Bangalore District Court
Station vs Persons In Furtherance Of Their Common ... on 13 October, 2022
1 C.C.No.4779/2017
KABC030103212017
Presented on : 09-02-2017
Registered on : 09-02-2017
Decided on : 13-10-2022
Duration : 5 years, 8 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 13th day of October 2022
PRESENT : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S. B.A.(L), LL.B.
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.4779/2017
Date of commission of the
2. 07.01.2012
offence (As per F.I.R.)
Subramanyapura Police
3. Name of the complainant
Station, Bengaluru City.
4. Name of the accused 1. Krishna, S/o Rajanna,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.102,
Jyothibhavan Road,
Bhairappa Circle,
J.P.Nagara 8th Stage,
Bengaluru City.
2 C.C.No.4779/2017
Sections 323, 324, 326 and
The offences complained
5. 504 R/w Section 34 of the
of
Indian Penal Code.
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Accused No.1 is acquitted
8. Date of order 13.10.2022
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City has filed Police Report against the above named accused and 4 other accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 07.01.2012 at 8.30 p.m., when CW2 and CW3 were standing on the road situated behind Veerabhadreshwara Granite, near Bhairappa Circle, Jembusavaridinne, Bengaluru within the territorial limits of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention came near CW2; picked up quarrel with him telling that he is not listening them; they are the rowdies of that area; abused 3 C.C.No.4779/2017 him in filthy languages; voluntarily caused simple hurt to him beating with their hands; accused No.1 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to CW2 by beating on his nose and forehead with stone as a result of which, he became permanently disabled; when CW3 came to pacify the quarrel, accused No.1 to 4 have abused him and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by beating with their hands. Thereby, the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was registered in Crime No.12/2012 at Subramanyapura Police Station. During Investigation, on 10.01.2012, accused No.1 was arrested and produced before this Court. On 11.01.2012, he was enlarged on bail. On completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City filed Police Report against the accused persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w 4 C.C.No.4779/2017 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance of the said offences and the criminal case is registered in C.C.No.9199/2012, the process was issued to the accused persons. But, accused No.1 and 3 have not appeared before this Court. Therefore, the case against them was ordered to split up and this Criminal Case is registered against them. Therefore, in this case, accused No.1 appeared and enlarged on bail. The copies of the Police Report and other prosecution papers are furnished to accused No.1 under section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, since there were grounds for presuming that accused No.1 has committed offences triable by this court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and read over to him in Kannada language. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the charges framed against the accused persons in C.C.No.9199/2012, the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW8, the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and the Material Object MO1. The Prosecution 5 C.C.No.4779/2017 in this case has filed Memo stating that the Prosecution is adopting the said evidences produced in the said case. The learned counsel for accused No.1 has filed Memo stating that the cross-examination of the witnesses of the said case is adopting by the accused in this case also. For the purpose of enabling accused No.1 personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences of the prosecution against him, examined accused No.1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that he has no defense evidence. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No.1. Perused the materials available on record.
5. The points for determination are;
1. Whether prosecution has proved the offences charged against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
6 C.C.No.4779/2017
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 :- In C.C.No.9199/2022, the Prosecution has produced the oral evidences of PW1 to PW8. Among them, PW1 Umesh N.M., is the First Informant of this case and also the Mahazar witness, PW2 Raju and PW3 Prasad are the injured witnesses of this case. PW4 Manjunath is the eyewitness of this case, PW7 Dr.Shivarajaiah is the witness who gave treatment to PW2. PW6 Ravi and PW8 Kantharaju are the witnesses who arrested accused No.1 and produced before the Investigation Officer. PW5 Manjunath is the Investigation Officer of this case. The Prosecution has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Among them, Ex.P1 is the First Information, Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3 is the First Information Report, Ex.P4 is the Report of PW6 and Ex.P5 is the Wound Certificate. The Prosecution has also produced the Material Object MO1. It is 7 C.C.No.4779/2017 stone. During examination of accused No.1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 has denied the above evidences produced by the Prosecution as false. He has submitted that he has no defence evidence.
