Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1: Sri.Muniswamy on 5 December, 2016
1 C.C.NO.22839/2012
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 5th December 2016
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.No:22839/2012
Complainant: The State represented by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Magadi Road Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1: Sri.Muniswamy,
S/o Sri.Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 30 yrs,
R/at:No:5, "C" Road,
3rd Cross, Gopalapura,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-23.
2 C.C.NO.22839/2012
A2: Sri.Manju,
S/o Sri.Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 25 yrs,
R/at:No:5, "C" Road,
3rd Cross, Gopalapura,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-23.
A3: Sri.Shankar,
S/o Sri.Mallaiah,
Aged about 19 yrs,
R/at:No:19, "C" Road,
3rd Cross, Gopalapura,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-23.
(By Sri. VR Adv., Bengaluru)
---
JUDGEMENT U/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.22839/2012
Date of offence : 13/2/2012
Complainant : Smt.Lakshmi
Accused : As detailed above
3 C.C.NO.22839/2012
Offence : U/Sec.341, 323, 326, 504 and
506 r/w 34 of IPC
Charge : Accused claimed to be tried
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 5/12/2016
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
JUDGEMENT
The PSI of Magadi Road Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 323, 326, 504 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 12/2/2012 there was a function of Gowtham and after completion of the function while vacating the choultry and shifting the articles the accused No.1 abused in filthy language as there was 4 C.C.NO.22839/2012 disturbance. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13/2/2012 at about 7-30 a.m. the CWs.1 and 4 standing near the House No.104 at that time the accused persons came and all of a sudden abused in filthy language, wrongfully restrained, the accused No.2 has assaulted CW1 by making use of a iron rod.
It is the case of the prosecution the CW4 intervened to rescue CW1 at that time the accused No.2 assaulted resulting in grievous injury. It is the case of the prosecution when the CW1 fell to the earth the accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted by their legs, abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. On the complaint of CW.1 by name Smt.Lakshmi the Magadi Road Police have registered a case in Crime No.54/2012 and after completion of investigation filed the chargesheet.
3. The accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged the services of a counsel. The charges framed by the learned predecessor and the accused claimed to be tried. 5 C.C.NO.22839/2012 The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and relied upon the documents as per as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and property iron rod as per Mo.1. The 313 Cr.P.C., statement of the accused persons is recorded. No defence evidence adduced by the accused persons.
4. Heard, perused the entire case records.
5. The only point that arises for my consideration is:
1.Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 323, 326, 504 and 506 R/w section 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order For the following:
::REASONS::
7. Point No.1: In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined Smt.Lakshmi as PW1. By identifying the accused persons it is the evidence about the 6 C.C.NO.22839/2012 commission of the offences by the accused persons and as per the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and also identified the iron rod as per MO.No.1. During the course of cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused persons an attempt has been made to elicit in detail with regard to the function and gathering of friends and relatives.
8. The suggestion for having made the disturbance, visit of Police and lodging a complaint has been denied. It is the admission for having intimated the duty Doctor for having assaulted by three persons. All the other suggestions denying the case of the prosecution as well as the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and seizure of MO.No.1 has been denied.
9. The prosecution has also examined Sri. Kumar as PW2. It is also his similar evidence to that of PW1 with regard to the commission of the offences by the accused persons. It is his evidence the accused persons have assaulted by making use of iron rod resulting in grievous injuries. Like that of PW1 the PW2 was also subjected to a 7 C.C.NO.22839/2012 lengthy cross examination and an attempt has been made to elicit in detail with regard to the function as well as the number of friends and relatives gathered and the timings. All the other suggestions denying the case of the prosecution as well as the identity MO.No.1 has been denied.
10. The prosecution has also examined Smt.Jagadamma as PW3. By identifying the accused persons as well as CW1 it is the evidence about the function. In view of the health condition of PW3 the further chief examination was deferred.
11. By referring to the available oral and documentary evidence the learned Sr.APP prayed to convict the accused persons. As against the said submission it was the submission of the learned defence counsel the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused persons.
12. On comparison of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with that of the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 various omissions and contradictions are forthcoming which goes against the case 8 C.C.NO.22839/2012 of the prosecution. Admittedly, the evidence of PW3 is incomplete and the same does not survive for consideration. Even as per the case of the prosecution the stated injured have been treated and inspite of it the medical documents remained without proof as the Investigation Agency failed to secure the Doctor to speak about the authenticity of the medical documents.
13. The order sheet reveals inspite of issuance of summons, bailable warrant and NBW against the other charge sheeted witnesses the concerned investigation agency failed to secure any of the witnesses before the Court except PWs.1 to 3. It is necessary to mention the PWs.1 to 3 are the relatives and there is necessity to consider their evidence with care and caution.
14. It is necessary to mention the other signatories of spot mahazar including the Police officials and the Investigating Officer who has filed the chargesheet also remained absent from appearing before the Court. The 9 C.C.NO.22839/2012 evidence of PWs.1 to 3 itself is not sufficient. Thereby, there is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Consequently, resulting in failure to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Under the said circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the accused persons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
15. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 323, 326, 504 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of accused persons stand cancelled.10 C.C.NO.22839/2012
The accused persons are at liberty to withdraw the cash security amount of Rs.1,000/- each after appeal period. The MO.No.1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period. (Dictated to the stenographer on computer, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 5/12/2016).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. ::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Smt.Lakshmi PW2 : Sri.Kumar PW3 : Smt.Jagadamma
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
11 C.C.NO.22839/2012
3. Material objects
marked :
MO1 : Iron Rod
4. Defence Evidence: NIL
---
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.