Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Anandakumar on 8 February, 2023
KABC010028602016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 08 th d ay of February, 2023
: Present :
Sri A. EARANNA, M.Com, LL.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 135/2016
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Siddapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
V/s.
Accused Anandakumar,
S/o. Veerathevura
Aged about 25 years,
R/at: No. Kurulugere Village,
Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
[by Sri.N.S. Suryanarayan. Advocate]
Date of commission of offence 11.04.2015
Date of report of offence 11.04.2015
Date of arrest of the Accused Accused arrested on
11.04.2015
Date of release of the accused Accused is in J.C.
on bail
Name of the complainant Munisiddappa
Date of commencement of trial 28.12.2018
2 S.C.No. 135/2016
Date of closing of 19.10.2022
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 08.02.2023
Offences complained of U/s 224, 332, 353, 307 of
I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
J UD GM E N T
The I.O of Siddapura Police submitted a charge sheet
against the accused person of the offences punishable U/s
224, 332, 353, 307 of IPC before the learned 2nd Addl.
CMM Court, Bengaluru, who committed the case for
disposal in accordance with law.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as
under;
On 11.04.2015 at about 11.30 am., CW2 and CW3
took the accused to NIMHANS Health Center, Behavioral
Medicine Unit, Psychiatric Special Clinic who was in
Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru as he was
convicted in S.C. No. 211/2007 by the II Addl. District and
Session Judge, Kolar for the offence punishable U/s 302 of
I.P.C. from 2008. While the accused went for nature call
with intention to escape from the custody of CW2 and CW3
the accused assaulted on CW2 with knife and caused
3 S.C.No. 135/2016
grievous injuries on the left face, nose of CW2 with knife
with intention to kill the CW2. Hence the complaint. On the
complaint of the complainant, the Siddapur police have
registered a case and after completion of investigation, the
I.O. of Siddapur Police Station have submitted a charge
sheet against the accused person for the above said
offence.
3. The accused faced the trial through his counsel
and thereafter, charge for the offences punishable U/s
224, 332, 353, 307 of I.P.C. has been framed against the
accused, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claim to be
tried.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has
examined PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P13
and M.O.s1 to M.O.6 and closed it side. Thereupon, the
accused has been examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. by stating
the incriminating evidence appearing against him, wherein
he has denied the same and he did not choose to lead any
evidence on his behalf and thereby, the defence evidence is
taken as nil. On the other hand learned public prosecutor
4 S.C.No. 135/2016
given up the evidence of CW5, CW7, CW8, CW11, CW13,
CW14, CW16 reported to be dead.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points for my consideration are;
1.PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ 2 £Éà CrµÀ£À¯ï r¹ÖçPïÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉµÀ£ïì eÉqïÓ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ J¸ï.¹ £ÀA 211/2007 gÀ PÉÆ¯É ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀpt PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ²PÉëUÉ UÀÄjAiÀiÁV, 2008 £Éà E¸À«¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÉÃAzÀæ PÁgÁUÀȺÀzÀ°è SÉÊ¢AiÀiÁV ಬಬಧಯಯಗ, ನನವವ ªÀÄÁ£À¹PÀ T£ÀßvɬÄAzÀ §¼À®ÄwÛzÀÝು ¢B 11.04.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¨ÉAUÁªÀ°VzÀÝ ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á.2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä C©ügÀPÉëAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀiÁí£ïì D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ Nimhans health center behavioural medicine unit, Psychiatric special clinic UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÆvÀæ «¸Àdð£ÉUÉAzÀÄ Qè¤Pï£À JzÀÄjUÉ EzÀÝ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄzÀ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, C°èAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ Nr §AzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3gÀªÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÁªÀ®Ä C©ügÀPÉë¬ÄAzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀÄÝ D ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆæ ¨s Á gÀ w ÃAiÀ Ä zÀ A qÀ ¸À A »vÉ PÀ ® A 224 gÀr ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ ಮಯಡರುವರರಬದು ಸರಯರರ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß ಅಭಯನಜನರಯು ಸಬಶಯಯತನತ ಸಯಬನತುಪಡಸುತತದರಯನ?
2. ZÁ¸Á-2 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ C©ügÀPÉë¬ÄAzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ತನನ §½ EzÀÝ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ KPÁKQ ZÁ¸Á-2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁ½ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ D ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆæ ¨s Á gÀ w ÃAiÀ Ä zÀ A qÀ ¸À A »vÉ PÀ ® A 353 gÀr ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß ಮಯಡರುವರರಬದು ಸರಯರರ ಅಭಯನಜನರಯು ಸಬಶಯಯತನತ ಸಯಬನತುಪಡಸುತತದರಯನ?
5 S.C.No. 135/2016
3. ¨ÉAUÁªÀ°VzÀÝ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á.2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ PÀvÀðªÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀzÀAvÉ ¨ÉzÀj¹ ¸Àé- EZÉé¬ÄAzÀ UÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ D ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆæ ¨s Á gÀ w ÃAiÀ Ä zÀ A qÀ ¸À A »vÉ PÀ ® A 332 gÀr ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ ಮಯಡರುವರರಬದು ಸರಯರರ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß ಅಭಯನಜನರಯು ಸಬಶಯಯತನತ ಸಯಬನತುಪಡಸುತತದರಯನ?
4. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁ¸Á.2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî®Ä vÀªÀÄä PÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥ÀPÀÌPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÁUÀ CªÀgÀ JqÀUÀqÉ ªÀÄÄR, ªÀÄÆV£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ£À¸ÉÆà EZÉѬÄAzÀ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ZÀÄaÑ, PÉÆAiÀÄÄÝ, wêÀægÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹ ªÀiÁgÀuÁAwPÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr PÉƯÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ vÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜ£ÁUÀÄwÛãÉA§ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ EzÀÝgÀÄÁ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀÄÝ, D ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆæ ¨s Á gÀ w ÃAiÀ Ä zÀ A qÀ ¸À A »vÉ PÀ ® A 307 gÀr ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß ಮಯಡರುವರರಬದು ಸರಯರರ ಅಭಯನಜನರಯು ಸಬಶಯಯತನತ ಸಯಬನತುಪಡಸುತತದರಯನ?
5. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per final order, for the
following:
R E A S ON S
8. Points No. 1 :- Learned Public Prosecutor argued that in PW1 to PW13 witnesses are examined and supported to the prosecution case. She further argued that 6 S.C.No. 135/2016 on 11/04/2015 the present accused along other convicted prisoners were brought to NIMHANS hospital for treatment. On the said dated the accused has also brought to the said hospital for providing treatment. At about 1.15 p.m the accused went to attend the nature call in the said hospital. inspite few minutes the accused did not came from the toilet room, then PW1 and PW2 knocked the toilet room door, all of a sudden, the accused came from toilet room and poured the chilly powder and assaulted with knife on PW1. Due to it, PW1 sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter the PW8 lodged the complaint, based on the complaint the PW12 conducted the entire investigation and filed the chargesheet against the accused, for an offences punishable U/s. 224, 307, 353, 332 that the accused has obstructed to discharge the official duty. In this regard the PW9 clearly stated that PW1 has sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the prosecution prays to convict the accused for the above said offences.
9. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused has not at all committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further argued that prosecution witness 7 S.C.No. 135/2016 have deposed in their evidence that, while taking the accused from the prison that all the convicted prisoners gone through the security check while leaving the Central Jail, Bangalore to NIMHANS Hospital and at the time of entering to NIMHANS hospital. There is a CCTV camera and also live detector. Thereafter the convicted prisoner may taken to the treatment. He further argued that, witness of this case clearly stated in their evidence that, at the time of arrival to prison and departure from prison all the convicted prisoners are thoroughly checked through live detector. In this case also while leaving the prison, all the convicted prisoners are thoroughly checked and let them to go NIMHANS Hospital. While entering into NIMHANS hospital also thoroughly physically checked all the convicted prisoners and allowed to enter the hospital and in the hospital also there is a CCTV camera installed. The prosecution has not produced the CCTV camera footage.
10. He further argued that, at the time of arrival to prison and departure from prison all the convicted prisoners are thoroughly checked through live detector and 8 S.C.No. 135/2016 Jail authorities and also checked while entering into NIMHANS hospital before giving the treatment. But the prosecution has not explained from where the accused has got chilly powder and knife. In this regard the prosecution has not produced the documents or evidence. He further argued that, at no point of time accused has assaulted on PW1 by pouring chilly powder. He further argued that, while proceeding in the hospital PW1 fell down and sustained injury. Rather than official witness none of the independent witness who were present in the NIMHANS hospital not explained by the prosecution. There is no collaboration in the PW1 to PW8 and created a story against the accused person. Therefore, he prays to acquit the accused from the alleged offences.
11. PW1 T.Muniswamy is the eye-witness to this case. he deposed that, on 11/04/2015 he was working in CAR, Adugodi South Division as Head constable and CW1 is his ARSI. He was discharging his duty as Head Constable at CAR, South Division on 11/04/2015, at about 8.00 a.m. CW1 approached him and he along with CW3 were incharged to go NIMHANS Hospital along with 11 convicted 9 S.C.No. 135/2016 prisoners for check-up. 25 escort were deputed to lookafter 11 convicted prisoners. PW1 and CW3 were deputed to escort the accused person of this case. At about 11.30 a.m. the convicted prisoners were taken to NIMHANS hospital, the present accused were taken to psychiatric ward. He along with CW3 and accused were waiting for the Doctor. At about 12.00 p.m. accused wanted to attend nature call, after 5 minute, as the accused has not came out from the toilet room and he knocked the door accused opened the door, all of sudden started to escape from the said police and tried to run from the said place.
12. He further deposed that, they chased and tried to caught hold the accused person, then the accused assaulted on his left cheek and nose and got bleeding injuries. He further deposed that, after assault he was taken for treatment in the NIMHANS Hospital, thereafter from NIMHANS Hospital went to Mallya Hospital and there he was in-patient for a period of 7 days, took treatment in the said hospital. He further deposed that, he cannot say from which material object assaulted on him. He further deposed that, he cannot identify the accused person who 10 S.C.No. 135/2016 assaulted on him. He has not supported the prosecution case, thereafter, prosecution cross examined this witness he has supported the prosecution case.
13. On careful perusal of the Examination in chief of PW1 he deposed that, "5 ನಮಷವಯದರರ ಆರರರನಪ ಶಶಚಯಲಯದಬದ ಹರರರಗಡರ ಬರಲಲಲ. ನಯವವ ಆಗ ಶಶಚಯಲಯದ ಬಯಗಲನುನ ತಟಟದಯಗ ಆರರರನಪ ಬಯಗಲು ತರರರದು ನಮಮ ಮನಲರ ಖಯರದ ಪವಡಯನುನ ಎರಚ ನಮಮ ಅಭರರರಕಯಬದ ತಪಪಸರರರಬಡು ಓಡಲು ಪಪಯತನಸದ. ಆವಯಗ ನಯವವ ಆತನನುನ ಬರನನಟಟ ಹಡಯಲು ಪಪಯತನಸದರವವ. ಆಗ ಆರರರನಪ ನನನ ಮನಲರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡ ನನನ ಎಡ ರರನರನ ಮತುತ ಮರಗನ ಬಳ ರಕತಗಯಯ ಮಯಡದನು. ಆಗ ನಯನು ಮತುತ ಚಯ.ಸಯ. 3 ರವರು ಸರನರ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಹಡದರವವ ಮತುತ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಚಯ.ಸಯ. 3 ರವರಗರ ಒಪಪಸ ನಯನು ಅದರನ ನಮಯನನನ ಆಸಪತರಪಯಲಲ ಪಪಥಮ ಚಕತರನ ಪಡರಯಲು ಹರರನದರ . ನಮಯನನನ ಆಸಪತರಪಯಲಲ ನನಗರ ವರವದದರು ಪಪಥಮ ಚಕತರನ ನನಡ ಹರಚಚನ ಚಕತರನಗರ ಮಲದ ಆಸಪತರಪಗರ ಕಳುಹಸದರು. ನಯನು ಮಲದ ಆಸಪತರಪಯಲಲ 7 ದನ ಒಳರರರನಗಯಯಗ ಚಕತರನ ಪಡರದರನು". He further deposed that "ಆರರರನಪ ಯಯವ ಆಯುಧದಬದ ನನಗರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡದದ ಎಬದು ನನಗರ ಗರರತತಲಲ". He further deposed that, "ಘಟನರ ವರನಳರ ನಯನು ಧರಸದದ ರಕತದ ಕಲರಯಯದ ನನನ ಬಟರಟಯನುನ ನಯನು ನರರನಡದರರ ಗುರುತಸುತರತನನರ".
14. On careful perusal of the examination chief of PW1 he has not identified the MO3 as per the prosecution case. On 11/04/2015 in all 11 convicted prisoners were taken to 11 S.C.No. 135/2016 NIMHANS hospital along with 25 CAR staff. As per prosecution case, after accused went to attend nature call into the toilet room, in spite of 5 minutes he has not came out and after knocking the door. All of a sudden the accused has tried to ran away and PW1 and PW2 has chased the accused, all of a sudden the accused has assaulted. On careful perusal of the examination chief of PW1, he has not at all stated that the accused has assaulted from MO3. The PW1 has not identified the MO3 in the examination in chief. He further depose that, he has not identified the person who assaulted on him. If the alleged offence was really taken place, then the PW1 who is the eye witness, may depose clearly regarding the assault made by the accused and may identify the MO3. On the other hand, in the examination in chief PW1 has not stated accused has assaulted with MO3 and he may identify the accused person. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
15. PW1 was cross examined by the counsel for the accused, he deposed in the cross examination that "ಪರಪಪನ ಅಗಪಹಯರ ಜರವಲನಬದ ನಮಯನನನ ಆಸಪತರಪಗರ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ತರಗರದರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗುವಯಗ ಆರರರನಪಗರ ರರವರರರಳ ತರರಡಸಲಯಗತುತತ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ. ಪಪತ 12 S.C.No. 135/2016 ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಜರವಲನಬದ ಕರರತರುವಯಗ ಅವರ ಅಬಗ ಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡ ಕರರತಬದರುತರತನವರ. ಸದರ ದನ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಸಹ ಅಬಗ ಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡ ಕರರತಬದರುತರತನವರ. ನಮಯನನನ ಆಸಪತರಪಯ ರಯರಡಯರನತ ನಲಲ ಸಸ ರಯದಮರಯ ಅಳವಡಸಲಯಗದರಯಯನ ಇಲಲವನ ಎಬದು ನನಗರ ಗರರತತಲಲ. ಸದರ ದನದಬದು ಆರರರನಪಯು ಶಶಚಯಲಯರರಕ ರರವರರರಳದರರಬದಗರ ಹರರನಗರುತಯತರರ. ಸದರ ನಮಯನನನ ಆಸಪತರಪಯ ರಯರಡಯರನ ಬಹಳ ಜನಗಳು ಓಡಯಡುತಯತರರ ಎನುನವವದು ಸರ. ಅಬತಹ ಸಬದರರದಲಲ ಯಯವವದರನ ರರವದಗಳು ಪನಲನಸರ ವಶದಬದ ತಪಪಸರರರಳುಳವವದು ಕಷಟ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ".
