Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : Umesha on 28 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 28 th day of March 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R. Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 767/2020
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Station House Officer,
Kamakshi Palya Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : Umesha,
S/o. Kalegowda,
Aged: 35 years,
R/o. No.53, Seegehalli,
Kadabagere Post,
Bengaluru.
Accused No.2 : Jagadisha
S/o. Narayanappa,
Aged: 30 years,
R/o. No. 287, Sunnakalu palya
village, Kengeri Town,
Uttarahalli road, Bengaluru.
2 SC No.767/2020
Accused No.3 : Kumar S/o. Krishnappa,
Aged 28 years, Thagalli
village, Koppa Hobli,
Maddur Tq. Mandya Dist.
Accused No.4 : Purushotham S/o. Jayaram,
Aged 29 years, Beside St.Mary's
School,Vrushabhavathi Nagar,
Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru.
Native Place:
Thagalli village,
Koppa Hobli,
Maddur Tq. Mandya Dist.
Accused No.5 : Venkatesha S/o. Javaraiah,
(SPLIT-UP) Aged 20 years, R/at 3rd cross,
Near Ganesha Temple,
Vrushabhavathi Nagar,
Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru.
Native Place:
Huliyuru Durga village,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur Dist.
(A-1 to A-4 By Sri AGVB,Advocate)
1 Date of commission of offence 19/04/2013
2 Date of report of offence 21/04/2013
3 SC No.767/2020
3 Date of arrest of the
Accused No.1 to 4 19/04/2013
4 Date of release of accused on
bail:
Accused No.1, 3 & 4 25/07/2014
Accused No.2 30/07/2014
5 Date of commencement of
evidence 15/07/2016
6 Date of closing of evidence 21/09/2021
7 Name of the complainant Sri. V. V. Dayananda
PSI,
8 Offences complained of Sections 143, 144,
147, 324, 253 of IPC R/w.
Sec. 149 of I.P.C.
9 Opinion of the Judge A1 to 4 found not
guilty
10 Order of Sentence As per final order
JUDGMENT
PSI, Kamakshipalya PS Bengaluru has filed the present charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offences 4 SC No.767/2020 punishable U/s. 143, 144, 147, 324 and 353 of IPC r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under:-
That during the year 2013, complainant V.V. Dayanand was working as PSI, Pulakeshinagara PS Bengaluru. He was in-charge of investigation of the case in Cr.No.59/2013 of Pulakeshinagara PS registered against one Chandru for the offence publishable U/s 420 of IPC pursuant to the complaint given by CW6 Vijayashekara. Therefore, he caused the arrest of accused Chandru at 2 pm on 19.04.2013 and brought him to the station for enquiry. He recorded voluntary statement of said Chandru and pursuant to the same we went along with the accused Chandru, CW6 Vijayashekar, PC Sanaulla, PC- HS Sridhar, PC Sunil and PC Nagaraj to Raju creations garment factory situated in Vrushabhavathi Nagara within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya PS to effect the seizure 5 SC No.767/2020 of sewing machines pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Chandru. Before going to the spot he intimated the the same to jurisdictional police station by submitting a report and proceeded to Raju creations garment factory premises at about 5.45 pm. Accused Chandru lead the police party to the 4th floor of the building to show the room where he had kept sewing machines. Hence, along with the panchas and the staff, complainant proceeded to the 4th floor with the accused to conduct mahazar to seize the sewing machines. When the complainant was examining the machines, by that time around 10 to 15 factory workers by forming unlawful assembly with an object to commit the ill legal acts amounting to offence under the IPC and in prosecution of such common object by holding weapons like scissors and rods came to the 4 th floor and started abusing the complainant and other police staff. They made an attempt to assault the police party including the complainant. When the police party made an attempt 6 SC No.767/2020 to prevent the same, by that time the unlawful assembly assaulted the police party with the weapons and torn their uniforms. Thus by causing voluntary hurt to police officials they deterred the police officials from discharging their official duty. In the meantime accused Chandru, in a bid to escape from the lawful custody of the police jumped from the 4th floor and fell down on the ground sustaining bleeding injuries. At this stage around 100 to 150 workers gathered on the spot and objected to shift the injured Chandru to the hospital in the ambulance. Thus alleging that, 10 to 15 garment factory workers by forming an unlawful assemble and in prosecution of common object of such assemble attacked the police party by holding deadly weapons and caused hurt to the police officials and deterred them from discharging their official duty, complainant V.V. Dayanand filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. Pursuant to the said complaint a case was registered in Cr.No. 327/2013 of Kamaskshipalya PS for the aforesaid 7 SC No.767/2020 offences. Later after completing the investigation IO has filed the present charge sheet before the 5 th Addl. CMM court, Bengaluru.
