Bangalore District Court
Offered Coffee. When The Accused ... vs With An Intention To Outrage Modesty Of ... on 6 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT:
Sri. E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1202/2016
BETWEEN
State by Peenya Police Station,
Bangalore. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
Krishna Reddy c/o Late Hanumareddy,
a/a 55 years, R/a No.176/1,
7th Main Road, Rukmini Nagar
Nagandra, Bangalore. ...ACCUSED
(By Sri NRS, Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peenya Police Station Bangalore City has submitted charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable U/s.307 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief story of the prosecution are as under:
The complainant CW1 Smt.Prema and her husband CW2 Hanumantu along with their family members residing in the house bearing No. 44/1 situated at 1 st floor, 7th main, Rukmini 2 S.C.No1202/2016 Nagar, Bangalore. The accused being the neighbor is residing in the house located opposite to the house of the complainant. The accused is well known to the family of complainant and CW2 as he is neighbor. Such being the case on 04-09-2015 at about 2 p.m the accused had come to the house of complainant. Since, the accused acquainted with the family of CW1 and 2, hence complainant offered coffee. When the accused talking about arrival of her son, as the complainant want to perform pooja, hence, saying the same to the accused she went near pooja room located in the hall and started pooja. At that time, the accused with an intention to outrage modesty of complainant has touched her body. When complainant has resisted by shouting, the accused with an intention to kill the complainant has put bed spread over the face and with the help of plastic rope has tightened the neck of complainant. Thereby the accused has committed the offense as alleged against him.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional XLV Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused persons. The same was numbered as SC No.1202/2016.
3 S.C.No1202/2016
4. The charge was framed against the accused for the offences as alleged against him. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.9 and Mos1 and 2. The learned PP has gave up the witnesses CW.10 and 11 police witnesses in view of evidence of PW.8 i.e.,IO. The court has issued summons, warrant and proclamation against the witness CW 5 to 7. The concerned police failed to execute NBW against witnesses CW 5 to 7 and to keep them present before the Court, as the prayer of learned PP was rejected and prosecution side evidence was taken as closed with liberty to examine the said witnesses CW 5 to 7, if the concerned police keep them present before the Court, before conclusion of trial.
6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused, as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has complied sec.437-A of CR.P.C. The accused has denied incriminating evidence present against him and not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court.
7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
4 S.C.No1202/2016
8. The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused with an intention to outrage modesty on complainant CW1 Smt. Prema has touched her body and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.354 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused with an intention to outrage modesty on complainant CW1 Smt. Prema has touched her body. When complainant has resisted by shouting, the accused with an intention to kill the complainant has put bed spread over the face and with the help of plastic rope has retained the neck of complainant and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/s.307 of IPC?
3. What order?
9.This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10.Point No.1 and 2: These points are taken up together as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
5 S.C.No1202/2016 It is admitted fact that the complainant CW1 Smt. Prema and CW2 Hanumantu are legally wedded wife and husband and they have been residing in their house bearing No.44/1 situated at 1st floor, 7th main, Rukmini Nagar, Bangalore. The said complainant and CW2 given the other houses in the same building to the witnesses PW3-Savitramma and PW4-Shankar on rent basis. It is also admitted fact that the accused is residing in the house located opposite to the building of complainant. Since, the accused being the neighbor is well-known to the family and complainant and also other neighbors. On perusal complaint and charge sheet it appears the accused in order to take advantage of the aloofness of complainant in the home has went inside the house of complainant and outraged her modesty by touching her body. When the complainant has protested by shouting, hence the accused to protect himself and with an intention to end the life of the complainant has put bed spread on the face of the complainant and tightened the neck with the help of plastic rope. So it appears the intention of the accused is to develop illicit relationship with complainant though she is not interested. Since the complainant has not co-operated has used force to end the life of the complainant. In order to prove the said allegations, as already discussed above the prosecution 6 S.C.No1202/2016 examined complainant who is the prime witness and victim in this case. The prosecution has got marked complaint and mahazar through the complainant. The complainant PW1 Smt.Prema has given evidence regarding her relationship with PW2 and also how she is acquainted with the accused. Except that the complainant has not spoken anything regarding the malafide intention of the accused for commission of atrocity against her that is attempt of accused to outrage her modesty and also tried to kill her. The entire evidence of complainant is not according to the recitals present in the complainant. The prosecution has also examined the husband of complainant PW2 Hanumantu. The said witness PW2 is being the hearsay witness has also not spoken anything about the attempt of killing his wife by the accused and also with regard to outrage of modesty of his wife. Hence, the evidence given by PW1 and 2 cannot be considered as useful evidence to prove the allegation made against the accused.
