Bangalore District Court
State By Kodigehalli vs Anjanareddy S/O Gangadhara Reddy on 11 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Smt. Vineetha P.Shetty B.Sc., M.A., L L.M.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
Dated this the 11th day of January 2016
C.C. NO.36250/2010
Complainant : State by Kodigehalli
Police, Bengaluru City
-V/s-
Accused : Anjanareddy s/o Gangadhara Reddy,
28 yrs, R/at No.79/101, 15th Cross,
Mico Layout, Hongasandra, Begur
Main Road, Bengaluru,
Mobile - 9880063191
Date of offence : 22-06-2010
Offence : U/S 332 IPC
Plea of the accused : Accused Pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused Acquitted
Date of Order : 11-01-2016
2 CC No.36250/2010
J U D G M E N T U/S 355 of Cr.P.C.
The PI attached to Kodigehalli Police Station has filed
this charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable
under Section 332 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that-
On 22-06-2010 at 2.45 p.m., CW1 V.Raju - the Police
Constable attached to Hebbal Traffic P.S. was on duty,
controlling the traffic near Military Dairy Farm Gate,
Opposite Kempapura Cross, Bellary Road, Bengaluru. At
that time, the accused being the driver of Meru City Taxi
No.KA53 6214 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, by ignoring the traffic signal. When CW1 proceeded
to note the vehicle number, the accused got down from his
vehicle and assaulted CW1, and thereby prevented him from
discharging his duty as a public servant. Thus according to
the prosecution, the accused person has committed the
offence punishable under Section 332 IPC.
3 CC No.36250/2010
3. The accused appeared before the court. He is on bail
and he engaged advocate for his defence. The copies of the
charge sheet were furnished to him. After hearing both sides,
charge for the above offence was framed, read over and
explained by my learned predecessor in office. Accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of
prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 are examined. Exhibits P.1 to
P.7 and MO1 are marked. Thereafter, accused is examined
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating
evidence which appeared against him. The accused got
examined himself as DW1 and produced documents as per
Ex.D1 to 4. Heard the arguments addressed by the learned
Sr. APP and the learned counsel for accused.
4. The following points arise for determination-
1) Whether the prosecution proves that
on 22-06-2010 at 2.45 p.m. near
Military Dairy Farm Gate, Opposite
4 CC No.36250/2010
Kempapura Cross, Bellary Road,
Bengaluru, the accused assaulted
CW1 V.Raju, who was the Police
Constable attached to Hebbal
Traffic P.S., and prevented him
from discharging his duties as a
public servant?
2) What order?
5. My findings on the above points are as under-
Point No-1: In the Negative
Point No-2: As per final order for
the following reasons
REASONS
Point No-1:
6. CW1/P.W.3 V.Raju is the complainant. It is in his
evidence that on 22-06-2010, he was discharging his duties
as a traffic police at Kempapura Dairy Circle. At that time,
accused being the driver of Taxi No.KA 53 6214 drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and jumped the signal
and hence CW1 noted the vehicle number. The accused
stopped his vehicle, dragged CW1 by holding his uniform
5 CC No.36250/2010
and hit him on the face. PW3 deposed that accused
threatened him of dire consequences. He gave information to
police station and the ASI arrived there. He took the
treatment at 4.00 p.m., and the Kodigehalli Police recorded
his statement in the hospital as per Ex.P5. On the next day,
the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P1, and he
handed over his uniform identified at MO1 to police, at the
time of mahazar.
7. During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that the
place of incident is a crowded place, with a number of
vehicles plying over there. Suggestion that PW3 himself had
prevented the vehicle of accused, is denied by him. He
deposed that he went to the hospital on the said date at 5.30
to 5.45 p.m. It is elicited that he had not informed the
concerned police station about the obstruction by the
accused. He pleaded ignorance about the case filed by
accused against him in Kodigehalli P.S. for the offence under
6 CC No.36250/2010
Section 324 IPC. The relevant portion in his evidence reads-
"£Á£ÀÄ F zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DgÉÆæ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ PÉÆrUÉúÀ½î ¥ÉÇÃ
oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ®A 324 L¦¹ PÉÃ¸ï ºÁQzÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è, ¸ÀzÀj UÀÄ£Áß
£ÀA.121B10 DVzÉ CAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è". It was suggested on behalf of
the accused that as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by
the accused against him, this false complaint was filed. Of
course, PW3 has denied the suggestion.
