Bangalore District Court
Jagajeevanram Nagar Ps vs A1 Divya Teja on 16 January, 2025
KABC010110062018
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67)
PRESENT
SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH A.
B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.(CCH-67)
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
S.C. NO. 671 of 2018
COMPLAINANT : State by Jagajeevanaram Nagar Police
Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)
/Vs/
ACCUSED : 1. Divya Teja,
S/o Suresh Babu,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.53, Tej Nivas,
Kasturiba Nagara, Pipeline,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
2. Suresh Babu,
S/o Narasimhalu,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.53, Tej Nivas,
Kasturiba Nagar, Pipeline,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
3. Roopesh,
S/o Chandra Shekar,
2 S.C.No. 671/2018
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.54, Tej Nivas,
Kasturiba Nagar, Pipeline,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
(By:Sri.DMK,Advocate)
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 17/12/2016
Commencement of trial : 25/06/2019
Closing of trial : 09/11/2023
Name of the complainant: Dr.Navneeth.
Offence alleged : Under Sections
341, 324, 504, 307 read with
34 of IPC
Opinion of the judge : Charge leveled against the
accused are not proved.
Sentence or order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Jagajeevanram Nagar Police have filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 07/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon accused Nos.1 and 2 had been to Sowbhagya Nursing Home situated at Mysore Road 3 S.C.No. 671/2018 for the treatment of injury sustained by accused No.1. After treatment, PW.1 Dr.Navneeth Krishna asked them to pay bill of Rs.1500/-. Accused pesons asked for discount, therefore PW.1 asked them to pay a sum of Rs.1300/-. After payment of the bill the accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the pharmacy and bought medicines prescribed by PW-1. After purchasing medicines from the medical store accused persons picked up quarrel with Gangalakshmamma in respect of the payment of amount for purchase of medicines. On hearing the quarrel PW.1 came out from his chamber and asked as to why they are quarreling with her. At that time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused PW.1 in filthy words. Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with the help of the helmet due to which PW.1 sustained injury on his right little finger. In the mean time accused No.1 brought accused No.3 and picked up quarrel with PW.1 and abused him in filthy words. Accused No.3 tried to assault PW.1 on his neck with the help of long. But PW.1 escaped from the said blow and proceeded towards medical store, at that time accused No.1 assaulted on the right abdomen of PW.1 with the help of dagger due to which PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries. When the persons who were present in the hospital tried to resist, the accused persons went away from the said place and thereafter PW.1 went to Shekar Hospital and obtained treatment.4 S.C.No. 671/2018
3. The Jagajeevanram Nagar police registered case against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1 in Cr.No.282/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 307 read with 34 of IPC.
4. The Police took up the investigation on the basis of the complaint given by the CW.1 and after completion of investigation the Police have filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under 341, 324, 504, 307 read with 34 of IPC before the learned Magistrate. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case against the accused for the above said offences. Thereafter case against accused was committed to this court for trial. Accused are on bail.
5. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to accused by the learned Magistrate and hence the learned Magistrate has complied with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. As the offence charged against the accused is exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate acting under section 209 of Cr.P.C has committed the case against accused to this Court for trial. The matter is taken up before this court for further proceedings accordingly.
5 S.C.No. 671/20186. In pursuance of summons issued by this Court accused persons appeared through their counsel and got enlarged on bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor and on considering the materials forthcoming from the prosecution papers and from the materials on record this Court has framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and thereby they claimed to be tried for the above said offences.
7. In support of its case, prosecution cited as many as 13 witnesses in the charge sheet. The prosecution got examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 in support of its case. The prosecution has given up CW 11 and CW.9 is dropped. The prosecution has produced the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and the properties at MO.1 to 4. After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied all the incriminating materials appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. The accused persons neither chosen to adduce any oral evidence nor produced any documents in support of their defence.
8. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for accused. Perused the oral and 6 S.C.No. 671/2018 documentary evidence forthcoming on record. On going through the materials the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 3 on 17/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon near Soubhagya Nursing Home, Mysuru Road, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of JJ Nagar police in furtherance of their common intrention on the background of financial dispute regarding payment of bill, between accused No.1 and CW1 insulted CW.1 in filthy language as bolimagane, soolemagane and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place, in furtherance of their common intrention accused No.2 assaulted CW1 with helmet as a result CW.1 sustained bleeding injury on his small finger and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC?