16. As per cross of PW1 on the said date the accused was tied with handcuff and chain, he further deposed that, as number of persons were going here and there in the corridor of NIMHANS hospital, in such a case it is very difficulty for any accused to escape from the custody of the police. As per the evidence of PW1, 25 CAR staffs were escorting convicted prisoners to the hospital. When such being the case no one person can escape from the CAR police. As per the Evidence of PW1 when the accused is tied with handcuff then he may not tried to escape from the said place, even prosecution has not explained from where the accused has got the MO3 and MO6. It is burden on the prosecution to prove that, the accused have poured the chilly powder and assaulted with MO6.
13 S.C.No. 135/2016
17. On going through the entire evidence and prosecution, none of the witness have not stated in the examination in chief or cross examination that, from where and how the accused has got MO3 and MO6. If the accused person assaulted with MO3 then the general public who came to the said hospital for take treatment they may caught hold the accused person. In this regard prosecution has not examined any of eyewitness who were presented in the said hospital and doctors who were presented at that time. PW1 further deposed that, he has taken treatment and admitted for a period of 7 days in Mallya Hospital. Prosecution has not produced any single piece of evidence that the PW1 has taken treatment in the Mallya Hospital. As per evidence of PW1 he was taken treatment for a period of 7 days as inpatient in Mallya hospital. When such being the case, if he has really assaulted by the accused and sustained injuries, then the prosecution may produce the documents from Mallya Hospital. The investigation agency have not produced any single paper nor evidence to prove that PW1 was taken treatment in Mallya Hospital. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1, prosecution has failed to prove its case. 14 S.C.No. 135/2016
18. PW2 C.Prasanna who is the another eye-witness to the incident. As per his evidence on 11/04/2015 he along with PW1 were deputed to take convicted prisoners to NIMHANS hospital from the Central Prison. As per his evidence, in all 11 convicted prisoners taken in a vehicle bearing No. KA-05-G-12. As per his evidence, he along with PW1 was escorted the accused. Then the accused went to attend the nature call, within two minutes heard a sound, immediately, he went to see inside the toilet room, then the accused has assaulted on PW1 with knife on the right and left side of the cheek, due to it PW1 sustained the injuries.
19. As per the evidence of PW2 that, on the said date 11 convicted prisoners were taken in reserved van bearing No. KA-05-G-12, he further deposed that he and PW1 were deputed to escorting the said accused. At about 1.15 pm the accused went to attend the nature call. He further deposed that, he was standing outside of the toilet room. After hearing the sound he got suspicious, went inside the toilet room, there the accused assaulted on the PW1 with knife on right & left portion of the face, due to it PW1 sustained bleeding injuries. He further depose that, he was 15 S.C.No. 135/2016 pulled the handchain of the accused, then he caught hold the accused and taken into custody. PW2 is the eye witness to the incident.
20. On careful perusal of evidence of PW2 he deposed that, "ನಯನು, ಪಯಪ.ಸಯ-1 ಮತುತ ಆರರರನಪ ವರವದದರ ಬರುವರರಗಯಗ ರಯಯುತತದಯದಗ ಮಧಯದಹನ ಅಬದಯಜು 1-15 ಗಬಟರಗರ ಆರರರನಪ ಮರತಪ ವಸಜರನರ ಮಯಡಬರನರರಬದು ಹರನಳದದರಬದ ಪಯಪ.ಸಯ1 ರವರು ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಅಲಲಯನ ಇದದ ಶಶಚಯಲಯದ ಒಳಗರ ಕರರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನದರು. ಆಗ ನಯನು ಹರರರಗಡರ ರಯಯುತಯತ ನಬತದರದ". As per the evidence of PW2, PW1 and accused went inside the toilet room, he was waited outside the toilet room. He further depose that "ಆರರರನಪ ಮತುತ ಪಯಪ.ಸಯ. 1 ರವರು ಶಶಚಯಲಯರರಕ ಹರರನದ 2 ನಮಷದಲಲ ಸರಪಳಯ ಶಬದ ರರನಳ ಬಬತು, ಕರಡಲರನ ನಯನು ಅನುಮಯನ ಬಬದು ಸದರ ಶಶಚಯಲಯದ ಒಳಗರ ಹರರನದಯಗ ಆರರರನಪ ಪಯಪ.ಸಯ1 ರವರಗರ ಚಯಕುವನಬದ ಮುಖದ ಬಲ ಮತುತ ಎಡ ಭಯಗರರಕ ಹರರಡರದು ರಕತಗಯಯ ಮಯಡದದನು". On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW2, he has not at all stated that, after pouring chilly powder and assaulted on PW1. On perusal of evidence of PW1 that "5 ನಮಷವಯದರರ ಆರರರನಪ ಶಶಚಯಲಯದಬದ ಹರರರಗಡರ ಬರಲಲಲ. ನಯವವ ಆಗ ಶಶಚಯಲಯದ ಬಯಗಲನುನ ತಟಟದಯಗ ಆರರರನಪ ಬಯಗಲು ತರರರದು ನಮಮ ಮನಲರ ಖಯರದ ಪವಡಯನುನ ಎರಚ ನಮಮ ಅಭರರರಕಯಬದ ತಪಪಸರರರಬಡು ಓಡಲು ಪಪಯತನಸದ. ಆವಯಗ ನಯವವ ಆತನನುನ ಬರನನಟಟ ಹಡಯಲು ಪಪಯತನಸದರವವ. ಆಗ ಆರರರನಪ ನನನ ಮನಲರ ಹಲರಲ 16 S.C.No. 135/2016 ಮಯಡ ನನನ ಎಡ ರರನರನ ಮತುತ ಮರಗನ ಬಳ ರಕತಗಯಯ ಮಯಡದನು". The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are deposed in different manner. As per evidence of PW1, he stayed outside of toilet room after 5 minutes the accused has not came out, then knocked the door, accused opened the door and poured chilly powder and tried to escape and then they chased the accused and the said accused assaulted the PW1 on left side of the face and nose. On the other hand he has not at all stated the accused assaulted on right side of face. PW1 has not at all stated assaulted with knife, PW1 deposed he do not know from which material object the accused has assaulted. On the other hand PW1 and PW2 both deposed in different manner. PW1 deposed in the Examination in chief that he has not seen the MO3 in the said place.