3. 5Th ACMM court Bengaluru secured the presence of A1 to 4 and released them on bail. As the presence of A5 could not be secured despite all efforts, hence case against A5 is split up and split up case in CC No.14005/2015 is registered against him. After compliance of Sec. 207 of Cr.PC Learned 5th ACMM Bengaluru has framed charges against A1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences and read over and explained the same to accused. A1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tired.
4. At this stage CW6 Vijayashekara filed an application before the said court U/s 323 of Cr.PC seeking transfer of this case to the sessions court for trial as the counter case in SC 1000/2017 is pending before this court. The said application came to be dismissed by 8 SC No.767/2020 Learned 5th ACMM Bengaluru. The said order was challenged by filing Crl.Misc.1749/2018 before the court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said petition came to be allowed on 29.11.2019 and Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and sessions Judge directed that, CC No.3008/2018 pending on the file of 5 th ACMM Bengaluru shall be withdrawn and be transfered to Sessions court for trial along with counter case in SC No.1007/2017. Hence, by virtue of the said order criminal case in CC No.3008/2018 was transferred to sessions court and registered as SC No.767/2020 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law along with counter case in SC No.1007/2017. Thus the present case is before this court for disposal.
5. After the transfer of the case, presence of accused No.1 to 4 is secured. They are on bail.
9 SC No.767/2020
6. To prove its case prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as PW1 to 10 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to 11. After the closure of evidence of the prosecution, statements of the accused is recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused have denied every incriminating statements appearing against them, but they have not lead any evidence in their defence. Total denial of the case of prosecution and their false implication is the defence of the accused.
7. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. The following points emerge for my consideration.
1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 19.04.2013 at about 5.45 pm in the premises of Raju creation garment factory situated in Hitha Complex of Vrushabavathinagara within the jurisdiction of Kamakashipalya PS accused No.1 to 4 by 10 SC No.767/2020 forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly by holding deadly weapons like seizure, iron rod etc., in their hands have abused the complainant and other police party in filthy language, and they assaulted the complainant and other police officials and caused injuries and deterred them from discharging their official duty as public servants and thereby they have committed the offences punishable U/s 143, 144, 147, 324 and 353 of IPC r/w Sec. 149 of IPC?
2. What Order?
9. My finding on the aforesaid points are as under:
POINT NO.1: In the NEGATIVE POINT NO.2: As per final order for the following:11 SC No.767/2020
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: According to the case of prosecution accused No.1 to 4 being th workers of Raju Creations garment factory owned by Chandru against whom a case in Cr.No.59/2013 was registered, has formed an unlawful assembly on 19.04.2013 at about 5.45 pm in the factory premises and they assaulted the complainant and other police officials by holding deadly weapons and deterred them from discharging their public duty. To prove this aspect, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to 10 including the complainant Dayanand as PW4. It is not in dispute that, all the injured are the police officials and they were on duty at the relevant point of time. There is no serious dispute that, complainant and other police party had been to the garment factory premises to effect the seizure in connection with the above case. At that time, 12 SC No.767/2020 the alleged incident had taken place is the case of prosecution.
11. PW1 Sridhar is the police constable and was working in Pulakeshinagara PS during the year 2016. According to him at that time PW4 Dayanand was the PSI in the said police station. It is deposed by the PW1 that, on 19.04.2013 along with complainant and accused Chandru in Cr.No.59/2013 he had been to garment factory premises located within the jurisdiction of Kamakshipalya PS to effect the seizure of property pursuant to the voluntary statement of the accused. It is stated by PW1 that, at that time his other colleagues, panchas and complainant of the case Vijayashekara were also present. When they reached the spot at about 6 pm by that time around 10 to 15 workers of the factory attacked them with the deadly weapons. They deterred this witness and other police witness from discharging their official duty. Hence, in this 13 SC No.767/2020 connection complainant has filed a complaint. At the time of filing of complaint this witness was not aware of the names of the accused. However, later he came to know their names. It is clear from the above evidence of PW1 that, he is not sure the whether the very accused before the court have assaulted this witness and other police officials in the factory premises. He did not identify any of the accused during the evidence. He failed to speak about allegations that the accused were holding deadly weapons while launching attack on him. Hence, he has been declared as hostile. In the cross examination by the prosecutor he admitted a suggestion as true that the factory workers assaulted the police party with the weapons like scissors and rods.