(3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date time and place in furtherance of their common intrention accused No.3 assaulted PW1 with a long and when PW1 escape from the blow accused No.1 assaulted PW1 with a dagger as result PW1 sustained bleeding injury on his abdomen and tried to murder PW1 and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC?7 S.C.No. 671/2018
(4) What order?
9. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor and on perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, the above points are as hereunder.
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Affirmative
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 3 :- Since these points are interconnected with each other, to avoid repetition of facts, points No.1 to 4 are taken together for common discussion .
11. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention abused PW.1. in filthy words and accused No.2 voluntarily caused hurt by assaulting PW.1 with helmet due to which he sustained injury on his right little finger, the accused No.2 stabbed the PW.1 on his right abdomen with the help of dagger. Accused No.3 tried to assault on the neck of PW.1 with long, but PW.1 escaped from 8 S.C.No. 671/2018 the said blow. Thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 tried to commit murder of PW.1.
12. In order to prove its case prosecution examined Dr.Navneetha Krishna as PW.1. He is the injured eye witness. During the examination in chief he has stated that on 7/12/2016 at about 11:45 to 12:00 noon accused Nos.1 and 2 came to hospital for treatment of the injury sustained by the accused No.1. After suturing and giving treatment he charged Rs.1500/-, the accused persons requested for discount, therefore he asked them to pay a sum of Rs.1300/-. Thereafter accused persons went to get medicines from the medical store, and picked up quarrel with the persons at the medical shop over the charges pertaining to the medicines purchased by them. On hearing the quarrel PW.1 went to the medical store and asked as to why they are quarreling. At that time accused persons abused him in filthy words by stating soolemagane and bolimagane. In the heat of arguments accused No.2 assaulted him with the helmet due to which he sustained injury over his right little finger. Thereafter accused No.3 came along with accused No.1 to the spot with long and dagger. Accused No.3 tried to assault on his neck with long. When he tried to escape from the said blow and proceeded towards medical store accused No.1 restrained him and stabbed with dagger over the right side of abdomen due to which he sustained bleeding injures and his shirt was blood 9 S.C.No. 671/2018 stained. Therefore he was taken to Shekar Hospital wherein Dr.Atmaram treated him. He lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1. On the same day at 6:00 p.m. police came to the spot and prepared spot mahazar, he handed over blood stained shirt and banian to the police. He has identified accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Court.
13. During the cross examination of PW.1 a suggestion has been made to the effect that he prescribed below standard medicine in collusion with the owner of the hospital and the same was questioned by accused No.2. He has denied all other suggestions put by counsel for accused. What could be gathered from the evidence of PW.1 is that accused Nos.1 and 2 visited the hospital for the purpose of treatment to the injury sustained by accused No.1. The said aspect has not been denied or disputed by the accused persons. The evidence of PW.1 indicates the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the hospital on the date of alleged incident. The evidence of PW.1 clearly indicates the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the spot of incident at the time of alleged assault. This aspect has not been denied or disputed by the accused. Therefore, presence of the accused in the spot as contended by the prosecution stands proved by the prosecution. If the cross examination of PW.1. is seen it can be said that the learned defence counsel has elicited nothing worth mentioning here.
10 S.C.No. 671/2018Some suggestions have been made to the effect that a false complaint is lodged against the accused persons but the same was denied by the PW.1.
14. One Parameshwar is examined as PW.2. He is the eye witness to the incident. What he has stated in the examination in chief is that on 7/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon, when he was in the medical store of the nursing home of PW.1, accused No.1 came to the said medical store after taking treatment from the PW1. He picked up quarrel stating that he has been charged more and he started quarreling with Smt.Gangalakshmamma in respect of the same. At that time PW.1 came to the spot and enquired about the quarrel. He has also stated that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 with helmet and accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him in filthy words and threatened him with dire consequences. They went out and brought long and dagger. He has stated that thereafter, he went away due to fear and not witnessed the incident. He has further stated that on receipt of the complaint police came to the spot and conducted mahazar and he has signed mahazar as per Ex.P.2. The police have seized blood stained cloths of PW.1 under mahazar. During the cross examination it has been elicited that Smt.Ganga Lakshmamma being the worker of the hospital walks around the hospital and he was working in the medical store. He has denied all other suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
11 S.C.No. 671/201815. One Arjun is examined as PW.3. He is the seizure mahazar witness. The prosecution cited PW.3 as panch wintess in order to prove the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.3. He has deposed that on 7/12/2016 he had seen accused persons in the nursing home. He has identified his signature in Ex.P.3 mahazar. He has stated that he signed the mahazar in the police station and MO.3 and 4 were in the possession of the accused. In the cross examination of PW.3 he has admitted the suggestion to the effect that on 10/12/2016 the accused persons produced MO.3 and 4 and police have seized the same under Mahazar Ex.P.3 and he has signed the mahazar after contents of the mahazar read over to him. He has denied all the suggestions put by the counsel for accused to the effect that the accused have not produced MO.3 and 4 in his presence.