21. PW2 has deposed in the cross examination that, on the said date they have brought the accused from the central prison by checking thoroughly, he further deposed that accused went to the toilet room at 1.15 p.m. He deposed further that, in the corridor there is a CCTV camera installed, accused went to toilet room and he took 2-3 minutes to come out from toilet room. He denied that 17 S.C.No. 135/2016 the accused has not obtained the chilly powder and knife with him. PW1 deposed that, the accused has assaulted on him with MO3, on the other hand PW2 deposed in different manner. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
22. P.W:3 Shivashankar.K deposed that, he was working as security supervisor, and 4 years back, one person have assaulted on police in NIMHANS Hospital. Police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1. He further deposed that he is working as Security Supervisor in the NIMHANS Hospital. On careful perusal of the entire examination in chief, he has not at all stated that, on 11/04/2015 the police conducted the said mahazer at 2.15 p.m to 2.45 p.m, even he has not stated who wrote the Ex.P1 and who gave information to write the Ex.P1. He further deposed that "ನ.ಪ1 ರಲಲ ಏನರನನು ಬರರದರುತಯತರರ ಎಬದರರ ನನಗರ ಗರರತತಲಲ." On careful perusal it is seen that the PW3 do not know contents of Ex.P1. PW3 has not stated on which date, at what time Ex.P1 was conducted. Therefore, from the evidence of PW3, prosecution has failed to prove its case. 18 S.C.No. 135/2016
23. PW4 Hanumaiah deposed that, from 1983 to till the date, he is working in CAR. He further deposed that, CW1 CW2 and PW2 are known to him. On 11/04/2015 the convicted prisoners were taken from central prison to NIMHANS Hospital for providing the treatment. He further deposed that, along with him all 23 staffs were deputed to take the convicted prisoners to the hospital, at about 9.30 in all 11 prisoners were taken through the van, CW1 Munisiddappa was supervised to take convicted prisoners to the NIMHANS Hospital. At about 11.00 they were brought to NIMHANS Hospital. He further deposed that "ಸದರ ದನದಬದು ಆರರರನಪಯು ಚಯಸಯ2 ಮತುತ ಪಯಪಸಯ 2 ರವರ ಮನಲರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡರುವವದು ಮತುತ ಚಯಸಯ2 ಮತುತ ಪಯಪಸಯ 3 ರವರ ಕತರವದರರಕ ಅಡಡಪಡಸರುವವದು ಹಯಗರ ಚಯ.ಸಯ 2 ಮತುತ ಪಯಪಸಯ 3 ರವರಬದ ಅಭರರರಕಯಬದ ತಪಪಸರರರಳಳಲು ಪಪಯತನ ಪಟಟರುವವದು ನಯನು ನರರನಡಲಲ". PW4 who was official witness, inspite of it, he has not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter, the prosecution cross examined this witness, but he has not supported the prosecution case. He denied, he has given statement as per Ex.P2. PW4 is the official witness, he is also deputed to the take 11 convicted prisoners from the central prison to NIMHANS Hospital. As per the prosecution case, he is the eye witness to the case, 19 S.C.No. 135/2016 inspite of it, he has not supported prosecution case. Therefore, from the evidence of PW4 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
24. PW5 Hemanand was working as security supervisor in the years 2015 in the month of January. Then the Siddapura police have obtained signature on Ex.P3, on the said date, they have arrested accused and obtained one knife, one chilly powder and blood stained white pant and shirt. He further deposed that, he has identified the materials obtained from the accused. He further deposed that "ತದನಬತರ ಪನಲನಸರು ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಪನಲನಸನತ ಠಯಣರಗರ ಕರರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನದರು. ನಯನು ಸಹ ಪನಲನಸು ಠಯಣರಗರ ಹರರನಗರುತರತನನರ. ಠಯಣರಯಲಲ ಪನಲನಸರು ನನನ ಸಹಯನುನ ಒಬದು ದಯಖಲಯತಗರ ಪಡರದರುತಯತರರ . ಪನಲನಸರು ಮು.ಮಯಲು 3, 4, 5 ಮತುತ 6 ನುನ ನಯದಯಯಲಯದ ಮುಬದರ ಇರುವ ಆರರರನಪಯು ಬರಬಗಯವಲು ಇದದ ಪನಲಸರ ಮನಲರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡರುತಯತರರ ಎನುನವ ಸಬಬಬಧವಯಗ ಅಮಯನತು ಪಡಸರರರಬಡರುತಯತರರ. ಮು.ಮಯಲು 4 ಮತುತ 5 ನುನ ಆರರರನಪಯನ ಆ ದನ ತರರಟಟದುದ, ಆರರರನಪಗರ ಬರನರರ ವಸತಸಗಳನುನ ನನಡ ಮು.ಮಯಲು 4 ಮತುತ 5 ನುನ ವಶಪಡಸರರರಬಡರುತಯತರರ". On perusal of Ex.P3 it reveals that on 11/04/2015 the police have conducted the Mahazer at 3.00 to 3.45 p.m. and seized the above said articles.
