ie dragon in his presence by drawing the mahazar. The witness has identified his signature on the seizure mahazar and the same is marked as Ex.P.2 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.2(a). The witness has also identified M.O.NO.1.
18. PW 2 has been subjected for cross-examination by the counsel for accused. The said witness has pleaded ignorance regarding the details of CW3. The said witness has also accounted as to M.O.NO.1 was found with the accused on his visit to the police station in connection to the case on hand.
9 CC.No.16395/21
19. CW6 who is arrayed as a police official is examined as PW3 . This witness has accounted as to being deputed as SHO on 10.02.2021 and having received the report as per Ex.P.1 at about 8.30p.m. by PW 1 along with the accused and M.O. No.1. He has also deposed regarding registration of Cr.No.13/2021 and having transmitted the FIR to the court and his superiors. The signature of the witness on Ex.P.1 is marked as Ex.P.1(b). FIR is marked as Ex.P.3 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.3(a). He has also accounted regarding having secured the witnesses to the mahazar to the station by serving the notice on said witnesses and having seized the deadly weapon ie the dragon/katti in presence of the witnesses between 9.00 and 9.45 p.m. by drawing the seizure mahazar. The signature of the witness on Ex.P.2 is marked as Ex.P.2(b). The witness has also deposed regarding recording of statements of CW's 2 to 6 and having charge sheeted the accused in the case on hand.
20. PW 3 has been subjected for cross-examination by the counsel for accused. The suggestion as to the accused is innocent 10 CC.No.16395/21 and has been falsely implicated in the case on hand has been specifically denied by the witness.
21. During the course of trial CW3 was dropped pursuant to failure of the prosecution to secure him after issuance of NBW and proclamation vide order dt.19.07.2023 . CWs 4 & 5 were given up vide order dt.23.02.2023.
22. The Lr.Sr.APP has vehemently argued that the prosecution's case has been established to the satisfaction of this court by establishihg the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Lr.Sr.APP has placed reliance on the testimonies of Pws 1 to 3 and so also the exhibits marked through said witnesses and sought for conviction of the accused for alleged offences.
23. The learned counsel for accused emphatically argued that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring out the guilt of the accused and it has been stressed regarding the testimony of PW 2 who is argued to be planted witness to substantiate the frivolous case lodged by the complainant. It is also vehemently argued that the accused being innocent has been falsely implicated 11 CC.No.16395/21 in the case on hand for the purpose of statistics. Amongst these arguments, it has been sought to acquit the accused in the case on hand.
24. On over all examination of the prosecution papers, evidence on record and the arguments canvassed by either parties, this court has to analyse and appreciate the evidence on record to gather commission of offence as alleged in the final report. It is relevant to note that, the complainant / PW 1 who is the official attached to the complainant department got credible information and he rushed to the spot ie near Sree Bandimahakalamma Temple at about 8.30p.m. Whereas according to the independent witness PW 2 , he was summoned to the police station at about 9.00p.m. and he found the accused with M.O.1. According to the Investigating Officer, the accused along with M.O.1 was produced at 8.30 pm by PW 1.
25. On examination of aforesaid testimonies of PW s 1 to 3, it transpires that on receipt of information, interception, production of accused along with M.O.1 and arresting of accused has taken place within a span of 10 minutes ie between 8.20pm to 12 CC.No.16395/21 8.30p.m. According to the version of PW 1, the accused was intercepted at a distance of about 300 to 400 mtrs from the police station. It is very much astonishing to accept that PW 1 along with his colleagues on receipt of credible information at about 8.30p.m., have rushed to about 300 to 400 mtrs from their police station and having intercepted the accused, brought the said accused and produced him before the SHO at 8.30p.m.
26. It is also pertinent to note that, the complainant's allegation as to interception, accused having been found to be displaying deadly weapon to the public is not at all supported by the testimony of any of the independent witnesses.
27. It is also relevant to note that, except the complaint averments regarding the accused being issued NBW by the Honble Sessions Court ie CCH69 , there is no iota of documentary evidence to substantiate said allegation of the complainant as to NBW being issued against the accused. The Investigation Officer has not produced any documents in connection to the pendency of case against the accused before the Hon'ble Sessions Court ie 13 CC.No.16395/21 CCH 69 and NBW being issued against him, the same is contrary to Sec.91 of the Indian Evidence Act.
28. In the case on hand, the prosecution's case is very much tainted with substantial improvement, omissions and contradictions. It is needless to point out that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring about the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with corroborating testimonies of independent witnesses.
29. This court is of the view that, mere allegation of the prosecution appears to be not acceptable on account of being contrary to the very settled principles of the Indian Evidence Act which mandates basic proof as that of a "prudent man". In other words, this court is of the view that mere allegation of the complainant is unreasonable. This court is also of the considered view that the ingredients of alleged offences are not made out in the case on hand. Hence, without any hesitation this court proceeds to answer Point Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
30. POINT NO.3 In view of the above findings on point Nos.1 and 2, this court proceeds to pass the following: 14
CC.No.16395/21 ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.25-1(B) (b) of Arms Act and U/s.229A of IPC.
Consequently, accused is set at liberty.
The bail bond and corresponding surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and computerised by her corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of June , 2024 ) (VISHWANATH C.GOWDAR ) C/c. XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Mahalingaiah
PW-2 : Gopi
PW-3 : Shivashankar
2. List of documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Requisition
Ex.P-2 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.3 : FIR
15
CC.No.16395/21
3. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
-Nil-
4. List of documents marked for the accused:
-Nil-
5.List of material objects marked for the Prosecution:
MO1 : Katti/Dragon
(VISHWANATH C.GOWDAR )
C/c. XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
16
CC.No.16395/21
17
CC.No.16395/21
18
CC.No.16395/21
19
CC.No.16395/21