12. He has been cross examined at length by the Learned defence counsel. Interestingly, in the cross examination, it is admitted by PW1 that, he cannot say 14 SC No.767/2020 which of the factory workers had assaulted the police party as there were 30 to 40 workers assembled on the spot. He has admitted that, he cannot identify those workers who assaulted the police party. Going one step ahead this witness deposed to the effect that, he cannot identify the accused to say that they have assaulted him during the incident. According to him he seen the accused No.1 to 4 in the court only at the time of trial and not earlier to that.
13. Thus through the evidence of PW1 prosecution has failed to prove the identify of A1 to A4. At the most the evidence of PW1 to 4 suggest that, some factory workers had assaulted the police party with the weapons. There is no evidence to say that, very accused before the court have committed the alleged offences. Hence, evidence of PW1 is of no avail to the prosecution.
15 SC No.767/2020
14. PW2 Sunil and PW3 Nagaraj are the injured witnesses and they were the members of police party who had been to garment factory premises along with complainant Dayananda and PW1 Sridhar. Their evidence discloses that, though they have stated that the factory workers have assaulted them while effecting the seizure mahazar, however in their cross examination both PW2 and 3 have categorically admitted that, they cannot say whether the very accused before the court were the members of he unlawful assembly. The identify of accused is not established through the evidence of above witnesses. Consequently, like the evidence of PW1, the evidence of these witnesses is also not helpful to prove the allegations made against the accused.
15. Complainant Dayanand is examined as PW4. According to him on 19.04.2013 when he had been to Raju creation garment factory premises with accused Chandru 16 SC No.767/2020 and his staff, at about 6 pm some of the factory workers came to the spot by forming unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons and assaulted the police party and deterred them from discharging their duties. During the said incident himself and his other staff had suffered injuries, hence they were taken to hospital for treatment. At that time he has given a complaint as per Ex.P1. His signature is marked as Ex.P1(a). It is further spoken by PW4 that, next day a maahzar was conducted on the spot as per Ex.P2. In the chief examination itself this witness has catastrophically stated that, he cannot identify the assailants as they were 10 to 15 in number and he cannot identify the accused before the court. He has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In his cross examination prosecution has failed to elicit any material worth the name in support of its case. On the other hand complainant has denied that he had given statement before the IO as per Ex.P3.
17 SC No.767/2020
16. Thus the very complainant who is examined as PW4 has failed to support the case of prosecution. Though he has spoken about the alleged incident, but he has failed to identify the accused persons. Thus from the evidence of PW4 prosecution has failed to establish the identify of the accused No.1 to 4. Consequently, evidence of PW4 is not helpful to prove the allegations made against A1 to 4. Acting on the evidence of PW4, A1 to 4 cannot be held guilty of the alleged offences.
17. Prosecution has examined PW9 Kumara and PW10 Rajesh as the independent witnesses in corroboration of the evidence of complainant and other injured witnesses. The evidence of PW9 and 10 go to show that, they were working as a Tailors in Raju creations garment factory. They say that, deceased Chandru was the owner of the factory and the accused were their colleagues. However, in so far as the alleged incident is concerned both 18 SC No.767/2020 PW9 and 10 have categorically deposed that, they do not known anything the facts of the case and they were not present on the spot at the time of incident. Thus both PW9 and 10 turned hostile to the prosecution. In their cross examination they have denied that, they had given statement before the IO as per Ex.P10 and 11 respectively by narrating the incident and identifying the accused. Thus the very purpose of examination of these two witnesses is defeated. Their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. Thus there is no conurbation to the evidence of complainant and injured witnesses.
18. PW5 Vijayashekara is the person who had filed complaint against Chandru alleging offence U/s 420 of IPC. He has stated that, pursuant to his complaint a case was registered against Chandru and he was arrested and interrogated. Pursuant to his statement police party and himself went to garment factory to identify sewing machines when they went to terrace and while effecting 19 SC No.767/2020 seizure he learn't from A1 Nagaraj that Chandru had jumped from the 4th floor of the building. By that time, he went to see the injured Chandru to the ground. By that time some people confined him in a room. By saying so PW5 has failed to identify any of the accused saying that, he did not see any of the accused assaulting the police officials in his presence. Thus he has failed to support the case of prosecution. Even in the cross exmaination of PW5 prosecution has failed to elicit any fact worth of the name to support its case. On the other hand the evdience of PW5 creates a doubt in the mind of the court whether he was present on the spot at the time of alleged incident. Even otherwise his presence is inferred, he himself has stated that, while coming down the stairs he was confined by some people in a room. Therefore, his presence cannot be presumed on the spot at the time of alleged incident. Thus the evidence of PW5 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.