20 S.C.No. 135/2016
25. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW5, he has not at all stated that on 11/04/2015 at about 3.00 to 3.45 p.m. the police have conducted the mahazer and he put signature on the said document. He further depose that "ನಪ 3 ರರಕ ನಯನು ಪನಲನಸು ಠಯಣರಯಲಲ ಸಹ ಮಯಡದರದ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ" . PW5 admitted in the cross examination that, he put his signature on Ex.P3 in the police station. Therefore from the evidence of Ex.P5 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
26. PW6 Chandrashekar Kallappa deposed that from 05/03/2013 to 01/10/2018 he was working as CAR in the police station. He deposed that Munisiddappa is his ARSI. On 11/04/2015 at about 8.00 a.m. he deputed to take all the convicted prisoners from Central prison to NIMHANS hospital for providing treatment. He further depose that, himself and other CAR staffs have taken in all 11 convicted prisoners to NIMHANS Hospital at about 10.30 a.m. and reached the NIMHANS Hospital at 11.30 a.m. CW2 and 3 were deputed to escort the present accused and they have taken to medicine unit in NIMHANS Hospital. At 1.15 p.m. the accused went to attend nature call, at that time the CW2 and 3 were escorted. Accused tried to escape from the 21 S.C.No. 135/2016 escort, then CW2 and 3 tried to caught hold the accused. Immediately the accused has taken the knife and assaulted on CW2 on left portion of the neck and assaulted on nose and tried to escape. He and CW3 went & caught hold the accused and handed over to CW1. PW6 is seems to be eye- witness to the incident. On careful perusal of the entire examination in chief of PW6 is no where stated that at 1.15 p.m accused went to attend nature call, at that time CW2 and 3 were waiting for the accused and accused has not came and knocked the door, immediately the accused came and poured the chilly powder and assaulted on PW1 with knife on left cheek and nose. PW6 nowhere stated in the examination in chief that, the accused assaulted on left cheek. On the other hand he deposed that the accused has assaulted with knife on left side of the neck and nose. On the other hand the PW1 has nowhere stated that the accused has assaulted with knife on the left side of the neck. PW6 has not stated in the examination in chief that, after incident PW1 were taken treatment in Mallya hospital. PW6 has not stated in the evidence that, the accused has poured the chilly powder. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused, in the cross examination he 22 S.C.No. 135/2016 deposed "ಯಯವವದರನ ರರವದಯನುನ ರರನಬದಪ ರಯರಯಗಗಹದಬದ ಹರರರಗಡರ ಕರರತರುವ ಮುನನ ಅಬಗ ಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡುತರತನವರ." He further deposed that he did not know whether CCTV camera was installed near toilet room or not. As per evidence of PW6 before leaving the central prison, all the 11 convicted prisoners were thoroughly checked through live detector. In this case if the accused was having knife or anything else with him, it will come to the notice of authorities. Then why they have not taken in the central prison. As per the evidence of this witness, all the witnesses have thoroughly checked (examined) before leaving the Central jail and then accused has taken into the van and in the NIMHAS Hospital CCTV camera were installed, then in the CCTV it seems that the accused has not having knife. Even PW6 have not stated that the CCTC was seized from the said place. As per the evidence of PW6 accused tried to escape from the said place and assaulted on PW1. PW6 nowhere stated that, the accused has obstructed to discharge their duty. Therefore the evidence of PW1, PW6 and PW2 are not collaborated to each other. Therefore from the evidence of PW6 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
23 S.C.No. 135/2016
27. PW7 Ravi Nanjappa working at CAR, Reserve, Adugodi, depose that, on 12/04/2015 at about 9.35 a.m. he went to his office to discharge his duty, on the said date the convicted prisoners were taken to NIMHANS Hospital from the Central jail, Bangaluru. He further depose that he and other his colleagues were taken in all 11 convicted prisoners to NIMHANS hospital in van. On the said dated at about 11.30 a.m to 11.45 a.m went, convicted prisoners was taken by one police constable and one head constable then the said convicted prisoners was taken to NIMHANS hospital for treatment. He further depose that, accused has went to toilet room to attend the nature call then he came from the toilet room and assaulted on CW2 and he tried to escape from the said place. Due to assault PW2 sustained injuries on neck and nose. He deposed that himself and other CAR staffs who were in the hospital were caught hold the accused. He has not produced the documents to show that he has deputed on the said date. He further deposed that 25 persons along with 11 convicted prisoners were taken in one vehicle. He further depose that before leaving the central jail convicted prisoners were thoroughly examined/check by authorities and then taken to the 24 S.C.No. 135/2016 NIMHANS Hospital for treatment. He denied, he is deposing falsely against the accused. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW7 he has not stated in the examination in chief or cross examination that on 11/04/2015 in all 11 convicted prisoners were taken to the NIMHANS hospital in a van bearing No. KA-05-G-12 along with CAR staffs. PW7 deposed in the evidence that on 12/04/2015 he and along with CAR staffs have taken 25 convicted prisoners to NIMHANS hospital. As per prosecution as on 11/04/2015 present accused along with 10 convicted prisoners i.e., in all 11 convicted prisoners were taken in the above said vehicle, in all 25 CAR staff, then the accused went to attend the nature call then CW2 and 3 were waiting out side the toilet room. After few minutes CW2 and 3 were knocked the door, all of a sudden accused came and tried to escape from the said place. Accused has poured the chilly powder and assaulted on PW1 on the left side of cheek and nose. On the other hand PW7 deposed in entire different manner, even he has not stated accused has assaulted on the left side of cheek on PW1. Even he has not stated on 11/04/2015 incident was taken, he has not stated where he was discharged his duty in the NIMHANS 25 S.C.No. 135/2016 hospital, at the time of accused went to the toilet room, even he has not stated in the evidence that, on 11/04/2015 he along with other staff 11 convicted prisoners were taken from the Central prinson to the NIMHANS Hospital to provide the treatment and accused has assaulted on PW1. Therefore, it creats doubt that he was present on 11/04/2015. Therefore from the averments of PW 7 the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
28. PW8 Munisiddappa deposed he was working as A.S.I in CAR Police on 11.04.2015 he along with his staff have taken in all 11 convicted prisoners in CAR van from Parappana Agrahara Central Prison to NIMHANS Hospital for providing treatment. He further deposed that he know the name of one of the convicted prisoner by name Anand Kumar taken by the Head Constable Muniswamy and P.C.Prasanna on the said day at 11.am that, they have taken Anand Kumar to the NIMHANS Hospital. He further deposed he cannot say Anand Kumar was taken for which department. He further deposed accused went to attend the nature call and after attending the nature call, he came out of the toilet and tried to assault on CW-2 and tried to 26 S.C.No. 135/2016 escape from the CAR police. He further deposed himself and other CAR staff went and caught hold the accused and produced. He further deposed the accused has tried to assault with the knife on face and neck then PW-1 was sustained injuries on face and neck. He was taken to OPD in NIMHANS Hospital and taken treatment. He further deposed, he lodged the complaint in the Siddapura Police Station. He further deposed on the same day Siddapura Police came to the said place and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.1. He further deposed, from the said place seized one chilly powder packet and one knife along with the blood stained pant and shirt of the accused and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.1. He further deposed in his presence Siddapura Police have collected blood stained cloths of accused and one knife. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. He deposed in the cross-examination "ನಶಯನರ ಪ.4 ದರರನುನ ಸದಯದಪವರ ಠಯಣರಯಲಲ ಟರವಪನ ಮಯಡಲಯಗರುತತದರ. ಸದರ ದರರನುನ ಯಯರು ಟರವಪನ ಮಯಡರುತಯತರರಬದು ನರನಪರುವವದಲಲ". On Perusal of evidence of the PW-8 it reveals that it was not in a written on. He further deposed there is no difficulty in lodging the written complaint. He further deposed he do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and 27 S.C.No. 135/2016 boundaries of said place. On going through the Ex.P.4 it reveals that on 11.04.2015 PW-8 lodged the typed complaint based on the typed complaint Siddapura Police have registered the case. On going through the Ex.P.4 it does not reveals that who typed, where it was typed and whose direction it was typed is not at all mentioned in the Ex.P4 and PW-8 has not at all stated in the chief- examination nor in the cross-examination. On perusal of Ex.P.4 that on 11.04.2015 in all 11 convicted prisoners taken in a CAR van bearing No.KA-05 G-12 with CAR staff. In the Ex.P.4 he has not mentioned all the names of the convicted prisoners who were taken to the hospital on the said date. As per the evidence of PW-8 he has stated that "ಚಯಸಯ 2 ರವರ ಮನಲರ ಚಯಕುವನಲಲ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡ ಪಪಯತನಪಟುಟ ಬರಬಗಯವಲನಬದ ತಪಪಸರರರಳಳಲು ಪಪಯತನಪಟಟರುತಯತರರ". On perusal of Ex.P4 it does not reveals that the accused has assaulted with knife on left side cheek. He further deposed himself and other CAR staff caught hold the accused. He further deposed in the evidence he has not at all stated with the knife accused has tried to assault on PW-1. He further deposed accused has assaulted on face and neck. On the other hand, PW-1 deposed he was sustained injuries on left side cheek. 28 S.C.No. 135/2016 Apart from this he has not at all stated he sustained injuries on neck. On the other hand PW-8 has not stated in the evidence the accused has assaulted with the knife with the left side of the cheek. PW-1 has not stated in his evidence that PW-1 and PW-2 have took the accused to the nature call then after few minutes the accused has not came out from the toiled room. The PW-1 knocked the doors of the toilet, then all of the sudden came out of the toilet tried to escape from the CAR Police. PW-1 and PW-2 have caught hold the accused. All of a sudden the accused have poured the chilly powder and assaulted with knife on left side face with cheek. On the other hand the PW-8 have not at all stated that the accused came out and tried to escape from the PW-1 and 2 and immediately they have tried to caught hold the accused then the accused has assaulted with on PW-1 on the left cheek. Even perusal of the evidence of PW-8 he has not at all stated in the evidence who typed Ex.P.4 where it was typed in whose direction it was typed has not at all stated in the evidence. Therefore from the evidence of PW-8 the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
29 S.C.No. 135/2016
29. PW-9 Doctor Saraha deposed he was working in the NIMHANS Hospital, he deposed on 11.04.2015 at about 2.00 pm one patient by name Muniswamy brought by one Munisiddappa for treatment. He further said Muniswamy has brought with history of assault. PW-9 he deposed he was examined and found the following injuries.