16. One Smt.Shakuntala is examined as PW.4. She is the eye witness to the incident. She has deposed that on 7/12/2017 in the afternoon one patient along with two attendants came to the hospital for the treatment of cut injury. PW.1 treated him. Thereafter they stabbed PW.1 over his abdomen. She identified accused No.1 before the Court. In the cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has admitted that accused persons picked up quarrel in connection with payment of amount towards medicines. When PW.1 enquired as to why they are 12 S.C.No. 671/2018 quarreling they abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him. PW.4 has admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with helmet due to which he sustained injuries over his fingers. She has also admitted the suggestion to the effect that accused No.1 stabbed PW.1 with dagger on the right side of abdomen. During the cross examination of PW.4 it has been elicited that the name of the person who assaulted PW.1 is Divya Teja i.e., accused No.1. She has denied all other suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
17. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, she has clearly stated regarding the presence of the accused persons in the hospital and also regarding the treatment given by PW.1. She has also categorically stated regarding the abuse by the accused persons and assault with helmet and dagger.
18. One Gangamma is examined as PW.5. She is eye witness to the incident. In her examination in chief she has deposed to the effect that on 7/12/2017 at 11:30 pm patient by name Divya Teja along with his father came to the hospital for treatment of the injuries sustained by Divya Teja. PW.1 treated him and prescribed medicines. When bill was raised for the medicines they started to quarrel and were about to leave the hospital 13 S.C.No. 671/2018 without paying the amount. She was collecting the bill on that day. On hearing the quarrel, PW.1 came out and enquired. In response to the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him. Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with helmet, accused No.1 went out and brought his friend and both of them assaulted PW.1. She has denied all other suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
19. One Smt.Amrutha is examined as PW.6. She is the eye witness to the incident. She has stated that she was working as nurse in Soubhagya Nursing Home. She has further deposed that on 7/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon when she was in the nursing home, accused No.1 came to the nursing home with a cut injury. PW.1 treated him and sutured the injury. When bill was raised, the accused No.2 picked up quarrel stating that bill is on the higher side. He was quarreling with PW.5 Gangalakshmi. On hearing the quarrel, PW.1 came and enquired, at that time accused No.2 abused him in filthy language stating that bolimagane and soolemagane. Thereafter, accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with helmet. Thereafter, accused No.1 brought accused No.3 and assaulted PW.1 with knife due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. She identified the weapon at MO.4. She identified MO.3 stating that the same was in possession of accused No.3. In the cross examination of 14 S.C.No. 671/2018 PW.6 by the counsel for accused nothing has been elicited so as to discredit the evidence of PW.6. Nothing worth is elicited during the cross examination of PW.6 except the suggestions. PW.6 has denied the suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
20. One Sri.Gajendra, ASI, is examined as PW.7 who speaks about the apprehending accused No.1 on 8/12/2016.
21. One Dr.Ameer Ali is examined as PW.8 who examined PW.1 after the incident. It is his testimony that on 7/12/2016 at 12:21 pm, PW.1 came to their hospital with the history of assault by Divya Teja at Soubhagya Nursing Home. He provided first aid treatment to PW.1. On examination he found stab injury on upper abdomen measuring 2x2x3 cms. And also fracture of right little distal phalynx. He has opined that the above said injuries are grievous in nature and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.6. He has testified to the effect that the above injuries are possible to be sustained if a person is assaulted with MO.3 and
4. During the cross examination of PW.8 it is elicited that police have not produced MO.3 and 4 before him for opinion. He has denied the suggestion that he has not examined him on 7/12/2016. In his further cross examination it is elicited that no person was accompanied PW.1 to the Hospital when he visited the hospital for treatment. He has admitted that CW.10 treated 15 S.C.No. 671/2018 PW.1 and volunteered that he himself has sutured PW.1 and other treatments were given by CW.10. He has also stated that he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.6 on behalf of Atmaram. It is also elicited that PW.1 was treated as an outpatient and he was not admitted to the hospital. He has categorically denied the suggestion that if a person falls on sharp object there are chances of sustaining injuries as noted in the wound certificate.
22. One Smt.Shantala is examined as PW.9. She is the owner of the nursing home. She has stated that she heard about the assault on PW.1. but she has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in toto.
23. One Sri.Gangadharaiah is examined as PW.10. He has given evidence with regard to the receiving of the complaint at about 5:45 pm on 7.12.2016. He has identified the complaint at Ex.P.1 received by him. He has also given evidence with regard to conducting spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and also regarding seizure of cotton white cloth. He has stated that accused No.1 has given voluntary statement to the effect that he would produce the weapon used for offence if they accompany him as per Ex.P.10. It is also stated that the accused No.1 produced one dagger as per MO.4 and one iron long as per MO.3. The 16 S.C.No. 671/2018 said articles were seized by the police under mahazar. He has stated having recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses. During the cross examination it is elicited that he did not secure the local persons as panch witness. He has denied all other suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
24. I have perused the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses. On considering the evidence given by all these witnesses it is possible to draw certain conclusions. Firstly, as regards the presence of the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Soubhagya Nursing Home, the accused have not disputed their presence at the alleged time of incident. Apart form the above all the eye witnesses have categorically stated regarding the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 in the nursing home on the date of alleged incident. In so for as the treatment given to accused No.1 by PW.1. is also not in dispute. The accused persons have not disputed the same during the cross examination. The oral testimony of prosecution witnesses makes it clear that accused were present in Soubhagya hospital i.e., the place of incident on 7/12/2016 at 12:00 noon. This conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the suggestion made by the counsel for the accused during cross examination of PW.1 also. Therefore, it is clear that the accused have not disputed their presence in the spot of incident on 7/12/2016 at 12:00 pm. 17 S.C.No. 671/2018
25. In so for as the assault on PW.1 is concerned, the evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 are the clinching evidence. PW.1 has categorically stated regarding assault by accused No.2 with the help of a helmet. He has also stated regarding the injury on his right little finger due to the assault by accused No.2. The said evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6. The evidence of PW.1 which is corroborated by the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 coupled with the medical evidence and wound certificate at Ex.P.6 clearly indicates that PW.1 sustained fracture on right little distal phalanx. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in so for as the assault by the accused No.2 is concerned, is not shaken during the cross examination and nothing has been elicited to discredit the oral testimony of injured and other eye witnesses.
26. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons abused PW.1 in filthy language. The abusive words used by the accused Nos.1 and 2 is clearly stated in the first information statement produced at Ex.P.1. PW.1 in his oral testimony has categorically stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him stating that bolimagane and soolemagane. He has also further stated that they have also abused his mother and wife. The said oral testimony of PW.1 has not been disputed or denied by the 18 S.C.No. 671/2018 accused during the cross examination of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 in so for as the use of abusive language by accused Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, is corroborated by the oral testimony of eye witnesses i.e., PW.5 and PW.6. In her oral testimony PW.6 has categorically stated the words used by the accused Nos.1 and 2 to abuse PW.1 and the same corroborates with the evidence of PW.1.
27. In so for as the injury sustained by PW.1 on his right abdomen is concerned, it is categorically stated by the PW.1 that A.3 came to the spot along with the chopper and A.1 came to the spot with a dagger in his hand. When he tried to escape from their blow and proceeded towards medical store, accused No.1 restrained him and stabbed him with the help of dagger over the right side of abdomen due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. The evidence of PW.2 can be believed to the extent that he had seen accused No.2 and 3 with dagger and long in the spot. PW.4 also spoken in respect of the assault on the abdomen of PW.1. She has admitted the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that accused No.1 stabbed PW.1 with dagger on the right side of abdomen. PW.5 also categorically stated in her oral testimony to the effect that accused No.1 stabbed PW.1 with knife over his abdomen. PW.6 19 S.C.No. 671/2018 has stated that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 with a weapon like knife due to which he sustained bleeding injuries.
28. On perusal of oral testimony of injured eye witness and other eye witnesses, their evidence is consistent in so for as assault by accused No.1 on the right abdomen of PW.1 is concerned. Though it is true that some of the witnesses have stated that accused No.1 stabbed with knife, the same appears to be a minor contradiction. The same may not render the case of the prosecution unbelievable for the reason that all the witnesses have categorically identified the weapon used by the accused No.1 before the court.
29. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the investigating officer has not referred the alleged weapons used for the commission of offence either to the doctor or to the expert and measurement of the injury is not properly mentioned in the wound certificate. It is also contended that the shape and direction of the wound is not mentioned in the wound certificate. Though I find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused it is to be noted in so for as the stab injury caused by the accused No.1 is concerned, absolutely there is no scope for any doubt because of the material witnesses including the injured witness 20 S.C.No. 671/2018 have categorically stated regarding the assault by the accused No.1 on the right abdomen of PW.1. At this juncture it is necessary to go through the wound certificate wherein it is clearly mentioned that PW.1 visited the hospital with the history of assault by one Divya Teja at Sowbhagya Nursing Home and the injuries are shown as;
i) Stab wound in right hypocondyle region measuring 2x2x2 cms.
ii) Fracture of right little distal phalanx
30. During the cross examination of PW.8 Doctor, the counsel for the accused has not questioned him regarding the direction of the injury. He has also not referred the cloths and the weapon during the cross examination in order to elicit the said aspect. Therefore, merely because the investigating officer has not referred the weapon either to the doctor or to the expert, the evidence of the doctor cannot be discarded. The doctor has categorically stated that the above said injuries could be possible with long and dagger at MO.3 and 4 shown to him.
31. The counsel for the accused also advanced his arguments stating that the person who treated the PW.1 i.e. Dr.Atmaram has not been examined before the Court. Just because the prosecution did not examine the doctor who probably given treatment to PW1, it cannot be stated that the prosecution case 21 S.C.No. 671/2018 is unbelievable. On perusal of the oral testimony of PW.8 doctor, it clearly indicates that he sutured the injury and he treated PW.1 along with Dr.Atmaram. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the evidence of PW8 is to be discarded only for the reason that Dr.Atma Ram has not been examined.
32. As regards the seizure of weapons is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that based on the voluntary statement given by the accused No.1, they were able to seize MO.3 and 4. In order to prove the seizure of MO-3 and 4, prosecution has examined PW-3 Arjun who is a seizure mahazar witness. During the examination in chief he has stated that MO Nos.3 and 4 were in the hands of the accused Nos.1 and 3 and he has signed Ex.P.3 mahazar as per Ex.P.3(a). During the cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor PW-3 has categorically admitted that on 10/12/2015 the accused produced MO Nos. 3 and 4 before him to the police and police conducted mahazar and seized the same. PW.10 who is the investigating officer during the examination in chief has categorically stated that accused No.1 took them to a vacant space situated beside Sowbhagya Nursing Home and produced one long and one dagger as per MOs 3 and 4 and on the basis of the same he has seized the said weapons. On perusal of the evidence of PW.10 it indicates that accused No.1 gave voluntary statement and that accused No.1 himself led them to a place from where he 22 S.C.No. 671/2018 produced a long which is marked as MO.3 and dagger which is marked as MO.4. He has stated that he recovered these two weapons by writing a mahazar as per Ex.P.3, in the presence of two witnesses. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 who is the seizure mahazar witness who has categorically stated that the accused No.1 produced weapons in his presence to the police and the police seized the same under a mahazar as per Ex.P.3. Under these circumstances, the recovery of the weapon cannot be disbelieved.
33. In so for as the seizure of the cloths worn by PW.1 during the incident, the police have seized the same as per Ex.P.2 and PW.2 who is the mahazar witness has categorically stated regarding the seizure. Therefore, the seizure of the MOs 1 and 2 also cannot be disbelieved.
