Bangalore District Court
Cid (H And B) Squad vs Tajuddin on 28 March, 2024
KABC010136122021
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 28th day of March 2024
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C. No. 823/2021
Complainant : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By SANJAYANGARA PS BY CID
(H AND B) SQUAD,
THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER
SANJAYNAGAR PS
44 , BENGALURU
BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused : TAJUDDIN
S/O. J. MOIHUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO 13 5TH B CROSS,
BHOOPSANDRA,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU
( Acd by Sri TA Adv.)
2
SC No. 823/2021
1 Date of commission of offence 26.3.2020
2 Date of report of offence 26.3.2020
3 Date of arrest of the accused 25.3.2020
4 Date of release of accused on bail Ac-on 7.7.2020
5 Date of commencement of 29.11.2021
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 28.11.2023
7 Name of the complainant Sri. Balaji. PI
8 Offences complained of Sections 224, 323, 427, 324,
307, 332, 353, 354, 504 and
506 of I.P.C
9 Date of pronouncement of 28.03.2024
judgment
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of accused is not
proved.
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
JUDGMENT
The CID Police, H & B squad, Bengaluru have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 323, 427, 324, 307, 332, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of I.P.C
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:- 3
SC No. 823/2021 The Sanjay Nagar Police had registered a case in their Cr. No. 43/2020 for the offences punishable U/sec. 353, 307, 427, 504, 506 R/w. 34 I.P.C and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 against the accused and his brother on the allegation that on 25.3.020 at 12.30 p.m. in Boopasandra vehicle check point, accused No.1 and 2 came in a Honda Activa two wheeler by wheeling and when Manjunatha G. PC No. 17679 and Basavaraja PC No. 17672 who were on duty in the said place to control the traffic movement in view of the lock down due to Covid-19 pandemic, tried to stop them, those persons tried to ran over those two policemen and kicked the barricades, abused and threatened the policemen. Thereafter, on the same day another case registered against the accused, his relatives and friends in Cr. No. 44/2020 for the offences punishable U/sec. 141, 143, 147, 397, 353, 332, 307, 504, 506 R/w. 149 of IPC on the allegation that those accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly assaulted, abused, put life threat to those two policemen, when they tried to catch the accused and his brother in connection with Crime No. 43/2020. The accused herein was arrested on 25.3.2020 at 5.00p.m. On the basis of his voluntary statement, Cw-1 Balaji., PI of Sanjaynagar police station, took him in their jeep along with PSI Roopa K.S., Head Constable Manjanna, Police constables Rakshith T.R., Karthik, Mallappa Kadli and two 4 SC No. 823/2021 panch witnesses to recover two wheeler and mobile phone in connection with Cr.No.43/2020 and 44/2020 at 6.10. a.m. on 26.3.2020. They stopped the jeep near Boopasandra vehicle check point. The accused led them saying that he would show the two wheeler used for the commission of offence. Suddenly, the accused pulled PSI Roopa by holding her hand and pushed her back and hit her on her left shoulder, torn her uniform and removed the stars which were on her left shoulder and tried to ran away towards vacant land belonging to GKVK along with handcuffs.
When Head constable Manjanna tried to catch him, the accused assaulted him on his neck with a brick stone. When Balaji., PI, warned him not to escape and fired on air from his service pistol. The accused did not surrender. Again he started threatening by throwing brick stones at the police, abused them in filthy language and put life threat to them and tried to run away. At that time PI Balaji fired from his service pistol on the left leg of the accused. The accused sustained bleeding injuries on his left leg and fell down. The police caught hold him and took him along with injured PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna to the Baptist Hospital for treatment and they were admitted in the said hospital. In respect of said incident, Cw-1 Balaji., the PI lodged a complaint on 26.3.2020 at 8 a.m., on the basis of the same case was registered in Cr.No. 5 SC No. 823/2021 45/2020 for the offences punishable U/sec.s. 354, 332, 323, 307, 504, 506, 224 and 511 of IPC in Sanjaynagara Police station.
3. The investigation of the case handed over to Mithun Shilpi, the PI of R.T. Nagar police station. He visited the place of incident, prepared spot panchanama in presence of panch witnesses. During the spot inspection, he recovered 7 articles in connection with the incident with the help of expert from FSL, Bengaluru. He prepared rough sketch of the said place. Thereafter, he recovered the service pistol of Cw-1 Balaji in the police station, which was produced by Cw-1. He recorded the statements of HC Manjanna, PSI Roopa, he recovered the handcuffs used to handcuff the accused, which was produced before him by Cw-1. He recorded the statement of accused in K.C. General hospital in presence of doctor. He recovered the uniform of PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna which they were wearing at the time of incident in presence of panch witnesses. He collected the wound certificates and other documents in connection with the case. On 15.5.2020, he handed over the investigation to CID police.