8. PW1 H.N.Vasudevamurthy - ASI is the alleged eye
witness. He deposed that on 22-06-2010 at 2.45 p.m., he was
discharging his duties as a traffic controller, near Kempapura
Circle of Bellary Road, and on that day, the accused being
the driver of Taxi No.KA 53 6214, drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner and, jumped the signal. When PW3
enquired the same with the accused, he proceeded further by
ignoring PW3, and when PW3 was noting down the vehicle
number, the accused stopped his vehicle and hit him on the
7 CC No.36250/2010
face. PW1 was not brought before the court for cross-
examination.
9. PW4 Sonnegowda is the alleged spot mahazar
witness. He deposed that on 23-06-2010, the police
conducted Ex.P1 spot mahazar in his presence. During cross-
examination PW4 pleaded inability to state the names of the
persons present at the time of mahazar.
10. PW5 Dr. P.N.Prakash is the Medical Officer who
treated the injured. He deposed that on 22-06-2010 at 4 p.m.,
he examined PW3, found scratch injuries on the left leg and
left arm, and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. During
his cross-examination, the other possibilities of sustaining
such type of injuries, as noted in Ex.P4 was elicited.
11. PW6 K.M.Aswathappa is yet another alleged eye
witness. He deposed that on 22-06-2010 at 2.45 p.m., the
accused came in a car near the signal at Kempapura, and
8 CC No.36250/2010
when PW3 was nothing his vehicle number for ignoring the
traffic signal, the accused suddenly stopped his vehicle,
dragged PW3, tried to snatch the walky talky, hit him on the
face and threatened him of dire consequences. During cross-
examination, however PW6 admitted that there was a scuffle
between PW3 and the accused. He also admitted that
complaint was received by the police against PW3. The
relevant portion in his evidence reads-"¸ÀzÀj UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÁV
¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj
zÀÆj£À «gÀÄzÀÞ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JA¢zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". It is elicited
during his cross-examination that there were persons from
among the police, press and media at the relevant time.
12. PW7 Padmanabha Mehta is the ASI, who conducted
part of the investigation. He deposed that on 22-06-2010 at
4.45 p.m., on the telephonic information received from
Hebbal P.S., he sent HC - Narayanaswamy to Baptist
9 CC No.36250/2010
Hospital, who recorded the statement of complainant as per
Ex.P5, and he registered the FIR as per Ex.P6 and handed
over the case file for further investigation to PW2. During
cross-examination, PW7 admitted the registration of Crime
No.121/2010, on the complaint given by accused against
PW3. The relevant portion in his evidence reads-"DgÉÆæ PÉÆlÖ
zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.6.10gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 6.45 UÀAmÉUÉ zÁR°¹zÉÝ£É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F
ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ 22.6.2010gÀ ¸ÀAeÉ 6.55 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÉÆAzÀtô DVzÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
13. PW2 Chandrashekar is the IO. He deposed that on
23-06-2010, he received case records from PW7, conducted
spot mahazar as per Ex.P1, seized MO1 uniform, recorded
the statements of witnesses, obtained the documents i.e.,
Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, the Station House Diary and Duty Register
Extracts respectively and Ex.P4, the wound certificate. He
filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.
10 CC No.36250/2010
14. PW8 Subramanya Naidu is the alleged eye witness.
He has not supported the case of prosecution. Though this
witness was treated hostile, nothing favourable to the case of
prosecution is brought out in his cross-examination. PW8 has
even denied of having given the statement before the police
as per Ex.P7.