1. Lacerations 2 x 3 cm adjacent to left side of forehead.
2. Laceration approximately 6 cm left side of face oblique plus approximately 2.5 cm lower part fo 1 side of mandible.
3. As per his opinion the PW-1 sustained grievous injuries. He issued a wound certificate as per Ex.P.5. He deposed in the cross-examination he has not brought the case history nor ledger pertaining to the treatment given to the PW-1. He further deposed Siddapura Police have not produced the material object for obtaining opinion and regarding nature of the injuries. As per the evidence of PW- 9, PW-1 sustained injuries adjacent to left side of forehead. On the other head, PW-1 has not stated he was sustained injuries on the forehead..
30 S.C.No. 135/2016
30. PW-9 nowhere stated after giving the treatment he was referred to higher treatment to Mallya Hospital. He has not at all stated he was referred to further treatment for hospital. On the other hand PW-1 deposed after taken in NIMHANS Hospital. He was treated for a period of 7 days in the Mallya Hospital.
31. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that PW-1 was taken treatment in the Mallya Hospital. If he has taken treatment for a period of 7 days in the Mallya Hospital prosecution question ought to produce document pertaining to treatment taken by the PW-1 in the Mallya Hospital. PW-9 has not stated in his evidence that PW-1 needs further treatment and he was referred to some other hospital. PW-9 nowhere stated it is necessary to refer PW-1 for Mallya Hospital or other hospital. PW-9 has not produced case sheet to prove that he was given the treatment as per the evidence PW-1 sustained grievous injuries. Therefore from the evidence of PW-9 prosecution question has failed to prove its case. 31 S.C.No. 135/2016
32. PW-10 Mohan D.Patel deposed he was worked as Police Sub-Inspector in Siddapura Police Station. On 11.04.2015 CW-1 came and lodged the written complaint. Based on the written complaint registered the case in Crime No.96/2015 for the offence punishable U/s.224, 332, 307, 353. He further deposed on the same day visited the seen of occurrence at 2.15 pm to 2.45 pm conducted spot mahazar in the presence of CW-4 and 5 as per Ex.P.1. He further deposed he was taken the custody of the accused in presence of CW-6 and CW-7 seized knife and chilly powder packet and also seized pant and shirt of the accused in the presence of CW-6 and 7. He further deposed he was recorded voluntary statement of the accused. He deposed he has handed over the entire records to CW-19. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. He deposed he has not collected CCTV footage. He denied he has not conducted mahazar and seized the above said articles.
33. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW-10 he deposed that CW-1 Munisiddappa present and lodged the written complaint (ಲಖತ ದರರು) On perusal of the Ex.P.4 it is 32 S.C.No. 135/2016 not a written complaint. It is the typed complaint. On the other hand, PW-8 deposed ಸಯಕಕಯು ಮುಬದುವರರದು ರರವ ಬರವಣಗರಯ ದರರನುನ ನನಡದರದನನರ ಎಬದು ನುಡಯುತಯತರರ. As per the evidence of PW- 8 he has lodged written complaint. PW-10 he is deposed PW-8 lodged the written complaint. In this case the prosecution has not produced the written complaint which was lodged by the PW-8 and after receiving the same the PW-10 registered the case. PW-8 and PW-10 deposed regarding the written complaint. On the other hand, the I.O. has not produced the written complaint which was filed by the PW-8. Based on the written complaint, PW-10 registered the case. PW-8 deposed in the cross- examination Ex.P.4 was typed complaint. He has not stated who typed the said complaint and where it was typed on whose direction it was typed. Even though the PW-1 has not stated in the chief-examination PW-8 was lodged the typed complaint. Therefore, the prosecution has not produced the original complaint which was filed by the PW-8. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-10 the prosecution has failed to prove that PW-8 lodged the Ex.P.4. PW-10 deposed he was conducted spot mahazar and seized above said articles. PW-10 has not stated from 33 S.C.No. 135/2016 which place accused has got knife and chilly powder. Even prosecution has not produced any evidence or document from which place accused has obtained knife and chilly powder packet. As already explained above the prosecution witness stated that while taking the convicted prisoners to provide the treatment that they are searching the body and they are taking the custody of the convicted prisoners. So also after giving treatment while they are handing over to central prison that the prisoner authorities nor CAR authorities may search body while handed over the convicted prisoners. Even the witnesses are deposed that before taking the convicted prisoners they will bring within the live detector. In the live detector nor while physical identification nor in the live detector, it was not found that the accused is having knife and chilly powder packet. Even while taking the treatment in the NIMHANS Hospital nor while assaulting on the PW-1 the prosecution has not produced CC footage from the NIMHANS Hospital. Therefore, from the evidence of PW-10 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
34 S.C.No. 135/2016
34. PW-11 Rajesh K. deposed on 12.04.2015 he received the records from CW-18 for further investigation. He further deposed he has collected documents from the Mallya Hospital and also collected the blood stained badge and Kaaki uniform and belt belongs to the PW-1 and same is produced. He further deposed that on the same day recorded statement of CW-2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 to 12 and 13. He further deposed that on 24.04.2015 he has given letter to Central Prison Parappana Agrahara seeking information regarding the accused in which cases convicted how many years he was sentenced and who taken convicted prisoners to the NIMHANS Hospital etcetera, information sought by the PW-11. He further deposed he handed over the entire case file to CW-20 for further investigation. On perusal of the cross of this witness he deposed "ನಯನು ಬರಬಗಳರರು ಸಆರನ ದಕಕಣ, ಉಪಪನಲನಸನ ಆಯುಕತಕರಗರ ಒಬದು ಪತಪವನುನ ಬರರದ ಪತಪದಲಲ ಯಯವ ವಯಹನದಲಲ ಅಪರಯಧಗಳನುನ ನಮಯನನನ ಆಸಪತರಪಗರ ಚಕತರನಗಯಗ ಕರರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗಲಯಗತುತ ಮತುತ ಯಯರು ಸದರ ವಯಹನವನುನ ಚಲಯಯಸುತತದದರು ಎಬಬ ಮಯಹತಯನುನ ರರನಳರುತರತನನರ".