4. After taking over further investigation of the case, the CID police again prepared spot panchanama in presence of panch witnesses, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected the documents, obtained medical reports and FSL reports. After 6 SC No. 823/2021 completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused.
5. After committal proceedings, the case committed to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city and made over to this court for trial. The accused is on bail. Heard him before charge. The charge framed for the offences punishable U/sec. 224, 323, 324, 307, 332, 353, 354, 504 & 506 of IPC. Charge read over and explained to the accused. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case posted for prosecution evidence.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution is examined PW-1 to PW-29 witnesses and got marked Ex. P-1 to P117 documents and M.O.1 to 16 material objects.
7. Accused has been examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.PC He has denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused has not led his evidence. However, he got marked 3 documents Ex. D-1 to 3 by confronting the same during the prosecution evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned public prosecutor for state and the arguments of the learned counsel for accused.
9. The following points arise for my consideration:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 26.3.2020 at about 6.10 a.m. 7 SC No. 823/2021 near Boopasandra signal check point within the limits of Sanjay Nagar police station, the accused caused simple injuries to the P.C. Mallappa Kadli, H.C. Manjanna, P.S.I. Roopa who are the police officials with handcuff, hands and brick stone respectively attempted to commit their murder with an intention to escape from the lawful custody of police and thereby committed the offences punishable U/sec.s.
224, 323, 324, 307, 332, 353, 354, 504 & 506 of IPC?
(2) What order?
10. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative
Point No.2 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- It is the case of prosecution that when Cw-1 Balaji, the PI, Sanjay Nagara police station as the investigating officer in Cr.No.43/2020 and Cr.No.44/2020 of their police station took the accused in their jeep along with PSI Roopa and his staff and panch witnesses near Boopasandra vehicle check point within the limits of Sanjay Nagar police station for the purpose of recovery of two wheeler and mobile phone in connection with those cases on 26.3.2020 at 6.10 p.m. The accused tried to escape from the custody of police by assaulting with brick stones to PSI 8 SC No. 823/2021 Roopa and HC Manjanna with an intention to Kill them. At that time Cw-1 had to open fire from his service pistol, in order to stop him from escaping from police custody. When the accused did not stop from escaping in respect of firing in air, Cw-1 had to fire on the left leg of accused and due to the same, the accused sustained injuries on his left leg. In respect of the incident Cw-1 lodged complaint against the accused, on the basis of the same, present case has been registered.
12. Cw-1 Balaji., the PI of Sanjay Nagar police station has been examined as Pw-3. He has stated in his evidence that on 25.3.2020 at 5.30 p.m., he arrested the accused No.1 and his brother who is accused No.2 in both crime No. 43/2020 and 44/2020 and thereafter recorded their voluntary statements. As per the voluntary statement of accused herein on 26.3.2020, he secured PSI Roopa, HC Manjanna, police constable Rakshith to the police station, asked HC Manjanna to secure two panch witnesses to conduct the mahazar. Accordingly Cw-4 and 5 were secured as panch witnesses. Thereafter, he along with PSI Roopa, HC Manjanna, PC Rakshith and panch witnesses proceeded towards the place of incident i.e., Boopasandra vehicle check point along with accused No.1. They got down near Boopasandra check post as per the instructions of accused No.1 and accused No.1 led them to 9 SC No. 823/2021 show the two wheeler and mobile phone. At that time Cw-16 Mallappa PC was holding the accused with handcuff, PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna were following them. Behind them PI Balaji, PC Rakshith along with panch witnesses were proceeding. After some time, all of a sudden the accused pulled Mallappa PC and made him to fall down in a bid to escape from the custody of police. When PSI Roopa tried to catch him, the accused assaulted her from his handcuff and torn her flap of the shirt and pulled her down. When the accused made an attempt to escape towards GKVK property, HC Manjanna attempted to stop him. At that time, the accused torn the T-Shirt of HC Manjanna and took up a piece of brick from the side of the road and assaulted HC Manjanna with the same, due to the same HC Manjanna suffered bleeding injuries on the left side of his neck. PI Balaji., shouted at the accused not to take risk of escaping from their lawful custody. But the accused by saying that he will escape at any cost and he will not hesitate to take the life of police. PI Balaji after sending the panchas to a safe place warned the accused not to escape from their custody. But the accused did not listen to the same. Therefore, PI Balaji opened fire and shot the accused on his left leg. The accused fell down by sustaining injury on his left leg. Thereafter, PI Balaji and his staff held him and tied a cloth bandage around the injury and shifted him to Baptist 10 SC No. 823/2021 hospital. PI Balaji asked PC Rakshith to take panchas back to the police station and deputed PC Anjanamurthy to secure the place of crime. After informing his higher authorities, PI Balaji came to the police station and lodged a complaint to the S.H.O. of Sanjay Nagar police station as per Ex. P-16. On the basis of the same, the present case has been registered.
