Bangalore District Court
State By Cottonpet Police Station vs Kanakaraju on 7 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLV ADDL. C.M.M.,BANGALORE.
Dated this the 7th Day of May, 2016
Present : Smt.B.N.Sujatha, B.Sc., LL.B.
XLV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
C.C. No. 5471/2016
Complainant : State by Cottonpet Police Station
V/s
Accused : 1. Kanakaraju,
s/o.late.Dhavamani, 39 yrs,
No.87, 4th cross, Anjanappa
garden, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
2. Eshwara, s/o.Sundar Raj, 20
yrs, No.34, 3rd cross, Flower
garden, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
3. Madan, s/o.Marimuttu, 28
yrs, No.57, 3rd cross, New
layout, Anjanappa garden,
Cottonpet, Bangalore.
4. Babu, s/o.Dhavamani, 41 yrs,
No.122, I cross, Flower
garden, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
5. Harish @ Prabhu,
s/o.Pandurangan, 30 yrs,
No.63, 3rd cross, Anjanappa
garden, New layout,
Cottonpet, Bangalore.
6. Manoj, s/o.Mukesh, 21 yrs,
No.116, 6th cross, Anjanappa
garden, New layout,
Cottonpet, Bangalore.
7. Smt.Krishnaveni,
w/o.Kanakaraju, 28 yrs,
2
CC.No. 5471/2016
No.87, 4th cross, Anjanappa
garden, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
8. Prakash, s/o.Pandurangan,
29 yrs, No.63, 3rd cross,
Anjanappa garden, New
layout, Cottonpet, Bangalore.
9. Anjali, w/o.Marimuttu, 50 yrs,
No.57, 3rd cross, New layout,
Anjanappa garden, Cottonpet,
Bangalore.
10. Devayani,
s/o.Pandurangan, 35 yrs,
No.57, 3rd cross, New layout,
Anjanappa garden, Cottonpet,
Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
In this case, Police Inspector of Cottonpet Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 504, 506, 324 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution, are as under:
That on10/08/2015 at 6.30 p.m. when CW.1 was proceeding towards his house with his friends CW.2 and
3 and the drunken brother of CW.1, at that time Accused No.1 abused CW.1 in filthy language saying as to why you people are shouting on the road. Then CW.1 told it is their family dispute and not to interfere with it. For the said reason Accused No.1 to 10 with common object picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3, formed an 3 CC.No. 5471/2016 unlawful assembly, committed rioting by holding deadly weapons at I cross, opp.Ganesh temple, Anjanappa garden, New layout, within the limits of Cottonpet Police station and wrongfully restrained CW.1 to 3 from moving further and picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and assaulted them with hands and caused hurt. Accused No.1 dashed his head to the head of CW.1, A-2 assulted CW.1 with iron jalari on his neck, A-3 assualted CW. 2 with same iron jalari on his head, A-4 assaulted CW.1 with wicket on his left hand and head, A-5 assaulted CW.2 with iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injuries. Accused threatened CW.1 to 3 with dire consequence of life. Thereby accused have committed the said offences.
3. After the incident CW.1 has lodged the complaint to the police on 11/08/2015 at 17.45 hours and a case has been registered in Cr.No.302/15 for the offence punishable u/s. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 504, 506, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and submitted FIR to the court. In pursuance thereof, on 11/8/15 in the presence of panchas, mahazar is drawn by PSI. Accused produced before court with remand application and were enlarged on bail. That after completion of the investigation, the PSI has submitted charge sheet to the court, against accused.
4CC.No. 5471/2016
4. After receipt of the charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the above said offences against the accused. Copies of the prosecution papers was furnished to the advocate for the accused, as contemplated u/s.207 of Cr.P.C., After hearing on both sides, charge was framed for the alleged offences punishable u/s. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 504, 506, 324 r/w 149 of IPC. Charge was read over to the accused in the language known to them and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this court proceeded to record evidence of prosecution witnesses.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case has got examined CW.1 to 3 as PW1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Since complainant did not support the case of the prosecution prayer of Learned APP for reissue of summons to CW 4 to 10 was rejected & prosecution side evidence was taken as closed. Statement of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., did not arise, as such, it was dispensed with. Hence, this case was posted for arguments.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. In the light of the above, following points arise for my consideration.