35. On perusal of evidence of PW11, he has stated that, he has collected the CAR Badge and uniform of PW1 35 S.C.No. 135/2016 i.e. black belt, kaaki pant of Muniswamy from the Mallya hospital. PW11 has not at all stated that, he has collected the wound certificate or other documents to hold that PW1 taken treatment for a period of 7 days in the Mallya Hospital. PW1 deposed that, he has taken treatment in Mallya Hospital, if PW1 was taken treatment in Mallya Hospital then the prosecution ought to produce the documents to show that PW1 was in-patient in the said hospital for a period of 7 days. PW11 collected the badge and Uniform but he has not produced document to show that the PW1 was taken treatment in the said hospital. It is the duty of the PW11 to collect the documents from the said hospital, even he has not made efforts to collect the said documents,. Therefore the evidence of PW11 is not helpful to the prosecution case. He has sought information from the CAR South Police regarding convicted prisoners taken to the NIMHANS Hospital. Apart from this. he has not deposed anything about the accused. On the other hand PW11 deposed that. he has recorded the statement of CW2, 3, 8 to 13. He further deposed that he has handed over entire records to CW 20/PW12 Raghavendra.N.R 36 S.C.No. 135/2016
36. PW12 Raghavendra.N.R who is the investigation officer. He further deposed that. he has received the records from CW19 on 14/05/2015 and obtained the documents from the said persons and escorted the Anand Kumar and collected the documents from the authorities same was taken into the records. He further deposed that. on 01/06/2016 received the records that convicted prisoners taken to the NIMHANS Hospital for treatment and he further deposed that on 17/06/2015 after conducting the entire investigation filed the chargesheet against the accused. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed after taking the investigation from CW19. he has not visited the place of incident. He further deposed that. it is true that in Form No. 41 the name of the accused was not mentioned. He further deposed. case No. was not mentioned in the said document. He further deposed that. after receiving the records from the CW19. he has not visited central prison Parappana Agrahara. On careful perusal of entire evidence of PW12 he has conducted the entire investigation filed the charge-sheet against the accused. He has not stated in his evidence nor in the cross examination from where the 37 S.C.No. 135/2016 accused has got MO3 i.e., knife and MO6 i.e., chilly powder and in this regard PW12 has not collected any material or documents from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. It is bound and duty of PW12 he ought to collect the document nor evidence from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. Even he has not at all stated in the cross- examination or in examination-in-chief from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. Even he has not collected the CCTV Camera footage from the NIMHANS Hospital regarding assault made by the accused on PW1. Even he has not stated while taking the convicted prisoners from the central prison that the concerned staff after inspecting or examining the accused that he has got the MO3 and MO6 has not stated even while taking the accused to the central prison there is a metal detector, in the metal detector it is found the MO3 and MO6 are not at all stated. Therefore PW12 has not conducted the fair investigation against the accused.
37. PW13 Ashok Bhajenthri has deposed that from 02/07/2022 to till today he is working as Assistance Superindent in Central prison, Parappana Agrahara, 38 S.C.No. 135/2016 Bengaluru. He further deposed that Ex.P12 issued by the DIG of central prison. He further deposed that on 11/04/2015 the accused has given convicted prisoner No. 1489 and on that date Muniswamy and Prasanna Kumar were taken the convicted prisoner for treatment under police escort. He further deposed that the B.Suresh has issued Ex.P13 but CW16 was died before trial. On perusal of evidence of PW12 he deposed that " ಸಯಮಯನದವಯಗ ಜರವಲನಬದ ರರವದಗಳನುನ ಹರರರಗಡರ ಕರರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗುವ ಪಪವರದಲಲ ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡುತಯತರರ ಎಬದರರ ಸಯಕಕಯು ಸಎಆರನ ಸಬಬಬದಯವರು ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡ ಕರರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗುತಯತರರ ಎಬದು ನುಡದರುತಯತರರ. ಜರವಲನಬದ ರರವದಗಳನುನ ಹರರರಗಡರ ಕರರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗುವ ಪಪವರದಲಲ ಮಟಲನತ ಡಟರಕಟರನ ಮರಲಕ ಹಯದು ಬರುತಯತರರ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ. ಮಟಲನತಡಟರಕಟರನ ಮರಲಕ ಬರುವ ರಯಲರರಕ ಹಯಗರ ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡುವ ರಯಲರರಕ ಪಕಕದಲಲ ಸಸ ರಯದಮರ ಅಳವಡಸರುತಯತರರ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ. ವರುಟಲನತ ಡಟರಕಟರನ ಮರಲಕ ಬರುವ ರಯಲರರಕ ಹಯಗರ ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ ಮಯಡುವವದು ಈ ಎಲಲವಪ ಸಸ ರಯದಮರ ದಯಖಲರಯಯಗರುತತದರ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ". PW13 is the proper person to say that while taking the person from the central prison there is a live detector and also CAR police do physical check, inspite of it PW13 has not stated that on 11/04/2015 while in the metal detector or physical check the accused has found the MO3 and MO6 in spite of it, prosecution has stated that the accused 39 S.C.No. 135/2016 poured the chilly powder and assaulted on PW1, therefore from the evidence of this witness, prosecution has failed to prove his case.
38. On careful perusal of prosecution papers that on 11/04/2015 in all 11 convicted prisoners were taken in KA- 05-G-12 Van with 25 CAR police escorting the 11 Accused persons, PW1 to 8, 10 to 12 no where stated in their evidence i.e., in the Examination in chief nor cross examination accused has obstructed the PW1 and 2 to discharge their duty. It is burden on the prosecution to prove that from the said witness that the accused person has obstructed to discharge the duty in this regard none of the witness have deposed before the Court. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of section 332.