15. PW9 Jayanthi is the PI attached to Hebbal Traffic
P.S. at the relevant time. She deposed that on 22-06-2010,
she arrived at the traffic signal situated at Bellary Road, at
about 3 p.m., and PW1 and PW3 were on traffic duty at the
relevant time. She issued Ex.P2, the Station House Diary
Extract and Ex.P3, the Duty Register Extract. During cross-
examination, PW9 admitted that the accused had lodged a
complaint against PW3 at Kodigehalli P.S. in relation to the
same incident. The relevant portion in her evidence reads-"F
¸ÀA§AzÀs DgÉÆæ PÀÆqÀ PÉÆrUÉúÀ½î ¥ÉÇà oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°èAiÉÄ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝ£ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
11 CC No.36250/2010
16. The accused led his evidence as DW1. He deposed
that on 22-06-2010 at 2.45 p.m., he was proceeding to
Airport in Meru Cab No.KA 53 6214, and that near the
Hebbal Signal, PW3 stopped his vehicle and snatched his car
key. When he questioned the said act of PW3, he was
assaulted with the walky talky on his head. In this regard, he
had lodged a complaint before Kodigehalli P.S. in Crime
No.121/2010. Thereafter, he took treatment in the hospital,
and the said incident has been published in newspapers. It is
deposed by DW1 that PW3 in order to suppress his
highhanded act, has filed this false complaint. DW1 has
referred to Ex.D1 to D4. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of FIR,
Ex.D2 is the certified copy of complaint and Ex.D3 is the
certified copy of 'B' report, all in respect of Crime
No.121/2010. Ex.D4 is the copy of news published in
newspaper.
12 CC No.36250/2010
17. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it
is seen that P.W.1 and 3 are the officials of police
department, and their evidence is not supported by the
independent eye witnesses. Though, PW6 has supported the
case of prosecution, on careful appreciation of his evidence
during cross-examination, his presence at the relevant time
appears doubtful.
18. The prosecution case also suffers from serious
infirmities. The HC - Narayanaswamy, who is alleged to
have recorded the statement of complainant is not made a
witness in this case. Evidence on record would disclose the
registration of a case against the complainant lodged by the
accused, and the same is admittedly prior to the complaint
Ex.P5 of this case. Hence, the contention of false implication
raised on behalf of the accused, cannot be completely ruled
out. Though enemity is a double edged weapon in the
circumstance of the case and in the presence of material
13 CC No.36250/2010
discrepancies, credence cannot be attached to the interested
testimony of PW1, 3 and 6. Though the evidence on record
would disclose that the place of incident is a crowded place,
with a number of vehicles and general public, none of the
persons among them is examined in support of the case of the
complainant.
19. As already observed, prime defence set out in the
evidence of DW1 is that complaint is a counter blast to his
previous complaint. In the background of counter case lodged
by the accused against the complainant, which is admittedly
prior to Ex.P5 as per the documents produced by defence at
Ex.D1 to 4, this cannot be simply dis-believed. Thus, on
careful appreciation of entire evidence on record, I find it
difficult to hold that the accused has committed the alleged
offence. Entire evidence when carefully analyzed, I find it
difficult to hold that the complained act attracts the
ingredients of Section 332 of IPC. Thus, on going through
14 CC No.36250/2010
the materials as stated above, I am of the view that, the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubts, for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC.
Therefore, I answer Point No-1 in the Negative.
Point No-2:
20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 Uniform is ordered to be returned to PW3, after the appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, print revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of January 2016) (Vineetha P.Shetty), CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
15 CC No.36250/2010ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 : H.N.Vasudevamurthy P.W.2 : Chandrashekar P.W.3 : Raju P.W.4 : Sonnegowda P.W.5 : Dr. P.N.Prakash P.W.6 : K.M.Ashwathappa P.W.7 : Padmanabha Mehta P.W.8 : Subramanya Naidu P.W.9 : Jayanthi List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2, 3 : Station House Diary, Duty
Register Extracts
Ex.P.4 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.5 : Statement of
PW3/Complaint
Ex.P.6 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW8
List of Material objects produced:-
MO1 : Uniform 16 CC No.36250/2010 List of Witnesses examined & documents marked on behalf of the defence:
DW1 : Anjanareddy
Ex.D1 : Certified Copy of FIR in
Crime No-121/2010
Ex.D2 : Certified Copy of
Complaint in
Crime No-121/2010
Ex.D3 : Certified Copy of 'B'
Report in Crime
No-121/2010
Ex.D4 : Copy of news published in
newspaper
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.17 CC No.36250/2010
11-01-2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate sheets.
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. MO1 Uniform is ordered to be returned to PW3, after the appeal period.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.