Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs Unknown on 2 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURE
DATED THIS THE ....... DAY OF ....................2016
C.C. No.12380/2014
Present: SRI. CHINNANNAVAR R. S.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURE.
COMPLAINANT : The state of Karnataka through
Chamarajpet Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
1. Noor Pasha @ Nooru S/o.
Musthappa, Aged about
24 Years,
2. Payaz @ Payu S/o.
Peershab, Aged about 26
years.
(Both are R/o.
Bandegudisalu, 10th
Cross, 2nd Main,
Valmikinagara, Mysore
Road, Bengaluru.)
(Reptd. by Sri.V.L.J., Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF OFFENCE : 16.03.2014
DATE OF ARREST
OF THE ACCUSED : Accused are on bail.
OFFENCE ALLEGED : U/s. 324 R/w. 34 of IPC.
2 CC.NO.12380/2014
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF EVIDENCE : 13.04.2016
DATE OF CLOSING OF
EVIDENCE : 13.04.2016
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(Chinnannavar R. S.)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The PSI of Chamarajpete Police Station has filed charge
sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s. 324 of
IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
It is alleged that, on 16/03/2014 at 04.30 p.m. C.w1 teased
Palani (CW.3) and because of that A-1 by saying that,
complainant has teased him and voluntarily caused injuries to
CW.1 with beer bottles on his head and accused No.2 has also
assaulted the complainant with common intentions and thereby
committed offences punishable U/s. 324 R/w. 34 of IPC.
3. The first information was filed by the complainant Arjun
S/o. Vedi on 16/03/2014 at 06.30 p.m. before PSI of
Chamarajpete police station with above said allegations. On the
basis of written complaint PSI registered in crime No.50/2014 for
the offences U/s. 324 R/w. 34 of IPC and sent FIR to the court,
visited the spot, conducted spot panchanama, seized Beer Glass
3 CC.NO.12380/2014
pieces from the spot, recorded statements of witnesses,
collected wound certificate and after completion of investigation
filed charge sheet against the accused.
4. On perusing the charge sheet this court has taken
cognizance for the offence punishable U/s. 324 R/w. 34 of IPC
and issued summons to the accused. On service of summons
accused have appeared and released on bail.
5. The copy of the charge sheet and other materials
has been supplied to the accused as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing both side the charge for the offence
punishable U/s. 324 R/w. of IPC was framed & read over to the
accused in the language known to him. He denied the charge and
claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the case the prosecution has
examined complainant as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P1(a). The prayer of the Sr. A.P.P. to issue summons to other
witnesses has been rejected by this court on the ground that,
PW.1 being complainant/material witness has turned hostile and
also on the ground that, no purpose will be served if other
witnesses are examined.
8. The 313 Cr.P.C. statement has been dispensed with
since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused.
4 CC.NO.12380/2014
9. I have heard the learned Sr. A.P.P. and learned
defense counsel.
10. The following point arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, on 16/03/2014 at 04.30
p.m. C.w1 teased Palani (CW.3) and because of
that A-1 by saying that, complainant has teased
him and voluntarily caused injuries to CW.1 with
beer bottles on his head and accused No.2 has
also assaulted the complainant with common
intentions and thereby committed offences
punishable U/s. 324 R/w. 34 of IPC ?
2. What order ?
11. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 - In the Negative.
Point No.2 _ As per final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1:
12. PW-1 being the complainant/victim and material
witness has turned hostile. The learned APP cross examined her
at length and suggested the case of the prosecution but she
denied all the suggestions. He denied that, he has given
complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. He denied the
contents of the complaint - Ex.P.1. PW.1 denied that, accused
have assaulted him and caused bleeding injuries to him. So
5 CC.NO.12380/2014
nothing is elicited by learned Sr. A.P.P. through the cross of the
PW.1 to prove his case. PW.1 during his cross specifically
admitted that, he has entered compromise with the accused. So
it appears that, now complainant and accused have compromised
the dispute.
13. It is well settled position of law that, prosecution has to
prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt but the prosecution
has not all proved its case through the evidence of PW.1. It is
also well settled position of law that if there exists any
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution then the benefit
of the doubt shall be always given to the accused. In this case
there is no evidence against the accused. Hence I hold that,
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and
I extend benefit of the doubt to the accused by answering point
No.1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2 :
14. In view of my answer to point No.1 in negative
accused is entitle for acquittal from the offences alleged. Hence I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/s. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted from the offences punishable U/s. 324 R/w. 34 of IPC.
6 CC.NO.12380/2014The bail bond of the accused and his surety stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
The case property i.e. Beer Bottle pieces being worthless article shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the ........ day of ...................., 2016) (Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Arjun S/o. Vediyappa Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Statement of Complainant-PW.1 Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Witnesses examined for the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the accused:
-NIL-
(Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.