20 SC No.767/2020
19. As mentioned above there is no serious dispute that, complainant and police constables had sustained injuries in the factory premises due to the assault made by some of the factory workers when they had been to the spot to conduct seizure mahazar. Later they were admitted to hospital for treatment. In this background I do not find that, the detail discussion of evidence of PW7 the medical officer he has issued Ex.P5 to 9 wound certificates is required. The accused have not disputed the aforesaid case of the prosecution. Hence, the evidence of PW7 is also not much helpful to prove the case of prosecution.
20. PW8 is examined only to prove that, when himself and other colleagues had been to garment factory premises with complainant Dayanand and accused Chandru to seize the properties, by that time some of the factory workers came to the spot by forming unlawful assembly and by holding deadly weapons and assaulted 21 SC No.767/2020 complainant and other police party to deterred them from discharging their public duty. In his cross examination of this witness it is elicited that, at the time of alleged incident around 100 to 150 factory workers had gathered on the spot and launched the attack but he cannot identify those persons. But later he came to know that, accused have assaulted them. Thus the evidence of this witness which has failed to establish the identity of the accused is not helpful for the case of prosecution.
21. PW6 is the Investigating officer and he has spoken about the investigation aspect of the case. His cross examination say that, in the Ex.P1 complaint, complainant has not referred to weapons like seizure and iron rods. Consequently he has not seized any such material objects at the time of conducting spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. He has given clear admission that, when he had been to the spot to conduct mahazar he did not notice any such 22 SC No.767/2020 objects on the spot. He admits that, he has not seized any portion of uniform, uniform buttons etc. from the spot. Still he denies a suggestion as false that he filed a false charge sheet against accused persons based on insufficient materials. In my opinion Investigating officer has not conducted proper investigation of the case in as much as he fail to seize the torn uniform cloths and buttons to prove the allegations made against accused.
22. Except the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses prosecution has not produced any other material evidence on record to prove the ingredients of the offences alleged in the charge sheet. The identify of Accused No.1 to 4 is not established during the trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, A1 to 4 deserve benefit of doubt. Thus for the reasons and discussions made above I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
23 SC No.767/2020
23. POINT No.2. In the result of above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s 235(1) of Cr.PC Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/s, 143, 144, 147, 324 and 353 of IPC r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand canceled. Accused 1 to 4 shall comply the provisions of Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Return the original file to the trial court forthwith, since split up case against A5 is pending in the trial court. (Dictated to the Typist directly on the computer, and typed by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2022) (Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
24 SC No.767/2020APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution side:
P.W.1 Shridhara P.W.2 Sunil P.W.3 Nagaraja P.W.4 Dayananda V.V. P.W.5 Vijayashekar P.W.6 Shivananda P.W.7 Dr. K.N.Shankar P.W.8 A.B.Sanaulla P.W.9 Kumara P.W.10 Rajesha
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution side:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature
Ex.P.1(b) Signature
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature
Ex.P.3 Fur. statement
Ex.P.4 F.I.R.
Ex.P.4(a) Signature
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
Ex.P.5(a) Signature
Ex.P.5(b) Signature
Ex.P.6 Wound certificate
25 SC No.767/2020
Ex.P.6(a) Signature
Ex.P.6(b) Signature
Ex.P.7 Wound certificate
Ex.P.7(a) Signature
Ex.P.7(b) Signature
Ex.P.8 Wound certificate
Ex.P.8(a) Signature
Ex.P.8(b) Signature
Ex.P.9 Wound certificate
Ex.P.9(a) Signature
Ex.P.9(b) Signature
Ex.P.10 Statement
Ex.P.11 Statement
List of material objects marked for the prosecution side:
Nil List of witnesses examined for the defence side:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the defence side:
Nil List of material objects marked for defence side:
Nil LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.26 SC No.767/2020 27 SC No.767/2020
Judgment is pronounced to-day in the open court, vide separate Judgement.
O RDE R Acting U/s 235(1) of Cr.PC Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted for 28 SC No.767/2020 the offences punishable U/s, 143, 144, 147, 324 and 353 of IPC r/w Sec. 149 of IPC.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand canceled.
Accused 1 to 4 shall comply the provisions of Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. Return the original file to the trial court forthwith, since split up case against A5 is pending in the trial court.
(Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.