13. PSI Roopa has been examined as Pw-9. She has stated in her evidence that on 25.3.2020 at about 4.50 p.m. she came to the police station. PI Balaji took the attendance, asked her, PC Rakshith, HC Manjanna to stay back in the police station in order to go for recovery of two wheeler in connection with Cr. No. 43/2020 and 44/2020. PI Balaji secured two panch witnesses through HC Manjanna at 6 a.m. They left the police station in the jeep with accused and panch witnesses, at 6.10 p.m. they reached the spot. After getting down from the Jeep, Pw-8 PC Mallappa Kadli was holding the accused with a chain of the hand cuff, behind them she was proceeding, on behind of her HC Manjanna, behind him PI Balaji, PC Rakshith and punch witnesses were proceeding. Behind them jeep driver was driving the jeep slowly. Thereafter suddenly the accused tried to escape and the alleged incident took place.
14. The police constable Mallappa Kadli has been examined as Pw-
8. He has stated in his evidence that he was the lock up guard for 11 SC No. 823/2021 accused on the intervening night of 25.3.2020 and 26.3.2020. At 6 p.m., PI Balaji asked him to seat the accused in the jeep in order to go to prepare a panchanama. He along with accused, PI Balaji, PSI Roopa, HC Manjanna, PC Rakshith, driver Karthik along with 2 panch witnesses went to the spot. After getting down from the jeep, he was holding the accused with right hand with handcuff which was on the left hand of the accused. He and accused were proceeding in the front, PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna were proceeding behind them. PI Balaji, PC Rakshith and panch witnesses were proceeding behind PSI Roopa and Manajanna. Driver Karthik was driving the jeep slowly behind them. Thereafter the alleged incident taken place.
HC Manjanna has been examined as Pw-29 and he has stated in his evidence that on 25.3.2020 at 7 p.m., PI Balaji asked him to secure panch witnesses by 5.30 p.m. on 26.3.2020. He brought two persons as panch witnesses to the police station at 5 a.m. on 26.3.2020. Thereafter at 6 a.m. they went to the spot along with accused, PI Balaji, PSI Roopa, PC Mallappa Kadli, PC Rakshith.
15. PC Rakshith has been examined as Pw-10. He has stated that they went to the spot in a jeep along with panch witnesses and accused. They got down from the jeep at Boopasandra check post at 6 p.m. Thereafter the incident took place. 12
SC No. 823/2021
16. One of the panch witnesses Ramesh Kumar has been examined as Pw-4. He has also supported the case of the prosecution regarding the incident.
17. According to the prosecution, PI Balaji, PSI Roopa, HC Manjanna, PC Mallappa Kadli, PC Rakshith, two panch witnesses, driver Karthik went to the place of incident in a jeep for the purpose of recovery in connection with Cr.No.43/2020 and 44/2020. Among them except one panch witness has not been examined. All other 7 witnesses have been examined before the court. They have consistently stated in their evidence regarding the incident that accused tried to escape from the custody of the police by assaulting PC Mallappa Kadli and when PSI Roopa tried to catch him, he assaulted her and removed uniform shirt flap. Thereafter when HC Manjanna tried to catch him, he pushed him and thrown brick pieces. In spite of warning given by the PI Balaji, he did not stop and he tried to escape from the custody of the police and thereafter he had to open fire in the air, to which also the accused did not stop. Therefore, PI Balaji shot him on his left leg and due to the same the accused fell down.
18. In the cross-examination of PI Balaji, he has stated that on 25.3.2020 at 5 p.m., they decided to go for recovery at the instance of accused. It is his evidence that he had recorded the voluntary 13 SC No. 823/2021 statement of the accused for about 30-45 minutes after 5 p.m. on 25.3.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that in the voluntary statement of accused he has stated that accused would show the two wheeler and mobile phone if he was taken along with them. Pw-3 has stated that he could not prepare recovery panchanama on 25.3.2020 itself as the accused persons in the earlier case were being produced before him. Pw-3 PI Balaji has also stated that they got down at Boopasandra check post, thereafter they proceeded by walk. In his cross-examination he has stated that place of incident was about 25 meters from the check post and it was about 3 meters from the main road. Pw-3 has stated that at the time of incident there was no vehicle movement on the road near the place of incident.
19. Pw-8 has stated in his cross-examination that on 26.3.2020 in the morning when they came near the place of incident, the road was not blocked at Boopasandra check post, but due to barricade, there was no space for vehicle movement. Therefore, from the evidence of Pw-8, it is clear that the road was closed at Boopasandra check post.
20. The panch witness Pw-4 Ramesh Kumar has stated that while going to the place of incident, there was barricade in Boopasandra vehicle check point. After barricade at a distance of 14 SC No. 823/2021 20 meters, they got down from the jeep. From there PI Balaji went about 50 meters by walking and they went behind him. Therefore, according to panch witness the incident had taken place at a distance of 70 meters from Boopasandra vehicle check point.
21. Pw-8 Mallappa Kadli has stated in his evidence that they reached near Boopasandra vehicle check point at 6.10 a.m., they got down from the jeep from the said place and thereafter proceeded further, after 100 meters from the check point the incident took place.
22. Pw.9 PSI Roopa has stated in her evidence that distance between Boopasandra check point and the place of shoot out was 80 meters. The cross-examination of Pw-9. PSI Roopa shows that there was no public and there was no vehicle movement on Boopasandra main road where the incident took place. Further she has stated that there was barricade in Boopasandra vehicle check point and there were two police men in the said check point. Though she has stated in her evidence that due to lock down they went early to the police station on 26.3.2020. There is no supporting evidence to the same.
23. Pw-10 PC Rakshith has stated that near Boopasandra check post, the accused asked them to stop the vehicle and they got down from the jeep and thereafter the incident has taken 15 SC No. 823/2021 place.
The first witness examined to prove the incident is Pw-3 PI Balaji. He has stated that the incident took place just 25 meters away from place of incident. Subsequent witnesses have increased the distance. It appears that it is only to suit their case. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the incident has taken place at a place very near to Boopasandra vehicle check point.
24. According to the prosecution Pw-7 Anjanamurthy and Pw- 12 Thimmesh were on duty in Boopasandra vehicle check point. Pw-3 PI Balaji has stated the same in his evidence. Pw-7 and 12 also stated the same in their evidence. Pw-7 Anjanamurthy has stated in his evidence that he and PC Thimmesh were deputed for special duty near Boopasandra check post. On 26.3.2020 at 6.30 a.m., PI Balaji asked him to come near a place at a distance of 100 meters near check post. When he and Thimmesh went to the said place, PI Balaji deputed them to secure the crime scene. He was in the spot till 12 noon on that day. Pw-12 Thimmesh has also stated same in his evidence.
25. Therefore the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that Police constables Pw-7 Anjanamurthy and Pw-12 Thimmesh were at a very close distance from the place of incident at the time 16 SC No. 823/2021 of incident. Therefore it can be said that at the time of incident there were 8 police men near vicinity to the incident. The photographs produced by the prosecution shows that the road in which incident has taken place is a straight road. Therefore, it can be said that the place of incident was clearly visible to Pw-7 and 12. Moreover, at the time of incident two gun shots fired. Definitely Pw-7 and 12 could have heard the said gun shots. But Pw-8 and 12 have stated that they they came to know about the incident when they went to the spot after PI Balaji called them to the spot.
26. Pw-12 Thimmesh has stated that he has not seen the incident and he does not remember whether he has heard the firing gun shot sound. Such the evidence of Pw-12 is difficult to accept. As already stated there were eight police men near the accused. Among them PI Balaji and PSI Roopa having their service pistols with them. PSI Roopa has admitted that she was also having her service pistol with her at the time of incident. Further the accused was handcuffed at the time of incident. Further PC Mallappa kadli has stated that he was holding the accused with handcuff. PSI Roopa has stated in her evidence that PC Mallappa Kadli was holding the accused with chain of handcuff. When there were about eight police men, two of them were having fire arms with them and accused was handcuffed, it is very difficult to accept 17 SC No. 823/2021 the case of prosecution that the accused tried to escape from the custody of the police by assaulting the police. The accused is a moderately built person, there was no criminal antecedents against him. There is no evidence to show that he is a hard core criminal. Therefore, the possibility of his trying to over power the policemen who were armed with fire arms is difficult to accept.
27. The question is even if the accused tried to escape from the police custody, whether it was necessary to fire at him. The accused was handcuffed, he was not having any dangerous weapon with him. If he had some sharp edged weapon or fire arm with him, then the situation would have been different. The accused was unarmed. Under such circumstances, even if he had tried to escape from the police, absolutely there was no difficulty for the police who were eight in number to catch hold of him. Moreover, the evidence disclosed that the handcuff was having chain, in such a situation it would have been easy to catch the accused. The prosecution case is that the accused torn torn the uniform flap of PSI with handcuff and he thrown brick pieces at the police. But, such acts of the accused in any way will not amount to attempt to murder. Absolutely there is no material to show that the accused has attempted to commit the murder of any of the police men. There is no ingredient to attract the offence punishable U/sec. 307 18 SC No. 823/2021 of IPC against the accused.
28. The evidence of prosecution witnesses discloses that PI Balaji had asked PSI Roopa and his staff to come to the police station on 26.3.2020 at 5 a.m. The evidence discloses that the normal duty hours of police starts at 8 a.m. and they have two shifts from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. Under such circumstance, absolutely there is no explanation by the prosecution as to why the police men were called at 5 a.m. in the morning on 26.3.2020. There is no explanation as to why the police took the accused for the purpose of recovery in the early morning at 6 a.m. The evidence clearly shows that they left police station at
6.am. and reached the place of incident at 6.10 a.m. and thereafter the incident took place.
29. The defence of accused is that the entire incident was pre-planned by PI Balaji with the support of his superior officers and PI Balaji , PSI Roopa and his staff executed the same. It is his defence that with an intention to teach a lesson to the accused, they took him to a isolated place in the early morning, they blocked the road from both end i.e., at Boopasandra check post and at entry point from Bellary road. The witnesses have admitted that at the time of incident there was no movement of people or vehicle. It is true that at the time of incident the lock down in connection 19 SC No. 823/2021 with Covid-19 pandemic was in force. However, it can not be said that there were relaxation for movement of vehicles and people from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Under such circumstances, there would have been some movement of people and vehicles in the said place. It clearly appears that in view of he closure of road from both ends of the road there were no entry of people and vehicles to the said road. The evidence also discloses there were no houses or shops nearby. The contention of the accused that the police chosen an isolated place can not be disbelieved. The fact that the accused was taken for recovery in the early morning hours of the day i.e., at 6 a.m. itself creates doubt in the case of prosecution.
30. As already stated there is consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the incident that accused tried to escape by assaulting the police and in order to stop him from escaping the PI Balaji open fired at him. But, it cannot be denied that their evidence is in tune with intention of police to teach a lesson to the accused to the alleged acts of accused in Crime No. 43/2020 and 44/2020 of Sanjay Nagar police station.
31. The evidence of Pw-10 Rakshith PC, shows that the accused tried to escape through torn barbed wire fence and he continued throwing brick pieces at the police and he abused the police saying that " ಸಸಸಳಸಮಕಕಳಳ, ಚನಳಲಸಕ ತತಮಕಮ ನಹಮ ಚಸಸಮಡತಡ, ಬಸಸಮಳ 20 SC No. 823/2021 ಮಕಕಳಳ " His evidence shows that the evidence of this witness has been recorded subsequently and he has improved his version before the court during his evidence. He has also stated in his evidence that normally Roll call in the police station will take place at 8.30 p.m. On 26.3.2020, PI Balaji asked them to come to police station at 5.30 p.m. the evidence of Pw-10 shows that there was service pistol with PSI Roopa also at the time of incident.
32. The evidence of P.W. 29 PC Manjanna was also recorded subsequently. He has also improved his version by saying that the accused tried to escape towards barbed wire fence. Further he has stated that brick pieces thrown by the accused fell on his neck and he sustained bleeding injury and fell down. Pw-29 has stated that there was a camera at a distance from the spot, he does not know whether the incident was recorded in it. Though most of the witnesses have stated regarding presence of CCTV camera in Boopasandra check post, the police have not made any effort to collect the footage from same. Some of the witnesses including PI Balaji have stated that the said camera was not in working condition, but no evidence has been produced before the court to show that it was not in a working condition. Pw-29 has also stated that at the time of incident no one came to the spot or road. Considering the evidence of above witnesses it cannot be 21 SC No. 823/2021 disbelieved that the entire incident is stage managed.
33. Pw-28 Mithun Shilpi is an investigating officer. He was PI of R.T. Nagar police station. He has stated that he prepared spot mahazar on 26.3.2020 at the place of incident between 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., by securing FSL Expert and panchas and recovered M.O. 1 to 7 from the said place. Pw-1 Yaseen is a panch witness. He has supported the case of prosecution. He has stated regarding preparation of spot panchanama as per Ex.P-1 and recovered M.O. 1 to 7. However he has not stated about the presence of FSL expert at the time of preparation of mahazar. Pw-2 S.S. Patil is another panch witness to Ex.P-1 spot mahazar. He has also supported the prosecution case and stated regarding preparation of spot mahazar as per Ex. P-1 and recovery of M.O. 1 to 7. The accused could not succeed to elicit much from them to disbelieve their evidence.
34. Ex.P-42 is the recovery mahazar prepared by Pw-28 Mithun Shilpi at the time of recovery of cloths of PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna. Pw-5.Md. Muzamil Pasha is the panch witness to seizure mahazar. he has stated that PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna produced their cloths as per M.O. 11 & 12 and M.O. 13 and 14 and Pw-28 recovered the same under mahazar as per Ex. P-42. But he has not stated about the blood stains in the uniform of PSI Roopa. Pw-11 22 SC No. 823/2021 Sumanth M., is another panch witness. He has stated regarding recovery of cloths of PSI Roopa. It is his evidence that cloths of Roopa were blood stained, but there is nothing in his evidence to show that the cloths of HC Manjanna were also recovered under the said mahazar. But, it is his evidence that he has seen those cloths as MO. 13 and 14 in the police station.
35. Ex.P-42 Mahazar has been prepared after a long delay. The incident has taken place on 26.3.2020. The recovery of cloths were made on 7.4.2020. When it was questioned to Pw-28 Mithun Shilpi as to why there was delay, he has stated that he asked PSI Roopa and HC Manjanna to bring their cloths for recovery immediately, but they did not bring it immediately. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why those witnesses did not produce their cloths before the I.O. at the earliest point of time.
36. Pw-14 Dr. Srividya is an expert of FSL. She has stated that she has examined the cloths of accused and found that it had blood stained with B group blood. Pw-15 is Dr. Shanthi Jyothi, who has determined the blood group of accused and she has stated that the accused blood group was B+. The defence has not disputed that those cloths were having blood stains of the accused. Therefore, evidence of Pw-14 and 15 does not carry much importance. The fact that accused was shot and he sustained 23 SC No. 823/2021 bleeding injuries is not disputed either by the prosecution or by the accused.
37. Pw-16 Dr. Alexander has stated in his evidence that on 26.3.2020 at 6.40 p.m., he examined HC Manjanna and found minor abrasions behind the left shoulder. But the evidence of Manjanna shows that he had sustained bleeding injury on his neck. But the doctor has not stated anything about the bleeding injury on his neck.
38. Pw-17 Dr. Suman has stated about recording statement of accused by the investigating officer Mithun shilpi in his presence. The evidence of Pw-17 is not of much consequence.
39. Pw-22 Dr. Divya Ramani has stated in her evidence that on 26.3.2020 at 6.30 a.m., she examined the accused in Baptist hospital, Bengaluru and noted entry wound and exit wound in the left leg and he was discharged against medical advise by the persons accompanying the patient as they waned to take him to Victoria hospital. The persons accompanying him were the police. Why the police wanted to shift him to Victoria hospital is also not explained by the prosecution. It is her evidence that accused informed her that he sustained gun shot injury when he tried to escape from the custody of the police. However, she has stated that in Ex.P-80 i.e., Accident Register, there is space provided to 24 SC No. 823/2021 write the details of case but she has left it blank. She has admitted that if she had received any information how the patient sustained gun shot injury she would have entered same. Evidence that accused informed her that he sustained gun shot injury when he tried to escape from the custody of the police when he tried to escape from the police custody is not supported by any document and therefore, such evidence of doctor can not be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
40. Pw-18 Dr. Kalavathi has stated in her evidence that she has examined the accused at K.C. General hospital on 26.3.2020 at 2.20 p.m. and found the following injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound on the left popitial fossa measuring 2 x 1cm.
2. Lacerated wound on left knee measuring about 1x1cm.
41. Pw-19 M. Shivanna. Asst. Executive engineer has stated regarding preparing the sketch of spot on 30.7.2020 as per Ex. P-8. Pw-21 M.B. Uday Kumar AEE, BESCOM, stated that there was electric supply in the place of incident on 26.3.2020 at 6.10 a.m. Pw-24 Shiva murthy HC has stated about arrest of accused in Cr. No. 43/2020 on 25.3.2020 at about 5 p.m. The above aspects are not disputed by the accused also.
42. Pw-20 Dr. M. Kiran Kumar is the Asst. Director of FSL Bengaluru. He has stated in his evidence that he has visited crime 25 SC No. 823/2021 scene at 9 a.m. It is his evidence that the probable range of fire is about 10 feet. However, he has stated in his evidence that he examined the pistol and one 9 m.m. calibre fired cartridge case recovered in spot and the pant of accused. He has stated that the range of shot was about 2 ft and within 10 ft. He has stated that he has not received the wound swab, therefore, he cannot make out whether there were gun shot residues in the wound swab. It is his evidence that by examining the gun shot residues, he can determine the gun shot range. It is his evidence that there is no detail in the wound certificate how the bullet traveled from entry wound to exit wound, he has not asked information about the same with investigating officer. He has stated that by the angle of bullet traveled from entry wound to exit wound the range of impact of bullet can be made out. Therefore, it appears that vital aspects regarding the gun shot injury has not been examined by the FSL expert. Therefore, the evidence of Pw-20 Dr. Kiran Kumar is not sufficient to disbelieve the contention of defence that gun shot injury was caused from a very close range.
43. Pw-28 Mithun shilpi has stated in his evidence that if any message is sent to control room, then transcript of same is available, but he has not obtained the same and produced before the court. The evidence of prosecution shows that after the 26 SC No. 823/2021 incident PI Balaji has communicated to the control room. But no transcript regarding the same has not been produced. Considering the circumstance in which this incident has taken place, the non- collection of message transcript also assumes importance.