39. On the other hand PW1 who is material witness and victim in this case, in examination in chief he deposed that he has not identified the accused person. He further deposed that he can't identify the material object i.e., MO3. He deposed that in the examination in chief that " ನನಗರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡದ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ನರರನಡದರರ ಗುರುತಸುತರತನನರ. ನಯದಯಯಲಯದಲಲ ಹಯಜರದದ 40 S.C.No. 135/2016 ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ನರರನಡದ ನಬತರ ಸಯಕಕಯು ಆತನರನ ನನಗರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡದ ವದಕತ ಎಬದು ನನಗನಗ ಗುರುತಸಲು ಆಗುವವದಲಲ ಎನುನತಯತರರ". As per evidence of PW1 he has not identified the accused person and he has not identified the MO3. He deposed that the accused tried to escape from their custody. He further deposed that the accused has assaulted on left cheek and nose, apart from this he has not at all stated that the accused assaulted on the left side forehead. On the other hand PW2 deposed that the PW1 sustained injuries on left and right side of the face. PW2 has not stated the PW1 has sustained injury on the left side of cheek and nose. PW2 nowhere stated that PW1 sustained injuries on nose. PW2 deposed in the evidence that "ನಬತರ ನಯನು ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಸರಪಳಯಬದ ಎಳರದು ತಬದು ಚಯ,ಸಯ1 ರವರ ವಶರರಕ ನನಡದರನು". As per evidence of PW2 that the accused was tied with hand cuff and chain, when the person is tied with handcuff and chain then the accused cannot assault on PW1 with knife as stated by the prosecution. PW1, 4, 6, 7 have not stated in their evidence that on 11/04/2015 then went in jeep bearing No. KA 05 G
12. PW1 deposed in the evidence that "ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ತರಗರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗುವಯಗ ಆರರರನಪಗರ ರರವರರರಳ ತರರಡಸಲಯಗತುತ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ". As per evidence of PW1 and 2 that the accused was tied 41 S.C.No. 135/2016 with handcuff and chain, then he cannot assault on the PW1. PW4 who is the official witness and eye-witness to the incident he has not supported the prosecution case. PW6 is the another eye-witness to the incident he deposed in the examination in chief that the accused is intended to kill the PW1, assaulted with knife on left side of nose and neck. PW6 nowhere stated in the evidence that accused assaulted with MO3 and with left side of cheek and nose. Even he deposed in the cross-examination and examination in chief that before taking the convicted prisoner from the central prison authorities will check bodysearch(ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ) even he has not at all stated from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. PW7 who is the official witness and eye-witness to the incident in the examination in chief nor in the cross-examination he has not at all stated that "on 11/04/2015 he along with 25 CAR staff and 11 convicted prisoners were taken to NIMHAN hospital". On the other hand he deposed on 12/04/2015 they have taken 11 prisoners in the CAR Van, therefore from the evidence of this witness, prosecution has failed to prove its case.
42 S.C.No. 135/2016
40. On 11/04/2015 the alleged incident was taken place. He deposed in the cross-examination that the accused has tried to assault on PW1, he has not stated in his evidence that the accused has assaulted with knife, he deposed that PW1 sustained injuries on neck and nose. He has not at all stated that PW1 sustained injuries on left side cheek and nose. Therefore, on perusal of the evidence of of the evidence of PW1 is the eye witness is material contradiction and omission are there. PW 8 who is eye witness & complainant deposed in the evidence that he don't know to which division/ward the accused Anand Kumar was taken for treatment. He further deposed that accused has assaulted on PW1 on face and neck, due to it PW1 sustained injuries, he has not at all stated in examination in chief nor in the cross-examination that the accused has assaulted on PW1 with MO3 on left portion of cheek and nose. PW8 further deposed that, the PW1 sustained injuries on face and neck on the other hand he has not at all stated that PW1 sustained injuries on left side cheek and there is a material contradiction in the evidence. He has lodged the computerized(typed) complaint and he has not stated who typed, where typed on whose 43 S.C.No. 135/2016 direction it was typed has not at all stated in the evidence, On the other hand PW8 deposed that he has lodged the written complaint (ರರವ ಬರವಣಗರಯ ದರರು) as per evidence of PW8 has lodged the written complaint. He further deposed that he did not know the contents of Ex.P1. He further deposed that he cannot say the boundaries of said place. At the same time PW10 deposed that PW8 lodged the written complaint based on the written complaint he has registered the case, but no such written complaint has not been produced by the prosecution. On the other hand prosecution has produced the Ex.P4 which is a typed complaint, therefore the prosecution has not produced the actual complaint i.e., hand written complaint filed by the PW8 in this case. Therefore all these circumstances creates doubt about committed of alleged offences. On careful perusal of evidence of PW 11 and 12 who conducted the investigation, they have not collected the CCTV camera footage of body search(ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ) of the accused from the NIMHANS Hospital and from Central prison, parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.
44 S.C.No. 135/2016
41. On perusal of the evidence of the above said witness that they have not stated that from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. PW11 and 12 have not at all collected the documents nor CCTV camera footage about body search of the accused from Parappana agrahara Central prison, in this regard the prosecution has not produced from where the accused has got MO3 and 6. PW1 deposed that he was taken for treatment in the NIMHANS Hospital, thereafter took to Mallya Hospital and there he was inpatient for 7 days took treatment in the said hospital. In this regard the prosecution has not at all produced any document to show that the PW1 was taken treatment in the Mallya Hospital as he was in Mallya hospital as in-patient. In this regard the prosecution has not produced the relevant documents nor evidence. Prosecution has not secured any of the independent witness who were presented in the incident on 11/04/2015 that to prove that the accused has assaulted on PW1. As PW2 deposed in his evidence that the accused was tied with handcuff and chain and there are many number of people were going here and there in the corridor of NIMHAN hospital, in such a case it is very difficulty for any 45 S.C.No. 135/2016 accused to escape from the custody of the police. The prosecution ought to produce independent witness, but he has not produced an independent witness. PW 3 and PW5 deposed that they did not know the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 deposed that he has signed the Ex.P3 in the police station. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses prosecution has failed to prove the spot mahazer. When the convicted prisoner were taken from the central prison and handing over the convicted prisoner then the authorities will verify and do physical body search of the convicted prisoner then they will take the convicted prisoner. In this case CCTV camera footage and other documents are not produced regarding assault made by the accused and also having MO3 and 6 with him. Therefore for the above said reason, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Without sufficient and cogent evidence, the Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offence. Accordingly, I answer Points No.1 to 4 in the 'Negative'.
42. Point No.5:- In view of the reasons discussed in Points No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following: 46 S.C.No. 135/2016
OR D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby acquitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 224, 332, 353, 307, of IPC.
The office is directed to take personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from accused along with a surety for the like sum in compliance of Section 437(a) of Cr.P.C.
MO Nos.1 to 6 being worthless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period. Issue intimation to the Jail authority to release accused of this case, if he is not required in any other case.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 08th day of February, 2023) (A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 T.Muniswamy
P.W.2 C.Prasanna
P.W.3 Shivashankar.K
P.W.4 Hanumayya
P.W.5 Hemananda
P.W.6 Chandrashekar Kallappa
P.W.7 Ravi Nanjappa
P.W.8 Muni Siddappa
P.W.9 Dr. Saraha
47 S.C.No. 135/2016
P.W.10 Mohan D Patil
P.W.11 Rajesh.K
P.W.12 Raghavendra.N.R
P.W.13 Ashok Bhajenthri
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Mahazar dated 11/04/2015
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW3 in mahazar
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW8 in mahazar
Ex.P2 Statement of PW4
Ex.P3 Mahazar
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW10
Ex.P4 Letter dated 11/04/2015 by PSI Siddapura
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW 6
Ex.P5 Wound certificate
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P6 FIR No. 96/2015
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW 10
Ex.P7 Statement PW11
Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW11
Ex.P8 Letter dated 29/04/2015
Ex.P9 Police ರಹದಯರ
Ex.P10 J.D.R Extract
Ex.P11 J.D.R Extract
Ex.P12 Letter issued by Superintendent,Central prison,
Bangalore
Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW12
Ex.P13 Nominal Roll of the Convict prisoner confined in
Central Prison Bangalore
48 S.C.No. 135/2016
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1 Kaaki shirt M.O.2 Kaaki pant M.O.3 Knife M.O.4 White shirt by blood stained M.O.5 Pant M.O.6 Chilly powder List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :-
NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :-
NIL List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :-
NIL (A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore