Bangalore District Court
State By Subramanyapura vs Were Unaware Regarding The Spot Of ... on 19 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 19th day of April 2022
Present:
Smt. Reshma Jane Rodrigues,
M.Com., L L.M.,
II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No.25940/2015
2. Date of commission : 04-12-2013
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant : State by Subramanyapura
Police Station
4. Name of the accused : 1. Umadevi w/o Rajanna,
40 years,
2. Rajanna s/o Jangamaiah,
47 years,
Both are R/at No.10,
Gopalakrishna Layout,
Yadalam Nagara,
Subramanyapura Post,
Bengaluru City.
5. The offences complained : Under Sec.427, 296, 297,
of 506 read with 34 of IPC
2 CC No.25940/2015
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
8. Date of order : 19-04-2022
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed this charge sheet against accused persons
for the offences punishable under Secs. 427, 296, 297, 506
read with 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
It is the case of prosecution that on 04/12/2013 at
8.30 a.m., Uttarahalli Hobli, Vasanthpura village, Sy.No.63
without any government order the accused dug pits in the
land belonging to Hindu cemetery and thereby hurt the
religious sentiments and when CW1 Kumar Gaurav
questioned, accused has stated that the cemetery is dug to
install water plant and gave life threat to CW1 and thereby
committed the alleged offences.
3. The accused No.1 and 2 are released on bail. After
furnishing charge sheet copies as required under Sec.207
of Cr.P.C., accusation for the alleged offences was read over
and explained in the language known to them, wherein they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3 CC No.25940/2015
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to prove that the accused have committed
the alleged offences. In this regard 13 witnesses are cited
in the charge sheet and the prosecution has got examined
P.W.1 to P.W.9 and relied upon Exs.P1 to 18 documents.
The presence of rest of the witnesses could not be secured
and hence were dropped.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused, as required
U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the accused No.1
and 2 have denied the prosecution case in toto and opted
not to adduce any defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Sr.APP and
learned counsel for accused.
7. In the charge sheet 13 witnesses have been cited
and the prosecution has got examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 9.
P.W. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are the cited witnesses and they have
deposed adverse to the case of the prosecution and deposed
that they have no knowledge about the alleged incident and
that they have not given any statement to the police. They
have been treated as hostile witnesses by the learned
Sr. APP and permitted to be cross examined. However,
nothing is elicited in the cross examination in support of
the case of prosecution.
4 CC No.25940/2015
8. P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 are the investigation officers and
deposed regarding the investigation carried out in this case.
In the cross examination of P.W. 5 he has admitted that the
F.I.R. is registered after 15 minutes of receiving the
complaint which goes to show that no preliminary
investigation has been conducted by the investigation
officer to verify regarding the factual circumstances of the
case. It is also admitted in the cross examination that
towards the north of the spot is the cemetery and admitted
that the accused are not present in the photos. It is the
defence of the accused that the accused had paid
Rs.50,000/- as donations to construct a water tank and
out of ill will a false case is registered against the accused.
9. Apart from the investigation officers the only
material witness got examined by the prosecution is P.W. 1
who is the first informant and he in his chief examination
has deposed that there is a Hindu Cemetery in government
land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.63 of Vasanthpura village.
He has deposed that it is a Hindu cemetery and some of his
relatives are also buried at the said place. P.W.1 has
deposed that on 06/12/2013 at 8.30 a.m. his friend had
called and stated that someone has brought JCB and
digging pits in the cemetery and on enquiry at the spot, he
came to know that the accused had directed the JCB to dig
5 CC No.25940/2015
pits for construction of water tank. P.W. 1 has also deposed
that the accused were present at the spot and gave him life
threat.
10. P.W. 1 is cross examined by the learned counsel
for the accused and in the cross examination it is the
specific defence of the accused that, the accused had raised
objections at time of construction of apartment and there is
also an ill-will between the accused and P.W. 1 being in
different political parties. It is also the defence that the
accused were unaware regarding the spot of construction of
water tank and had only made some donation for water
tank and came to the spot only for the pooja. It is also
suggested that the Contractor and the Mestry are
intentionally not made accused in this case.
11. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it
is clear that, except the first informant none of the cited
witnesses have deposed in support of the case of the
prosecution. On the other hand they have turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution. It appears that there is some
ill-will between the first informant and the accused. Hence
there is also a possibility to falsely implicate the accused.
The photos produced do not show the presence of the
accused at the spot and does not show involvement of the
accused in the alleged offences. There is also no material to
6 CC No.25940/2015
show that the accused are responsible for undertaking or
have undertaken the work of digging pits at the spot. The
entire evidence is based only on the testimony of the first
informant who is an interested witness without
corroboration from any other witnesses.
12. The investigation officer has also not deposed
regarding the presence of the accused at the spot and
having involved in the commission of the alleged offences.
Hence, there is no satisfactory evidence to link the accused
to the work undertaken in the graveyard and to establish
nexus between the two. Hence, there is no satisfactory
evidence placed on record to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused. Taking an overall view of the
matter the accused are entitled to a benefit of doubt and
therefore will have to be acquitted of the charges leveled
against them. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under section 427, 296, 297 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
7 CC No.25940/2015 Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of April 2022) (Reshma Jane Rodrigues) II A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE :
List of witness examined for prosecution :-
P.W-1 : Kumar Gaurav
P.W-2 : Durgappa
P.W-3 : Gangaraju
P.W-4 : Srinvias
P.W-5 : Jnanamurthy
P.W-6 : Kashi
P.W-7 : Narayanappa
P.W-8 : Dr. Dayananda
P.W-9 : Arjun.C.R.
List of witnesses examined for defense:-
- NIL -8 CC No.25940/2015
List of documents marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P-1 : Complaint Ex.P-2 : Panchanama Ex.P-3 to 10 : Photos Ex.P-11 : Statement of P.W. 2 Ex.P-12 : Statement of P.W. 3 Ex.P-13 : Statement of P.W. 4 Ex.P-14 : F.I.R. Ex.P-15 : Letter dated 18-2-2014 from
Tahasildar to Police Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station. Ex.P-16 : Statement of P.W. 6 Ex.P-17 : Statement of P.W. 7 Ex.P-18 : R.T.C. Extract List of documents marked for defense:-
- NIL -
List of material objects:-
- NIL -
II A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.9 CC No.25940/2015
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order) : ORDER :
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under section 427, 296, 297 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2
stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
II ACMM, Bengaluru.10 CC No.25940/2015