Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs Praveenkumar on 4 July, 2022
1 CC.No.14853/17
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY 2022
C.C. No.14853/17
Present: SRI. B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
B.A., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka through
Hanumanthanagar Police Station
V/s.
Accused 1. Praveenkumar, s/o.Krishna, 32
yrs, R/at.No.21, I A main, I A cross,
Hurishikesh nagar, Bengaluru.
2. Sudhakar.S, s/o.Sanjeeva.A, 27
yrs, R/at.No.13, Gundamma
layout, GKM college road,
Jaraganahalli, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 13/06/2016
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused No.1 and 2 are on bail.
ACCUSED
2 CC.No.14853/17
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.427, 283 r/w.34 of IPC and
sec.3 of P.D.P.P.Act.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 06/02/2020
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 13/12/2021
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
The PSI of Hanumanthanagar Police station has filed
chargesheet against accused persons for the offence
punishable u/s. 427, 283 r/w.34 of IPC and sec.3 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are
that on 13/6/16 during night time, within the limits of
Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Basavanagudi
Vidhanasabha constituency 50 ft., road, Hanumanthanagar,
22nd main road, accused persons being the representatives of
Reliance Jio company without taking prior permission dug 23
pits on the public road, thereby caused inconvenience to
riders of the vehicles and also caused loss of Rs.10 lakhs to
BBMP and thereby committed the offences u/s.427, 283
3 CC.No.14853/17
r/w.34 of IPC and sec.3 of P.D.P.P.Act.
3. On the basis of the complaint of the CW 1, this crime
has been registered by Hanumanthanagar Police Station.
After investigation, Investigating officer has submitted the
chargesheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences
u/s. 427, 283 r/w.34 of IPC and sec.3 of P.D.P.P.Act. The
cognizance for the said offences are taken. Thereafter, on
issuance of summons and NBW, accused No.1 and 2 have
appeared through counsel by obtaining bail from Hon'ble
Sessions court in Crl.Misc.5653/16 dtd: 27/8/16 and filed
the regular bail application. Accordingly, they have released
on bail.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have furnished
to the accused persons as contemplated u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,
After being heard the arguments before charge, as there were
no grounds to discharge the accused No.1 and 2, charge for
the offences u/s.427, 283 r/w.34 of IPC and sec.3 of
P.D.P.P.Act has been framed & read over, explained to the
accused persons in the language best known to them. The
accused persons have not pleaded guilty and claims to be
tried. Hence, the case taken up for trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the
4 CC.No.14853/17
prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as PW 1 to 4 out of 8
witnesses and got marked 14 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 14.
After prosecution evidence, the accused persons have been
examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., & they have denied the
prosecution evidence. The accused persons have not chosen
to submit the defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of learned APP and counsel for
accused persons. Perused, On the basis of the above, the
following points have arises for my consideration :
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on 13/6/16
during night time, within the limits of
Hanumanthanagar Police Station,
Basavanagudi Vidhanasabha
constituency 50 ft., road,
nd
Hanumanthanagar, 22 main road,
accused persons being the
representatives of Reliance Jio
company without taking prior
permission dug 23 pits on the public
road, thereby caused inconvenience to
riders of the vehicles and thereby
committed the offences u/s.283 r/w.34
of IPC ?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above
said date, time and place, accused
persons being the representatives of
5 CC.No.14853/17
Reliance Jio company without taking
prior permission dug 23 pits on the
public road, thereby caused
inconvenience to riders of the vehicles
and also caused loss of Rs.10 lakhs to
BBMP and thereby committed the
offences u/s.427 r/w.34 of IPC ?
3) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above
said date, time and place, accused
persons being the representatives of
Reliance Jio company without taking
prior permission dug 23 pits on the
public road, thereby caused
inconvenience to riders of the vehicles
and also caused loss of Rs.10 lakhs to
BBMP and thereby committed the
offences u/s.3 of P.D.P.P.Act ?
4) What order?
7. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 to 3 In the Negative
Point No.4As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3 : Since all these points are interlinked,
I have taken them together for common discussion in order to
avoid the repetition. According to the prosecution the
accused persons have committed the offence u/s.427, 283
r/w.34 of IPC and sec.3 of P.D.P.P.Act. In order to prove the
6 CC.No.14853/17
guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined
the complainant as PW 1 who is the Asst.Executive Engineer
of BBMP and he has deposed that on 13/6/16 at the night
time, the accused persons being the Sub contractors of the
Reliance Jio company have dug 23 pits without taking the
license and violated the rules over the tar road formed by the
BBMP at Hanumanthanagar starting from backside of BMS
college to Girinagar T block 22nd road and due to this there
would be a chance of causing accidents and inconvenience to
the drivers of the vehicles. The BBMP has caused loss of
Rs.10 lakhs, hence, he has lodged the complaint before the
Police Station on 15/6/21. The police have came to the spot
and drew spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and taken the photo
snaps of the pits as per Ex.P.3 to 12. The BBMP has
prepared the estimation of loss caused due to the digging of
the pits and it is marked as Ex.P.13.
9. PW 4 is one of the Asst.Engineer of BBMP and he has
deposed that on 13/6/16 the accused persons in order to lay
the cable of Reliance company dug 23 pits on newly laid
concrete road from BMS college compound of 53 ft., road
Hanumanthanagar to Girinagar T block, 22nd main road
without prior permission, he went and verified and he found
that they have dug 23 pits. The CW 1 being his higher
7 CC.No.14853/17
authority has lodged the complaint. Because the accused
persons have dug the pits without permission, the BBMP has
caused the loss to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. When he enquired
the workers at the spot they told that accused no.1 and 2
have dug that pits.
10. PW 2 is one of the Investigating officer has deposed
that on 15/6/16 at about 11.30 am., when he was on SHO
duty, CW 1 has came and lodged the complaint. Hence, he
has registered the crime in Cr.No.192/16, he has visited the
spot on the same day and prepared spot mahazar in between
12.30 to 1.30 pm., at the spot and took the photo snaps as
per Ex.P.3 to 12. He has recorded the statements of CW 2 to
4. The BBMP authorities have prepared the estimation of loss
caused to them and it has been collected and it marked as
Ex.P.13. On 20/12/16, the accused persons have obtained
the anticipatory bail from the Sessions court and they
appeared before him, hence, he has arrested them and
released them on bail and handed over further investigation of
this case to CW 8.
11. The CW 8 is examined as PW 3 , he has deposed that
he has received the case papers on 4/5/17 from CW 7 and
verified, since investigation has completed, he has filed the
8 CC.No.14853/17
final report.
12. Apart from the oral evidence, Ex.P.1 is the
complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 to 12 are the
photosnaps, Ex.P.13 is the Loss Estimation list and Ex.P.14 is
the FIR.
13. I carefully gone through the entire evidence placed
by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the
accused persons have committed an offence u/s.3 of
P.D.L.P.Act as well as u/s.427, 283 r/w.34 of IPC. It is an
allegation against the accused persons that without taking
any license from the BBMP, the accused persons being the
Sub contractors of the Reliance Jio company have dug 23 pits
on the tar road formed by the BBMP thereby they have
committed the offences. At the time of the cross examination
of the PW 4 the counsel for the accused persons has
submitted that the accused persons have done the work by
taking the license from the BBMP. Thus, the accused persons
have admits that they have done digging of the pits over the
road as alleged by the prosecution. But their contention is
they have taken the license from the BBMP to dig the pits and
they have refilled the same as per their license. Under such
circumstances, the prosecution is required to prove that
9 CC.No.14853/17
without taking any license, the accused persons have dug the
pits on the tar road by violating the rules and because of this,
they have caused the loss of Rs.10 lakhs to BBMP.
14. PW 1 being the Executive Engineer of BBMP has
deposed that on 13/6/16, the accused persons being the Sub
contractors of the Reliance Jio company have dug 23 pits
without taking any license and due to this, it caused the loss
to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs to the BBMP. PW 4 being one more
Asst.Engineer of BBMP has also deposed the said fact by
saying that on 13/6/16 accused persons have dug 23 pits
over the tar road laid by the BBMP in order to lay the cable of
the Reliance Jio company and when he visited at the spot, the
workers have told that the accused persons have done the
same. As per the evidence of PW 1 and 4 their allegation is
that the accused persons have dug the 23 pits on the tar road
on 13/6/16 that too at night time. On perusal of the cross
examination of the PW 1 he clearly admits that ನಾನನು ಈ ಮಮೇಲ
ಹಮೇಳಿದ 23 ಗನುಗುಂಡಿಗಳನನು
ನ ಆರರಮೇಪಿತರನು ನಿರರ್ದಿಷಷವಾಗಿ ಯಾವ ರನಾಗುಂಕದಗುಂದನು
ತೆಗೆರರನುತತ್ತಾರಗುಂದನು ಹಮೇಳಲನು ಆಗನುವುರಲಲ. ...... As per the above
admissions though the PW 1 has deposed that the accused
persons have dug the pits at night time on 13/6/16 he
unecocally admits in his cross examination that he cannot
10 CC.No.14853/17
particularly say when exactly the accused persons have dug
the pits. Hence, the slight doubt accrued in the mind of the
court about digging of the pits by the accused persons on
13/6/16 as alleged by the complainant as well as the
prosecution.
15. It is very significant to note here that during the
course of cross examination PW 1 has admits as herein :
23 ಗನುಗುಂಡಿಗಳನನು
ನ ರ.12616 ರ ಪೂವರ್ದಿದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿರನುತತ್ತಾರಗುಂದರ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಇರಬಹನುದನು , ಅದರಗುಂತೆ ನಿಗರತ ಅವಧಿಯೊಳಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಗನುಗುಂಡಿಗಳನನು
ನ
ನ ಮಾಡಿರಲಿಲಲ
ಮನುಚಚ್ಚಿ ಮಾಮರಲಿ ರಸತ್ತಾ ಯಗುಂತೆ ಮಾಡಬಮೇಕಿತನುತ್ತಾ ಅದನನು
ಜರನ್ ತಗುಂಗಳನು ಮಳೆಗಾಲ ಅಗುಂದರ ಸರಿ . ಅನನುಮತ ಪ ಪಕಾರ ರ.294
16 ರಿಗುಂದ 12616 ರ ಒಳಗೆ ಆರರಮೇಪಿತರನು ತೆಗೆದ ಗನುಗುಂಡಿಗಳನನು
ನ
ನ ವ ಕರಾರನು ಇದೆ ಎಗುಂದರ ಸರಿ . ಆರರಮೇಪಿತರನು ರ.146
ಮನುಚಚ್ಚಿಬಮೇಕೆನನು
ನ ಮನುಚಚ್ಚಿ ಸರಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರಗುಂದರ ಸರಿಯಲಲ .
16 ರಗುಂದನು ಗನುಗುಂಡಿಗಳನನು
ನಾನನು ರ.15616 ರಗುಂದನು ತನಿಖೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗಲರ ರಸತ್ತಾ ಗಳ ಗನುಗುಂಡಿಗಳನು
ಹಾಗೆಮೇ ಇತನುತ್ತಾ ಎಗುಂದರ ಸರಿ . ನನನ ಪ ಪಕಾರ 15 ರನ ಬಿಟನು
ಷ
ಮನುಚಚ್ಚಿರನುತತ್ತಾರಗುಂದನು ನನುಡಿಯನುತತ್ತಾರ.
As per the above admission when the counsel for the
accused persons suggested that the said 23 pits have been
dig prior to 12/6/16 PW 1 has unecocally admits as it may be
true. When PW 1 himself admits that the pits have been dig
prior to 12/6/16, the very allegation of the prosecution that
11 CC.No.14853/17
the accused persons have dig pits on 13/6/16 becomes
falsifies. Hence, the strong doubt would accrued in the mind
of the court on the allegation of the accused persons.
Further, the PW 1 has unecocally admits as above that as per
the license, the accused persons were required to fill the
ditches in between 29/4/16 to 12/6/16 and there was an
agreement to that effect. Accordingly, the accused persons
have dig the ditches only by taking the license from the BBMP
authorities and there was an agreement to that effect. Even
though the accused persons have obtained the license and
there is an agreement between them and BBMP, the
complainant has suppressed the material facts and it appears
that they have lodged the false complaint without disclosing
the fact of license and agreement to do the particular work.
Further he admits that the accused persons are required to
fill up the ditches before 12/6/16 and when he visited the
spot on 15/6/16 the ditches were there and according to PW
1 they have filled up the same after lapse of 15 days. On
meticulous verification of the said cross examination, it is
crystal clear that the BBMP authorities have given license to
dig the ditch on the road and they are required to be refilled
by 12/6/16. But since they cannot fill up before the said
intime and filled after lapse of 15 days as admitted by the PW
1, he has lodged the complaint. Hence, it is crystal clear that
12 CC.No.14853/17
there is a license as well as agreement to dig the ditch on the
road and to refill the same. But they cannot refill the ditches
within time that would have been the reason in lodging the
complaint. Hence, by virtue of the evidence of the PW 1, it is
clear that the accused persons have done the work because
they are taken the license and there is an agreement, inspite
of that the complainant has lodged the false case without
disclosing the license and agreement. Accordingly, it is crystal
clear that the accused persons have dug the pits only by
taking prior license from the authority and they have done the
work because there is an agreement to do the same and it
never become an offence as alleged by the prosecution.
16. PW 2 being one of the Investigating officer has just
deposed about the registration of the crime, visiting at the
spot, drawing up of the mahazar and recording the
statements of witnesses and collection of the Loss Estimate
from the BBMP. PW 3 is one more Investigating officer has
deposed about filing of the chargesheet. But their evidence
are not disclosing the commission of the offence by the
accused persons as alleged in the chargesheet that accused
persons have dug the ditches over the road without license or
permission from the BBMP and caused loss to the tune of
Rs.10 lakhs. As discussed above in detail because the PW 1
13 CC.No.14853/17
being the authority of the BBMP has admits that there is an
agreement as well as license to dig the ditches on the road
and they have done their work as per their agreement, it never
becomes an offence as alleged by the prosecution. Inspite of
accused persons are having the license as well as agreement,
by suppressing the said facts, the complainant has lodged the
case against the accused persons. Without collecting proper
evidence the Investigating officer has submitted the
chargesheet. Thus, absolutely there is no materials to hold
that the accused persons have committed the offence as
alleged in the chargesheet beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation
against the accused persons that they have dug the ditches
without license and caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/.
In a criminal justice system, if a tiny doubt arises in the mind
of the court, benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused
persons. In this case, not only tiny doubt but the strong
doubt arise in the mind of the court, because the prosecution
has not produced sufficient material witnesses to accept the
guilt of the accused persons and the evidence of PW 1 to 4 is
lacking and they are not sufficient to believe the case of the
prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, in my opinion it is a fit case to extend benefit
14 CC.No.14853/17
of doubt to the accused persons. Accordingly point under
reference answered in the Negative.
17. POINT NO.4 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.427, 283 r/w.34 of IPC and sec.3 of P.D.P.P.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused persons stands cancelled. However, accused persons shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ each by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed.
It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of July 2022).
(B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
15 CC.No.14853/17ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Prakash Rao.A PW 2 : Venkateshmurthy PW 3 : Dilipkumar PW 4 :Rajanna
Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature Ex.P.312 : Photographs Ex.P.13 : Estimation list Ex.P.14 : FIR
Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused: NIL (B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.