11. It is pertinent to note that the witnesses PW3- Savitramma and PW4-Shankar being the tenants and witness to the incident have also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that they have never heard nor saw the incident nor specified the quarrel or rescued the 7 S.C.No1202/2016 complainant. According to them, the IO has not recorded their statements. The prosecution has also examined panchas PW5- Sujit and PW6-Praveenkumar to prove the alleged incident. Both the panchas have given evidence that they do not know what is written in the panchanama marked at EX.P2. They have also not supported the statement recorded by IO with regard to mahazar. Hence, the learned public prosecutor has treated the said witnesses PW1 to 6 as hostile and thoroughly cross-examined to bring out the evidence in support of prosecution story. Perhaps, the learned public prosecutor has failed to get any useful evidence through independent witnesses PW1 to 6. Hence, evidence of said witnesses PW1 to 6 not at all useful to the prosecution to prove guilt against accused.
12. The prosecution has examined Dr. Prameela, on perusal of the evidence of PW7 Dr. Prameela shows that she has not found any mark or abrasion or injury on the neck of the complainant. But she has given wound certificate as "injury is simple in nature" for the best reason known to her. When there is no injury found on any part of the body of the complainant then the question of issuance of wound certificate by writing "injury is simple in nature" would not arise at all. In the present case on hand, it is surprised to note that the medical officer has 8 S.C.No1202/2016 issued wound certificate. So it appears PW7 medical officer in order to help the complainant might have issued false medical certificate though no mark or abrasion or injury present on the body of the complainant. Hence, the evidence of PW7 also cannot be considered as trust worthy. Such being the case, the evidence of IO i.e., PW8 Mr. B.R Raghavendra being PSI, has registered FIR vide No.880/2015 on the complaint of the complainant, he has visited spot and conduced spot mahazar and seized bed spread and wire rope marked at Mo 1 and2. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after collecting wound certificate has submitted charge sheet. He has also given evidence about produce of accused by the police CW 10 and CW11. He has sent him to court through remand application, later he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. The said evidence of the IO has completely denied by the accused counsel. It is very clear that the investigation papers and evidence of IO not corroborated and supported by the evidence of independent witnesses and medical officer. There are lot of contradiction present to believe occurrence of the incident as alleged in the complaint. So it is very clear that the prosecution has failed to place material iota evidence to prove the guilt against the accused. Hence this court has answered point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
9 S.C.No1202/2016
13. Point No.3: In view of answer of court on point No.1 and 2 this court pass the following:
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.307 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused stand canceled.
MO.1 and 2 are being worthless, ordered to be destroy after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 6 th day of February, 2020) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
10 S.C.No1202/2016 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Prema P.W.2: Hanumanthu P.W.3: Savitramma P.W.4: Shankar P.W.5: Sujit P.W.6: Praveen Kumar P.W.7: Dr.Prameela P.W.8: B.R Raghavendra List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: Statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6: Statement of PW.5 Ex.P.7: Statement of PW.6 Ex.P.8: wound certificate Ex.P.9: FIR List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:- NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
MO.1: Plastic Rope
MO.2: Bed Sheet
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
11 S.C.No1202/2016 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.307 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused stand canceled. MO.1 and 2 are being worthless, ordered to be destroy after appeal period is over.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore