Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya P.S vs Ashok @ Rajanna S/O Lingegowda on 9 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CMM., AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the Thursday the 9th day of July 2015
Present: Sri B. Venkatesha, B.Sc., LL.B.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bangalore.
CC No.257/2014
Complainant State by Kamakshipalya P.S.,
(By Sr. APP., B'lore)
V/s.
Accused 1.Ashok @ Rajanna S/o Lingegowda,
47 Yrs.,
2.Parvathamma C/o Ashok,
Both are R/a No.122, 2nd Main Road,
2nd Cross, Vrushabhavathinagar,
Kamakshipalya, Bangalore-79.
(Rep. by Sri KPS and others, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC.355 Cr.P.C.,
1. Serial Number of the case : CC No.257/2014
2. Date of the commission of the
offence : 01.08.2013
3.The name of the complainant : Sri Chowdapa
4.Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5.The offence complained off :U/s 448 427&506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
2 CC No.257/2014
and proved
6.The plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty and denied
their examination the incriminating evidence.
7.The final order : Acquitted
8.The date of such order : 09.07.2015.
This case has been registered in view of the complaint
submitted as per Ex.P-1 before the then SHO of Kamakshipalya P.
S., Bangalore, on 23.09.2013 at about 21.00 hours.
2.The brief case of the prosecution as set out in the
complaint marked at Ex.P-1 as well as in column No.7 of the
charge sheet is that:-
The complainant-Chowdappa has purchased a site
measuring 40 X 25 feet situated in between, Site No.(1406) 122
and 123 of Survey No.46 of Sannaki Bayalu and that exists a
sheet roofing shed for Rs.12,000/- on 18.04.1988. He took
possession of the said and that his sister-Saraswathamma and her
daughter Sakamma have been residing in the said shed. And on
1.8.2013 during night hours, the accused trespassed into the said
site and destroyed the wall of the said shed and caused loss of
3 CC No.257/2014
Rs.1, 00,000/- to him. When his sister questioned the same, the
accused have put threat that they will kill her in case she will not
vacate the said shed. Therefore, the complainant requested the
then SHO of Kamakshipalya P.S., to take suitable action against
the accused person.
3.After receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint, the then SHO of
Kamakshiplaya P.S., Bangalore, has submitted Ex.P-3 FIR to this
Court. Ex.P-2 discloses that the I.O., had gone to the spot of
incident i.e., in front of residential house bearing No.1 Sannaki
Bayalu Farm Road, that lies within the limits of Kamakshipalya
P.S., Bangalore, on 23.09.2013 and conducted mahazar in
between 8.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. in the presence of the
complainant and panch witnesses Santosha and Rangaswamy.
Thereafter, the I.O., has recorded the statements of witnesses,
Saraswathamma and Sakamma and has submitted the charge
sheet before this Court against the accused persons on the
ground that prima facie from the investigation the allegations
leveled against the accused persons are proved.
4 CC No.257/2014
4.During crime stage, the accused persons voluntarily
surrendered before this Court. They are enlarged on regular bail.
After submission of this charge sheet, this court has taken
cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the aforesaid
accused persons. Copies of the charge sheet have been furnished
to them as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. With no objection from
Counsel for the Accused, this Court framed charge for the
aforesaid offences against them. The same read over and
explained to them in the language known to them. They pleaded
not guilty. The prosecution has examined CW.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as
PWs.1 to 5 and it has got marked three documents as Ex.P-1 to
P-3. Statement of the Accused persons, as required U/sec. 313 of
Cr.P.C has been recorded. The accused persons have denied the
incriminating evidence that appeared against them. They have
submitted that they have no defence evidence.
5.Heard the arguments of both sides, perused evidence
placed before the court.
5 CC No.257/2014
6.During the course of his oral evidence, complainant-
Chowdapa-PW.1 has deposed his evidence by specifically
reiterating almost all the facts as averred in the complaint marked
at Ex.P-1. The evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P-1
Complaint discloses that the PW.1 is not a eyewitness to the
alleged incident. He has further deposed that when he had gone
to the said spot, he found that his house's southeren wall has
been collapsed. PW.2 Sarswathamma and PW.3 Sakamma
according to the complainant are the inmates of the said shed
and that they are residing therein since 25 years. PW's 1 and 2
during the course of their oral evidence have deposed that one
day at about 2.00 a.m. prior to one and half years, when they
slept in the said shed, the accused No.1 demolished the said
shed. PW-2 intimated the said fact to her brother-Chowdappa.
PW.3 has also deposed similar evidence before this Court. PW.4
Jayakumar, the then ASI of Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore has
deposed about receipt of the Ex.P-1 complaint on 23.09.2013 at
about 9.00 p.m. and after registration of the said complaint, he
6 CC No.257/2014
has submitted Ex.P-3 FIR to this Court. He has also deposed that
he had gone to the spot on the next day and prepared Ex.P-2
mahazar in between 8.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. Thereafter, he
recorded the statements of Saraswathamma and Sakamma and
handed over the case file to PSI Wasim Ulla for further
investigation. PW.5 Wasim Ulla during the course of his oral
evidence has deposed that on 23.09.2013 he took up the case
file for further investigation from ASI Jayakumar, he had received
the copy of ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ from the complainant.
Investigation completed. Prima facie he found that the allegations
leveled against the accused are proved. Therefore, he had
submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons to the
Court.
7.PW.2 and 3 have deposed before this Court that the
accused No.1 only demolished the said shed during nighttime
when they were slept in the said shed. If that was the fact,
PWs.2 and 3 might have sustained at least simple injuries. But
PWs.2 and 3 have not deposed before this Court that they
7 CC No.257/2014
received such injuries. During the course of cross-examination
PW.1 has deposed that the said Thimmaiah had not executed
registered sale deed in his favour. He didn't know the said site
number. He has also deposed that he didn't know that the
accused have demolished the said shed. PW's 1 to 3 have not
produced any evidence to show that their exist such said and that
they have resided in the said shed from last 30 years. Therefore,
it would be very difficult to accept that PWs.2 and 3 are resided in
the said shed that alleged to be situated in the said site. In fact
the I.O., has not collected any evidence to show that there exists
such site and that there exists shed in the said site. He has only
collected the ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ The said documents didn't
discloses the site number also. But it bears it's Katha No.1406.
Katha extract is also not produced. Apart from the same as per
the contents of Ex.P-1, the alleged incident was occurred on
1.8.2013, but the complaint was lodged on 23.09.2013. No
explanation is offered either in the complaint or in the evidence
that why complainant has lodged the said complaint on
8 CC No.257/2014
23.09.2013 even though the alleged incident according to him
was taken place on 1.8.2013. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
the evidence of PW.1 to 3 is doubtful in nature and not reliable.
The accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore,
I am of the opinion that it would be very difficult to accept that
the accused persons have committed the said offences on the
aforesaid date, time and place. Therefore, there are no grounds
to believe the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as they are interested and
related witnesses. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as alleged
against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.
8.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
By acting U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 448, 427 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
9 CC No.257/2014They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 months from this date in view of Secs.437 (A) of Cr.P.C., Refund cash security amount of Rs.2,500/- each to the accused No.1 and 2 after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the Thursday the 9th day of July 2015).
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW.1 Chowdappa PW.2 Saraswathmma PW.3 Sakamma PW.4 Jayakumar.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P1 complaint dtd., 23.09.2013 Ex.P2 Mahazar dtd., 23.09.2013 Ex.P3 FIR.
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:NIL
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:NIL (B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
10 CC No.257/201409.07.2015 State by Sr. APP A-1 and 2 on bail for Judgement Case called. A-1 and A-2 present/absent.
Judgment pronounced in the open Court as under vide separate Judgement kept in the file.
By acting U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 448, 427 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 months from this date in view of Secs.437 (A) of Cr.P.C., Refund cash security amount of Rs.2,500/- each to the accused No.1 and 2 after expiry of appeal period.
(B.VENKATESHA) V Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
11 CC No.257/2014