Bangalore District Court
State By Chandra Layout Police vs No.1 : Nataraja @ Olango on 7 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXIII ADDL., CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-64)
DATED THIS 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016.
PRESENT
SRI.JOSHI VENKATESH, B.A.LL.B,(Spl),
LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SC.No.1513/2014
Complainant : State by Chandra Layout Police
Station, Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
Accused No.1 : Nataraja @ Olango,
S/o Late Raju,
Aged 25 years,
R/at No.74, Marenahalli,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. V.T.K., Adv.,)
1. Date of commission of offence : 13.10.2011
2. Date of report of offence : 13.10.2011
3. Arrest of Accused No.1 : 14.10.2011
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. S.M.Anil Kumar
5. Date of commencement of trial : 04.12.2015
2 SC.1513/2014
6. Date of closing of evidence : 30.08.2016
7. Offences complained of : U/Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 found not guilty
*****
JUDGMENT
1. Police Inspector of Chandra Layout Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 alleging that they have committed the offences punishable U/Secs.307, 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, complainant injured gave statement in the hospital before the A.S.I. as per Ex.P.1 stating that, he is residing in the address shown in the complaint along with his sister, her husband by doing electrical work. One year back to the date of filing of complainant and his friend were playing cricket at Nagarbhavi under name of running team. At that time one Cheeki formed Cheeki team. In cheeki cricket teem accused no.1 was also playing. There was a dispute between the complainant and accused no.1 in playing cricket. As such complainant and accused no.1 bet each other. Accused No.1 threatened the complainant to take his life. Keeping in 3 SC.1513/2014 view of the earlier enmity all the accused persons on 13.10.2011 at about 6.45 p.m. came near Vijaya Bank, Nagarbhavi Road along with his friend Praveen, accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant and his friends, used vulgar language and accused No.1 threatened the complainant that he will not leave him today. With an intention to commit the murder of complainant accused No.1 assaulted the complainant on his head with bat and also on other parts of the body. Accused No.2 assaulted complainant with bat and hands on his legs. Accordingly complainant sustained grievous injuries and admitted to the hospital where Chandra Layout police came and recorded the statement of complainant as per Ex.P.1.
3. On the basis of said complaint Ex.P.1 Chandra Layout police registered a case against the accused No.1 to 3 and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 alleging that they have committed an offence punishable U/Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. In the charge sheet it is shown by the Investigating Officer that, accused No.2 and 3 are absconding and they are not traced 4 SC.1513/2014 out. Accordingly sought permission of the Court to file charge sheet against them when they are traced.
4. After receipt of the charge sheet, VIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore registered case against accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 appeared before the Court and he was released on bail. After furnishing copy of the charge sheet to accused No.1 case is committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offences alleged are exclusively triable by court of sessions.
5. After receipt of case papers from the VIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore, Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered the case against accused No.1 for the offences punishable alleged and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
6. After receipt of the case papers this Court issued summons to accused No.1. Accused No.1 appeared before the Court and was released on bail.
7. After hearing the Advocate for the accused No.1 and prosecution, on the basis of materials available before the Court Charge for the offences punishable U/Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to 5 SC.1513/2014 accused No.1 in Kannada language known to him. After knowing the same, accused No.1 not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
8. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.8 documents and got marked MO.1. NBW issued to CWs.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 returned un-executed as they left the address and not turned up. NBW issued to CW17 also returned un-executed without proper reasons. Sufficient NBW issued to some witnesses returned un-executed. Since complainant, some of the eye- witnesses and panchas turned hostile, prayer of the prosecution to re-issue NBW to CWs.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 17 is rejected and taken prosecution evidence as closed.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, 313 Cr.P.C., statement of accused No.1 is recorded. Accused No.1 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case and submits no defense evidence.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. The points those arise for consideration are :
Point No.1: C©üÃAiÉÆÃd£É ¥ÀgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæUÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÁj EgÀĪÀ 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà DgÉÆævÀjUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ 6 SC.1513/2014 C¤¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ QæPÉmï CqÀĪÁUÉÎ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÉà zÉéõÀzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¢B13.10.2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 6.45 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 1£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ C¤¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ ¥Àæ«ÃuïPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï£À°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ZÀAzÁæ ¯ÉÃOmï ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆqÀ®¥Á¼Àå, £ÁUÀgÀ¨sÁ« ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ «dAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ KPÉÆÃzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ KPÁKQ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ£É JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, FUÀ ¹QÌ¢ÝÃAiÀÄ, FªÉÇvÀÄÛ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀzÉ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉý 1£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ C¤¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgï£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÃݱÀ¢AzÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß §½ EzÀÝ QæPÉmï ¨Áåmï¤AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, PÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ MzÀÄÝ ªÉÄÊ £ÉÆêÀÅAlĪÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉà vÀ£Àß §½ EzÀÝ ¨Áåmï£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vɯÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄUÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁr PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸À»vÀ PÀ®A 504 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 307 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ PÀ®AB 34gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzÀs ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÆwÃvÀªÁV ¸Á©üÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉAiÉÄà ?
Point No.2 : K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ ?
12. 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
13. Point Nos.1 & 2 :- In order to avoid repetition of facts, I proceed to discuss point nos.1 & 2 together in a single discussion.
7 SC.1513/2014
14. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, due to the earlier enmity between accused persons and complainant Anil Kumar one year back at the time of playing cricket, keeping in view of the said enmity on 13.10.2011 at 6.45 p.m. when complainant and his friend Praveen Kumar were in front of the Vijaya Bank, Nagarbhavi Main Road, accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant and his friend Praveen. Accused persons used vulgar language against the complainant and threatened that they will not leave him. Further accused No.1 with an intention to commit the murder of complainant assaulted the complainant with cricket bat on his head which resulted in bleeding injuries and accused No.2 and 3 caught the complainant and assaulted with hands and legs. Thereby committed the offences alleged in the charge sheet.
15. It is well settled principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Whenever doubt arises in the mind of the court about the case of the prosecution, then accused No.1 is very well entitled to get the said benefit of doubt in their favour. Let 8 SC.1513/2014 us see whether the prosecution is successful in proving its case against the Accused No.1.
16. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.8 documents and Mo.1 is marked.
17. PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is the eye witness. PW.3 is A.S.I., who arrested accused No.1 and produced before I.O., PW.4 is A.S.I., who recorded the statement of complainant in the hospital as per Ex.P.1 and submitted before the I.O., for necessary action. PW.5 is doctor who treated the injured. PW.6 and PW.7 are the panchas for Ex.P.5 recovery panchanama. PW.8 is investigating officer, PW.9 is further investigating officer who conducted further investigation.
18. Ex.P.1 is complaint, Ex.P.2 is statement of PW.2, P.3 is report of PW.3, Ex.P.4 is wound certificate, Ex.P.5 is seizure mahazar, Ex.P.6 is F.I.R., Ex.P.7 is spot mahazar and Ex.P.8 is voluntary statement of accused No.1. MO.1 is cricket bat.
19. Complainant is examined before the Court as PW.1. He turned hostile and not supported the case of the 9 SC.1513/2014 prosecution. He clearly stated before the Court that he has no idea about accused No.1. He further stated that, when he came near Vijaya Bank along with PW.2, at that time accused No.3 came and assaulted him with the bat. Accordingly he sustained grievous injury. He was admitted to Sharavathy hospital and then shifted to NIMHANS Hospital. Complaint is marked as Ex.P.1. Even though complainant is treated hostile and cross examined by the prosecution absolutely nothing is brought before the Court to show that accused No.1 assaulted complainant and his friend Praveen with bat as alleged in the charge sheet. Another injured Praveen Kumar, eye witnesses Hemanth and Appi are not examined by the prosecution before the Court inspite of several NBW issued and sufficient time granted. Hence doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the case of the prosecution.
20. One of the eye witness is examined as PW.2. He turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even though PW.2 is treated as hostile and cross examined absolutely no material is brought before the Court to show that accused NO.1 assaulted the complainant as alleged in 10 SC.1513/2014 the charge sheet. Prosecution fails to prove before the Court that, PW.2 given statement as per Ex.P.2.