8. During arguments, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that from the oral evidences of PW1 to PW8, the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO1, the Prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubts. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused No.1 has argued that though, this Court convicted accused No.2 and 4, in Crl.Appeal No.578/2019, they were acquitted based on the same evidences. The Prosecution has relied the same evidences to prove the charges leveled against accused No.1. Therefore, in view of the said findings in the Criminal Appeal, accused No.1 is liable to be acquitted in this case also.
9. In the light of the above arguments, I read the evidences produced by the Prosecution in C.C.No.9199/2012 both oral and documentary. PW1 is not only a First Informant of this 8 C.C.No.4779/2017 case, he is also a Mahazar Witness. But, he has not an eyewitness of this case. He has deposed in his cross- examination that at the time of incident, he was at house. He has admitted that he is not an eyewitness of the incident. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that after enquiry with PW2 and PW3, he gave the First Information to Police as per Ex.P1. PW5 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 10.01.2012 at 11.30 a.m. he received the First Informantion given by PW1 as per Ex.P1, registered the crime and forwarded the First Information Report to the Court as per Ex.P3.
10. PW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 07.01.2012 at 8.45 p.m., when he was coming back to Granite Shop, the accused persons abused him in filthy languages; accused No.1 caused bleeding injury on his forehead and nose by beating with stone as a result of which, he treated with plastic surgery; other accused persons have also beaten him; PW3 came and pacified the quarrel; accused 9 C.C.No.4779/2017 persons beaten him also; thereafter, he was taken to hospital for treatment and he informed the fact to PW1.
11. PW3 has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 07.01.2011 or 2012, at 8.30 to 8.45 p.m. the accused persons were sitting near Granite Shop; when PW2 was coming from Provision Store to Granite Shop, the accused persons abused him in filthy languages; when he went to pacify the quarrel, the accused persons abused him and beaten him; accused No.1 caused bleeding injury on the forehead and nose of PW2 as a result of which, PW2 got plastic surgery to his nose and immediately, he informed the fact to PW1.
12. PW7 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 07.01.2012, at 11.15 p.m., PW2 came for treatment under the history of assault and on his examination, he found the fracture of his Nasal bone. He has opined that the said injury is grievous in nature and such injury may be caused if he was beaten with stone. He has also deposed that he gave Wound Certificate as per Ex.P5.
10 C.C.No.4779/2017
13. PW4 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 07.01.2012 after 8.00 p.m., the sound of crying was hearing; when he went there, PW3 came there; accused No.1 assaulted PW2 with stone and caused bleeding injury and thereafter, they taken PW2 to hospital. PW2 and PW3 have identified MO1 as the weapon used by accused No.1 to beat PW2.
14. PW6 and PW8 have deposed about the arrest of accused No.1 and produced him before PW5 along with the Report Ex.P4. PW5 has also deposed about the produce of accused No.1 before him by PW6 and PW8, arrested him and produced him before the Court.
15. As per the contents of Ex.P1, the date of incident is 07.01.2012 at 8.45 p.m. and the First Information was given on 10.01.2012 at 11.30 p.m. There is delay of 2 and half days in lodging the First Information. Neither in Ex.P1 nor in Ex.P3, the reason for the delay caused in the First Information is assigned. PW3 has deposed in his 11 C.C.No.4779/2017 examination-in-chief that immediately they informed about the incident to PW1. PW2 has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has also informed about the incident to PW1. It is not the case of the Prosecution that as PW2 was at hospital taking treatment, the delay was caused in lodging the First Information. PW3 has also not made any attempt to give First Information to the Police immediately after the incident. Such being the circumstances, the delay in lodging the First Information without any satisfactory reasons is fatal to the case of the Prosecution and one of the suspicious circumstances of improvement in the allegations made in Ex.P1.
