Bangalore District Court
H I M S E Lf Doesn'T Wish To Continue The vs Nil on 11 April, 2023
KABC030445032018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 11th day of April 2023..
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.16394-2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 16394-2018
2. The date of commission In between 09.06.2017 to
of the offence 10.06.2017.
3. Name of the complainant State by Bagalagunte Police
Station.
4. Name of the accused 1: Andruse, S/o.Ganesh,
30 Years, R/at No. 69,
2nd Main, Khata Nagar,
Kammagondanahally,
Jalahally West, Bengaluru.
2:Arun Kumar, S/o.Annamalai,
30 Years, R/at. 2nd Main
Khata Nagar,
Kammagondanahally,
Jalahally West, Bengaluru.
5. The offence complained U/sec.427 of IPC and Section - 2,
of or proved 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of
Destruction Loss of Property Act,
1981
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.NHG & Sri.AKS Advocates,
by: Bengaluru.
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused-1 & 2 are acquitted.
10. Date of such order 11/04/2023.
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.427 of IPC and Section - 2, 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction Loss of Property Act, 1981
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 09/06/2017 during night hours, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station., while CW.1 parked his Toyota Qualis Car bearing No.KA-04-MJ-1786 infront of his house situated at No.11, I Cross, Prashanthnagar, T.Dasarahalli, accused with previous enemity broken the front and right side glasses of the aforesaid vehicles, belongs to CW.1 thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused-1 & 2 are on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge framed U/sec.427 of IPC and Section - 2, 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction Loss of Property Act, 1981., which was readover and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Then the prosecution examined PWs:1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P8 and MO-1 to 3. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused have placed no evidence.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides .
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
09/06/2017 during night hours, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station., while CW.1 parked his Toyota Qualis Car bearing No.KA-04-MJ-1786 infront of his house situated at No.11, I Cross, Prashanthnagar, T.Dasarahalli, accused with previous enemity broken the front and right side glasses of the aforesaid vehicles, belongs to CW.1 thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and thereby committed the offences punishable U/sec.427 of IPC and Section - 2, 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction Loss of Property Act, 1981.?
2) What order?
6.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7.Point No.1:-
In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 2 witnesses and got marked 8 documents and MO-1 to 3.
8. CW.1 is examined as PW.1, in chief-examination he deposed that, on checking of the CC TV Camera he found that the accused came in between 1.00 to 1.30 a.m. near his Tata Qualies Car No.KA-04-MJ- 1786, which was parked infront of his house and assaulted with club on the vehicle glass thereby caused loss to the tune of RS.25,000/-. He further deposed that on the next day he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 and on the same day police visited the spot and drew the mahazar as per Ex.P2, seized the broken glass pieces of the car, club and CD as per Ex.P3 to 6. B u t i n t h e c ro s s - ex a m i n a t i o n he changed his v e r s i o n a nd s a i d t h e re w a s n o l i g h t i n t h e p la c e at vehicle p a r ked . H e i s u n a w a re a b o u t contents of Ex.P1 and P2. He m a d e h i s s ig n a t u re t o E x . P 2 i n t h e Po l i c e S ta t i o n . H e h a s n o t s a w C D . H e c a m e t o k n o w a b o u t t h e a c c u s ed t h ro u g h p o l i c e . H e h a s no t h a n d ed o v e r M O s - 1 to 3 to p o l i c e .
9. CW.7 is examined as PW.2, in his evidence he has deposed that, CW.1 appeared before him and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, on the basis of Ex.P1, he registered the case and sent FIR to the court as well as to his higher officer. On the same day he visited the spot and drew the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW.2 and 3 as shown by CW.1 and seized the glass pieces of the car, club and CD, which are marked as MO-1 to 3. He recorded the statement of CW.4 and CW.5 submited a report as per Ex.P8 a nd handedover further i n v e s t i g a t io n o f t h e c a s e to C W. 8 .
1 0 . P W. 2 is a n o ffi c i a l w i t n e s s a nd h e d ep o s ed a b o u t h i s o ffi c i a l acts and his e v id e n c e is not helpful to the p ro s e c u t i o n c a s e .
1 1 . I n t h e c ro s s ex a m i n a t i o n P W. 1 h a s t u rn e d h o s t i l e a n d e v e n a ft e r f u r t h e r ex a m i n a t i o n b y p ro s e c u t i o n , n o t h i n g has been e l u c i d a t ed f ro m h i s m o u t h . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , he a d m i t t e d t h a t h e c o m p ro m i s ed t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e accused a n d h e d o n o t w i s h to c o n t i n u e t h e p ro c e ed i n g s a g a i n s t t h e accused. When the P W. 1 c h a n g i n g h i s v e r s i o n f ro m one s t re t c h t o a no t h e r h i s v e r s i o n i s n o t t r u s t w o r t h y. Wi t n e s s summons issued to other witnesses, but the c o n c e rn e d police f a i l ed to s e c u re other witnesses. When the complainant h i m s e lf doesn't wish to continue the p ro c e e d i n g s against the accused, t h e re is no point in continuing with the p ro c e e d i n g s . T h e re f o re , prayer of l e a rn e d S r. A P P i s re j e c t e d a n d evidence of other witnesses i s d ro p p ed . Fu r t h e r , w h e n t h e p a r t i e s h a v e c o m p ro m i s ed t h e matter, it would be j u s t i fi e d i f t h e m a t t e r i s d ea l t i n a c c o rd a n c e with the materials a v a i l a b l e o n re c o rd as it would cause no injustice to anybody rather it would meet t h e e nd s o f j u s t i c e a nd d o i n g j u s t i c e i s t h e s o l e m n d u t y o f the Court.
12.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer aforesaid point in the negative.
13.Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused- 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.427 of IPC and Section - 2, 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction Loss of Property Act, 1981.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Property seized in PF.No.73A/2017 dated 10.06.2017 i.e., MOs-1 to 3 are worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 11th day of April 2023.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
1. Kumar
2. Puttegowda.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar.
3. Photo
4. Photo
5. Photo
6. Photo
7. Pollution Inspection Report .
8. Police Report.
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:- MOs:
1. Glass Pieces
2. Club
3. CD.
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused-1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.427 of IPC and Section - 2, 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction Loss of Property Act, 1981.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Property seized in PF.No.73A/2017 dated 10.06.2017 i.e., MOs-1 to 3 are worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.