21. PW.3 is the A.S.I., who stated before the Court regarding arrest of accused No.1 and filing of report as per Ex.P.3. PW.4 is the A.S.I., who recorded the statement of the complainant in the hospital in the presence of doctor and produced before the I.O. In this case the complainant himself turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Complainant never stated that, he has given complaint as per Ex.P.1. Hence, evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the guilt of accused No.1. Accordingly it is not considered.
22. PW.5 is the doctor who treated the injured and given wound certificate as per Ex.P.4. In view of the hostility of the injured complainant, evidence of doctor is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused.
23. PW.6 and PW.7 are the panchas for Ex.P.5 seizure panchanama. According to prosecution police recovered bat used to commission of the offence from accused No.1 at his instance. It is also stated by the prosecution that, accused No.1 has given voluntary statement. PW.6 and PW.7 turned 11 SC.1513/2014 hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even though both witnesses are treated hostile and cross examined, no material is brought before the court to show that in presence of PW.6 and PW.7 police conducted panchanama as per Ex.P.5 and MO.1 is recovered on the spot shown by accused No.1. Hence doubt arises in the mind of the court about the case of the prosecution. Prosecution fails to prove Ex.P.5 seizure panchanama.
24. PW.8 and PW.9 are the investigating officers stated regarding the investigation conducted by them and recording of statement. Prosecution fails to prove before the Court that accused No.1 gave voluntary statement, accordingly Ex.P.5 seizure panchanama is conducted. In view of the hostility of the complainant/injured, another eye-witness and panchas for Ex.P.5 seizure panchanama evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 will not come to the help of the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused persons. Doubt raised in the mind of the Court remained un-clarified. Even though sufficient time is granted prosecution fails to examine I.O., who filed charge sheet and other eye witnesses to the incident. Evidence before 12 SC.1513/2014 the Court is not sufficient to connect the guilt of the accused No.1. So far accused No.2 and 3 are not traced. Looking to any angle this Court is of the opinion that prosecution utterly failed to proves its case as alleged in the charge sheet against accused No.1. Accused No.1 entitled for claiming benefit of doubt in his favour. Accordingly by awarding benefit of doubt in favour of the accused No.1, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution utterly failed to prove its case as alleged and answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
25. Point No.4 : In view of the discussion made above and the findings given on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Acting U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Secs.307, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Bail bond of accused No.1 and that of his surety stands cancelled.
3. MO.1 marked in this case is ordered to be preserved till conclusion of case against remaining accused No.2 and 3.13 SC.1513/2014
4. Fresh bail bonds already executed by accused No.1 and his surety to secure their presence before higher court in case of any appeal is preferred against this judgment of acquittal as required U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C., and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, the transcript revised by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of September 2016).
(JOSHI VENKATESH) LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 : Anil Kumar, S/o Srinivas, 24 yrs,
PW.2 : Om Prakash, S/o Shanmugam, 28 yrs,
PW.3 : P. Sadashivaiah, S/o late Puttaiah, 57 yrs,
PW.4 : M. Anand, S/o late Munivenkatappa, 59 yrs,
PW.5 : Jagadish, S/o B.R.C.Gowda, 43 yrs,
PW.6 : Syed Shabuddin, S/o Syed Namjuddin, 36 yrs,
PW.7 : Syed Hafeez, S/o Syed Mahmood, 45 yrs,
PW.8 : Raghavendra Ibrahampur, S/o Jaganath
Ibrahampur, 34 yrs,
PW.9 : A.B.Rajendrakumar, S/o Beeregowda, 57 yrs.
14 SC.1513/2014
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
- NIL-
3. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.1(c) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.2 : Statement of PW.2
Ex.P.3 : Report of PW.3
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.4 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.5 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.5(c) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.6 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.7 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.8 : Voluntary statement of accused
4. List of documents marked for the Accused:
- NIL -
5. Material object marked in this case:
Mo.1 : Bat.
(JOSHI VENKATESH),
LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bangalore City.
15 SC.1513/2014
16 SC.1513/2014
.