34. Therefore, on considering the evidence as regards the incident and recovery of cloths as well as the witnesses, what that emerges to the point is an assault made by all the three accused on PW.1 Dr.Navaneeth Krishna. There are no reasons to discard the evidence placed by the prosecution before the Court, since the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and material witnesses are consistent in so for as the assault and abuse by the accused persons is concerned. On perusal of the consistent evidence given by the material witnesses, it is 23 S.C.No. 671/2018 possible to place reliance on the testimony of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 and PW6, as regards the incident, abuse and the injuries sustained by PW.1 is concerned. It is well settled law that being the injured witness, presence of PW.1 at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and being the victim himself PW.1 would not leave out the real assailants and substitute them with innocent persons. Moreover, the evidence given by PW.1 and other eye witnesses are corroborated by medical evidence.
35. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to a ruling reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 1113 in the case of Bonkya @ Bharat Shivaji Mane and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
" Criminal trial - witnesses - injured witnesses - their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted and being the victims themselves they would not leave out the real assailants and substitute them with innocent persons."
Therefore, applying the above principles to the facts of the case, it is to be held that the prosecution has proved the incident.
24 S.C.No. 671/201836. Now, it is to be examined whether the accused can be held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned defence counsel argued that there was no motive to make an attempt on the life of PW.1. I find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused. In the background of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, motive on the part of the accused to make an attempt on the life of the PW.1 is difficult to be made out. The treatment obtained by accused No.1 from PW.1 is not disputed. There are materials on record to show that accused No.1 picked up quarrel in connection with the payment of bill for medicine. So, in this background what that can be stated is that probably for making and putting pressure on PW.1, accused No.1 accompanied with his father and friend i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 might have taken recourse to assault PW.1, nothing more can be made out from the materials placed on record. They wanted PW.1 not to charge any money for the medicines purchased by them since they had already paid the consultation charges. The intention of the accused persons appears that they did not wanted to pay money for the medicine after payment of consultation charges, nothing more can be made out from the materials placed on record by the prosecution. Further, it is to be noted that accused No.1 inflicted only one blow to PW.1. If there was an intention to commit murder, definitely there was opportunity for accused Nos.1 and 3 to further assault PW.1.
25 S.C.No. 671/2018But, no such attempt has been made by accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the accused had an intention either to kill or to make an attempt on the life of PW.1.
37. If the nature of the injuries is seen, it can be stated that the act of the accused can be brought within the scope of the definition of voluntarily causing hurt. PW.1 might have stated that as a result of infliction of injury on his abdomen he sustained bleeding injuries and due to the assault by accused No.2 he sustained injury on the right little finger. PW.1 has not stated that he sustained fracture due to the assault by accused No.2. This aspect assumes much importance for the reason that PW.1 himself is a doctor. If at all he had sustained fracture he would have stated the same. The medical certificate issued by PW.8 doctor does not disclose any x-ray being taken to detect fracture of the right little finger of PW.1. It is also significant to note that PW.1 was not treated as an inpatient. He was not admitted to the hospital for the treatment of the injuries, but he was treated as an out patient and on the same day he was sent home. Under these circumstances, the injury appears to be not a fatal injury. It is true that PW.8 has stated that injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature, but he has not given any reason for giving his opinion that these two injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore merely for the reason that PW.8 has stated that these two injuries are grievous in nature, it is not possible to hold that the 26 S.C.No. 671/2018 offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is also made out. At this juncture it is necessary to go through Section 320 of Indian Penal Code.
" Section 320 - Grievous hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous" :
First - Emasculation.
Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of
either eye.
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of
either ear.
Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing
of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or
face.
Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
38. On perusal of the above, it indicates that the injuries sustained by PW.1 cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 320 of Indian Penal Code. At the best under the facts and 27 S.C.No. 671/2018 circumstances, the offences can be brought within the scope of the one punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.
39. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly indicates the overt act of accused Nos.1 to 3 and their presence in the spot with common intention. Participation of all the accused implies presence of common intention in them. Hence, Section 34 of Indian Penal Code can also be invoked. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, rather what stands proved is offence punishable under Section 504, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, as the accused have used dagger and long which are the dangerous weapons being the instrument of stabbing or cutting which used as weapon of offence is likely to cause death to inflict injury on PW.1. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative, point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative and point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
40. Point No.4: The above discussions at point Nos.1 to 3 disclose that offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not proved, rather what is proved is the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324 read with section 34 of IPC. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 3 are to be held guilty of the offences 28 S.C.No. 671/2018 punishable under Sections 504, 324 read with section 34 of IPC. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 by name Divya Teja, accused No.2 by name Suresh Babu and accused No.3 by name Roopesh are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on bail. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons shall stand canceled.