44. Pw-25 S.P. Kumarswamy and Pw-27 P. Narasimha murthy are the investigating officers of CID. However, major portion of investigation has been done by Mithun Shilpi, Pw-28. They have stated regarding investigation done by them in their evidence.
45. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the accused was not a hard core criminal. The likelihood of he trying to escape from the custody of police by assaulting them in presence of 6 to 8 police men that too when two police officers were having their service pistols with them is highly unlikely. There is no evidence to show that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 307 IPC. The contention of defence that it is a pre-planned action of the police against the accused to teach a lesson to him in respect for his alleged acts in Cr.No.43/2020 and 44/2020 cannot be disbelieved. The time and place of incident also supports the contention of defence. Even if the accused had tried to escape, absolutely there was no difficulty for the police men to catch him and there was no need to take the extreme step of firing at him. In the above circumstances, I am of 27 SC No. 823/2021 the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as putforth against the accused. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
46. Point No. 2:- In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 323, 427, 324, 307, 332, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of I.PC The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall stands cancelled.
The M.O. No.8 Pistol and M.O. No. 10 handcuff shall be released to the concerned authorized person of police department and M.O.s No.1 to 7 and 9, M.O. No. 11 to 16 being worthless shall be destroyed after completion of the appeal period.
The accused shall execute bail bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety for the like sum as per Sec. 437(a) of Cr.PC (Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerised by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2024) (Yashawantha kumar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.28
SC No. 823/2021 ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side:
PW.1 Yaseen M.D. PW.2 Siddalingesh Patil, PW.3 Balaji. PW.4 B.K. Ramesh Kumar, PW.5 Md. Mujahid pasha, PW.6 HTA Kumara, PW.7 Anjanamurthy, PW.8 Malappa Kadli, PW.9 Roopa K.S. PW.10 Rakshith T.R. PW.11 Sumanth, PW.12 Thimmesh, PW.13 K.R. Mestri Nayak, PW.14 Dr. Sri Vidya, PW.15 Dr. Shanthi Jyothi K PW.16 Dr. Anand Abhinay Alexandar, PW.17 Dr. Suman, PW.18 Dr. Kalavathi, PW.19 M. Shivanna, PW.20 Dr. M. Kiran Kumar, PW.21 M.B. Udaya Kumar, PW.22 Dr. Divya Ramani, PW.23 B.M. Kumar, PW.24 Shivamurthy PW.25 S.P. Kumaraswamy, PW.26 Vasanthappa Hudugani, PW.27 P. Narasimha Murthy, PW.28 V.J. Mithun Shilpi PW.29 Manjanna
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side :
Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) (b) (c) Signatures Ex.P.1(d) (e) (f) Signatures of Pw-28 Ex.P.2 Photo Ex.P.3 to 15 Photos Ex.P.15(a to h) Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P.16 Comlpaint, 29 SC No. 823/2021 Ex.P.16(a) Signature Ex.P.17 Sketch Ex.P.17(a) Signature Ex.P.17(b) Signature Ex.P.18 Letter Ex.P.18(a) (b) Signatures Ex.P.19 to 22 Photos Ex.P.22(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.23 Handcuff produced letter Ex.P.23(a) (b) Signatures Ex.P.24 Requisition for documents. Ex.P.24(a) Signature Ex.P.25 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.25(c) (d) Signatures Ex.P.26 Covering letter Ex.P.26(a) (b) Signatures Ex.P.27 FIR in Cr. No. 43/20 Ex.P-27(a) Copy of request Ex.P.28 FIR in Cr. No. 44/20 Ex.P.29 Dairy from 25/3/20 to 26/3/20 Ex.P.30 P.S.R. Ex.P.31 Requisition for documents Ex.P.31(a) Signature Ex.P.32 Requisition for documents Ex.P.32(a) Signature Ex.P.33 L.G. Book Ex.P.34 Centry book Ex.P.35 Pistol documents Ex.P.36 Covering letter Ex.P.36(a) Signature Ex.P.36(b) Signature Ex.P.37 Pistol documents Ex.P.38 Log book Ex.P.39 Notice Ex.P.39.a.