5CC.No. 5471/2016
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10/8/2015 at 6.30p.m., accused persons with common object formed members of unlawful assembly, committed rioting by holding deadly weapons at I cross, opp.Ganesh temple, Anjanappa garden New layout, within the limits of Cottonpet Police station & thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons with common object have wrongfully restrained CW.1 to 3 from moving further and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.341 r/w 149 of IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons with common object picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and assaulted them with hands and caused hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.323 r/w.149 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons with common object A-1 dashed his head to the head of CW.1, A-2 assaulted CW.1 with iron jalari on his neck, A-3 assaulted CW.2 with same iron jalari on his head, A-4 assaulted CW.1 with wicket on his left hand and head, A-5 assaulted CW.2 with wicket on his head and A-6 assaulted CW.3 with iron rod on his head and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.324 r/w.149 of IPC?
6CC.No. 5471/2016
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons with common object picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3, abused them in filthy language and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.504 r/w.149 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused persons with common object picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and threatened them with dire consequence of life and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.506 r/w.149 of IPC?
7) What order ?
8. My answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 to 6: In the Negative Point No.7: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 6 : On perusal of prosecution papers, it reveals that the prosecution has placed its reliance on the oral evidence of PW 1 to 3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. PW1 is the complainant. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the mahazar and Ex.P.3 is the statement of PW.2 and Ex.P.4 statement of PW.3 .
10. Now it has to be seen that whether the prosecution is able to substantiate its case in the light of 7 CC.No. 5471/2016 the above oral & documentary evidence placed before this court, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. On perusal of evidence of PW1 to 3 they have stated in their evidence that they know accused persons and accused persons had not came with deadly weapons to their house, they did not wrongfully restrained them from moving further, they have not assaulted with hands, head, iron jalari and wicket to these witnesses. Further these witnesses have stated that accused have not abused them in filthy language and have not threatened with dire consequences. PW.1 has not lodged complaint to the police in this regard. PW 1 has identified his signature on the complaint and mahazar and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and the signature of PW-1 is identified as Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P2(a). PW.2 and 3 have stated that they have not given statement before police in this regard. Further PW.1 has stated that police have not seized any material object or cloths in his presence.
11. Learned APP has treated these witnesses as hostile witnesses and even in the course of cross- examination by the Learned APP, they have denied suggestion that accused with common object had formed members of unlawful assembly, abused them in filthy language, assaulted them with hands, wicket , iron jalari and dashed with the head and caused simple and 8 CC.No. 5471/2016 bleeding injuries. Further It is denied suggestion that accused that accused have threatened these witnesses with dire consequences. PW.1 has denied suggestion that he has given complaint to the police as per Ex.P.1 and he is aware of the contents of the Ex.P.1. It is denied suggestion that police have drawn mahazar in his presence and he has signed to mahazar Ex.P.2 after knowing its contents and police have seized blood stained cloths and material objects. PW.2 and 3 have denied suggestion that they have given statement before police about the incident. The relevant portion of the statement of PW.2 and 3 is marked as Ex.P3 and 4. It is denied suggestion that since these witnesses have compromised the matter with accused, they are deposing falsely.
12. In this case, the complainant and CW.2 and 3 who are the victims and are examined as PW 1 to 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, I did not feel that any purpose would be served by examining other witnesses. As such, the prayer of Learned APP for issue of summons for other witnesses was rejected. The evidence of PW 1 to 3 does not come to the aid of prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused and with this evidence, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. In the light of the above, I 9 CC.No. 5471/2016 have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is well settled principle of law that when doubt arises in the prosecution case, that benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the accused. Extending that benefit of doubt, accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 6 in the Negative.
13. Point No.7 In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 10 are hereby ACQUITTED of the offences punishable U/sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 504, 506, 324 r/w 149 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed, computerized & print out taken by her, and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court this the 7th day of May 2016.) (B.N.SUJATHA) XLV Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 Suman
10
CC.No. 5471/2016
PW 2 Rajan
PW 3 Anil @ Richu
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.3 Statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4 Statement of PW.3
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
NIL
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the Defence: NIL -
XLV Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.