M.O.1/shirt and MO.2/banian being worthless are ordered to be destroyed. MO.3/long and 29 S.C.No. 671/2018 MO.4/dagger are ordered to be confiscated to the State.
The order relating to disposal of these properties shall be implemented after the appeal period is over.
Sentence will be passed after hearing accused Nos.1 to 3.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I online, typed by him directly, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 16th day of January, 2025) (JAYAPRAKASH . A) LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
-:ANNEXURE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Dr.Navaneeth Krishna
PW.2 Parameshwar
PW.3 Arjun.N.
PW.4 Shakuntala
PW.5 Gangamma
PW.6 Amrutha
PW.7 Gajendra
PW.8 Dr.Tanveer Ali
PW.9 Shantala
PW.10 Gangarangaiah
30 S.C.No. 671/2018
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:-
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW10
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.3 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.4 : Statement of PW4
Ex.P.5 : Report of PW7
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW7
Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of PW10
Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW8
Ex.P.6(b) : Signature of PW10
Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW.9
Ex.P.8 : FIR
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.9 : PF Form No.153/2016
Ex.P.9(a)&(b): Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.10 : Voluntary statement of PW1
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P.10(b) : Signautre of PW10
31 S.C.No. 671/2018
Ex.P.11 : PF Form No.154/2016
Ex.P.11(a)&(b): Signature of PW10
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
Nil LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
MO.1 Shirt
MO.2 Baniyan
MO.3 Chopper
MO.4 Dagger
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
- Nil -
(JAYAPRAKASH . A) LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 32 S.C.No. 671/2018 Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 by name Divya Teja, accused No.2 by name Suresh Babu and accused No.3 by name Roopesh are convicted for the offences punishable under 33 S.C.No. 671/2018 Sections 504, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on bail. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons shall stand canceled.
M.O.1/shirt and MO.2/banian being worthless are ordered to be destroyed. MO.3/long and MO.4/dagger are ordered to be confiscated to the State.
The order relating to disposal of these properties shall be implemented after the appeal period is over.
Sentence will be passed after hearing accused Nos.1 to 3.
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard accused Nos.1 to 3 on quantum of sentence.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted that they have nothing to say on the sentence.
Heard the Counsel for the accused. He has submitted that 34 S.C.No. 671/2018 accused No.2 is suffering from ill health.
Accused No.1 and 3 are in their prime youth. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the background in which the incident occurred, I am of the opinion that a lenient view can be taken while imposing sentence on the accused. If a lenient view is not taken and accused are sentenced for a longer period of imprisonment, their future prospects may be affected. Though the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code provides for sentencing the accused for a period of 3 years, in the circumstances of this case it is just and proper to take a lenient view. Besides this, fine should also be imposed so that the injured is suitably compensated. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 504 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo simple 35 S.C.No. 671/2018 imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each.
In default to pay fine, accused Nos.1 to 3 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs.70,000/- shall be given to PW.1/Dr.Navneeth Krishna towards compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/- is defrayed to the State.
The detention undergone by accused Nos.1 to 3 if any shall be given set off as provided under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
Free copy of this judgment shall be furnished to each of the accused Nos.1 to 3 forthwith.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ Judge,
Bengaluru
Sri.K.S., Advocate files
power for accused Nos. 1 to 3 to
appear along with Sri.DMK,
advocate and files application
under Section 289(3) of Code of
36 S.C.No. 671/2018
Criminal Procedure along with to
suspend the sentence.
Perused the application.
Since the period of imprisonment is
for a period of one eyar, there is no
impediment to suspend the
sentence till the appeal period
subject to the condition that the
accused Nos.1 to 3 shall deposit
the fine amount. Therefore, the
following :
ORDER
The execution of sentence of
imprisonment is suspended for a
period of 30 days subject to deposit
of fine amount.
Further accused Nos.1 to 3
shall execute personal bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with
one surety for the likesum.
Counsel for accused prays
time. For deposit of amount and
furnish surety by 21/01/2025.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ Judge,
Bengaluru