16. PW3 has deposed in his cross-examination that at the time of incident, he was near the shop; he has admitted in his cross-examination that before he came there, he has not witnessed the beating of PW2 and he voluntarily deposed that when he went there, the accused persons were also beating him. PW4 has deposed in his cross-examination that he has not witnessed the incident; after the incident, he went there 12 C.C.No.4779/2017 and as PW2 and PW3 told him, he is deposing that the quarrel took place. These oral evidences deposed by PW3 and PW4 in their cross-examination go to show that their oral evidences deposed in their examination-in-chief with regard to the overt act by accused No.1 on PW2 cannot be believed.
17. PW1 has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that after he gave First Information to the Police, the Police came to the place of incident, conducted the Mahazar and seized MO1. PW5 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the day when he received the First Information, he conducted the Mahazar at the place shown by PW1 between 12.30 to 1.30 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses as per Ex.P2 and seized MO1 at the time of Mahazar which was given by PW1. PW1 has deposed in his cross-examination that on the day when he gave the First Information to the Police i.e., on 10.01.2012, the Police conducted the Mahazar between 12.30 to 1.30 p.m.
18. On perusal of the above evidences, it appears that the Mahazar was conducted and MO1 was seized by the 13 C.C.No.4779/2017 Investigation Officer not in the presence of any of the eyewitnesses of this case. As aforesaid, PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of incident, he was not present and he has deposed in his cross-examination that at the time of incident, he was at home. Such being the circumstances, how PW1 could show the place of incident and MO1 as it was used by accused No.1 to commit the offence charges against him punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code? Therefore, the Mahazar conducted by PW5 at the place of incident as per Ex.P2 and seizure of MO1 cannot be relied as an corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences charged against him. Though, PW1 to PW3 have identified MO1, it cannot say that from the very same stone, accused No.1 beaten PW2 as alleged against him.
19. For the above reasons, the delay in lodging the First Information without the satisfactory reason, the Mahazar conducted and MO1 seized by the Investigation Officer at the place shown by PW1 who is not an eyewitness of the incident 14 C.C.No.4779/2017 are prima-facie reasonable doubts creating in commission of the alleged offences by accused No.1. The oral evidences of PW1 and PW4 are not reliable as corroborative evidence to the evidences of PW2 and PW3. If the evidences of PW2 and PW3 are read together, it appears that at the time of beating PW2 with stone, PW3 was not present. The above circumstances are considered in toto, reasonable doubts are arising about the commission of the alleged offences by accused No.1. The said benefit of doubts have to be given in favour of accused No.1. Considering the above benefits of doubt, I am holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
20. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all 15 C.C.No.4779/2017 reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused No.1 is not found guilty for the aforesaid offences charged against him. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,
accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till completion of appeal period. Thereafter, they shall be stands canceled.
Preserve MO1 till conclusion of trial of C.C.No.2191/2022.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 13.10.2022) (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
16 C.C.No.4779/2017ANNEXURE Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
PW1 : Ramesh, PW2 : Raju, PW3 : Prasad, PW4 : Manjunatha, PW5 : Manjunatha, PW6 : Ravi, PW7 : Dr.Shivarajaiah, PW8 : Kantharaju.
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : First Information, Ex.P1(a) & (b) : Signatures, Ex.P2 : Mahazar, Ex.P2(a) & (b) : Signatures, Ex.P3 : First Information Report, Ex.P3(a) : Signature, Ex.P4 : Report, Ex.P4(a) : Signature, Ex.P5 : Wound Certificate, Ex.P5(a) & (b) : Signatures.
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
MO1 : Stone.
17 C.C.No.4779/2017Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL (VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.18 C.C.No.4779/2017
13.10.2022 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
ORDERS Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
His bail bond and surety bond executed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. will be in force till completion of appeal period. Thereafter, they shall be stands canceled.
Preserve MO1 till conclusion of trial of C.C.No.2191/2022.
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) 19 C.C.No.4779/2017 II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.