&b. Signatures Ex.P.40 Notice Ex.P.40.a. Signature Ex.P.41 Notice Ex.P.41(a)&(b) Signatures Ex.P.42 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.42.a. b.c.d. Signatures Ex.P.43 Photo Ex.P.44 Photo 30 SC No. 823/2021 Ex.P44.a. Signature Ex.P.45 Notice Ex.P45.a. Signature Ex.P.46 Complaint given by Basavaraja Ex.P.47 FIR Ex.P47.a. Signature Ex.P.48 Test report, Ex.P48.a.& b Signature Ex.P.49 Sample seal Ex.P49.a. Signature Ex. P.50 Letter Ex.P.50.a. Signature Ex.P.50.b. Signature Ex. P.51 Letter Ex.P.51.a. Signature Ex.P.51.b. Signature Ex.P.52 Donar card, Ex.P.52.a. Signature Ex.P.52.b. Signature Ex.P.53 MLC intimation Ex.P.53.a. Signature Ex.P.53.b. Signature Ex.P.54 Statement Ex.P.54.a. Signature Ex.P.54.b. Signature Ex.P.55 Intimation to police Ex.P.55.a. Signature Ex.P.56 Feed back form Ex.P.56(a) Signature Ex.P.57 Requisition letter Ex.P.57.a. to c. Signature Ex.P.58 Sketch Ex.P.58.a. Signature Ex.P.59 Covering letter Ex.P.59.a. Signature Ex.P.59.b. Signature Ex.P.60 Examination of scene of crime Ex.P.60(a) Signature, Ex.P.61 Sketch Ex.P.61.a Signatures Ex.P.62 to 74 Photos Ex.P.75 Test report Ex.P.75.a. Signature 31 SC No. 823/2021 Ex.P.75.b. Signature Ex.P.75.c. Signature Ex.P.75.d. Signature Ex.P.76 Sample seal Ex.P.76.a. Signature Ex. P.77 Test report Ex.P.77.a & b. Signatures Ex.P.79 Report Ex.P.79.a & b. Signatures Ex.P. 80 Police intimation report Ex.P.80.a.b. Signatures Ex.P.81 Case sheet Ex.P.81a. Signatures Ex.P.82 Notification Ex.P.82(a) Signatures Ex.P.83 Request Ex.P.83(a) Signature Ex.P.84 Request Ex.P.84(a) Signature Ex.P.85 Report Ex.P.86 True copy of log book Ex.P.87 Copy of R.C. Ex.P.88 Report of crime scene Ex.P.89 65-B certificate Ex.P.89(a) Signature Ex.P.90 65-B certificate Ex.P.90(a) Signature Ex.P.91 Requisition Ex.P.91(a) Signature Ex.P.92 Letter Ex.P.92(a) Signature Ex.P.93 Report Ex.P.93(a) Signature Ex.P.93 Requisition Ex.P.93(a) Signature Ex.P.94 Requisition Ex.P.94(a) Signature Ex.P.95 Wound certificate Ex.P.95(a) Signature Ex.P.96 Wound certificate Ex.P.96(a) Signature Ex.P.96(b) Signature Ex.P.97 Lab report Ex.P.97(a) Signature 32 SC No. 823/2021 Ex.P.98 Requisition Ex.P.98(a) Signature Ex.P.99 Out patient report Ex.P.100 Blood group report Ex.P.101 Out patient report Ex.P.102 Blood group report Ex.P.103 Report of FSL Ex.P.103(a) Signature Ex.P.104 Report of FSL(Spot report) Ex.P.104(a) Signature Ex.P.105 MLC Report of Cw-22 Ex.P.105(a) Signature Ex.P.106 Letter dt: 29.3.2020 Ex.P.106(a) Signature Ex.P.107 Letter dt: 31.3.2020 Ex.P.107(a) Signature Ex.P.108 Permission to KC Gen. hospital doctor Ex.P.108(a) Signature Ex.P.108(b) Permission to record statement of accused Ex.P.109 Notice to Lakshmipathi Ex.P.109(a) Signature Ex.P.110 Request for service register Ex.P.110(a) Signature Ex.P.111 Letter dt 15.06.2020 containing service details Ex.P.111(a) Sign & seal Ex. P.112 Report of Cw-13 Ex.P.112 Signature Ex.P.113 Request to Baptist hospital Ex.P.113(a) Signature Ex.P.114 Blood group report from Poornima Hospital Ex.P.114(a) Signature Ex.P.115 Request to transfer case file to CID. Ex. P.116 Wound certificate dt: 13/5/2020 from Baptist hospital Ex.P.116(a) Signature Ex.P.117 Letter transferring case file to CID. Ex.P.117(a) Signature
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side:
MO No.1 Sample Bandage cloth
MO No.2 Blood stained bandage
MO No.3 Blue coloured mask
33
SC No. 823/2021
MO No.4 Flaps with two stars & KSP
MO No.5 Empty cartridge
MO No.6 Empty cartridge
MO No.7 Brick pieces and powder
MO No.8 Pistol
MO No.9 Bullets
MO No.10 Handcuff
MO No.11 Khakhi shirt PSI
MO No.12 Khakhi pant PSI
MO No.13 T Shirt,
MO No.14 Blue coloured Jeans pant,
MO No.15 Blue pant.
MO No.16 Cloth piece(Coloured cloth)
List of witnesses examined for the defence-side :
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side :
Ex. D-1. Photo Ex. D-2. 16 Photos Ex. D-3. Statement.
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.