Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs A1) D. Girish @ Giri S/O. Devendrappa on 23 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF 55th ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-56)
:Present :
Smt. H.G.Nagarathna, B.A., LL.B.,
55th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
: S.C. No. 1208/2015 :
DATE: THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2018
Complainant: The State of Karnataka,
Through the Police Sub-Inspector,
Kengeri Police Station, Bangalore.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
Accused : A1) D. Girish @ Giri s/o. Devendrappa,
Age: 24 years, r/at No.399,
Library Road, 1st Cross, Thalaghattapur,
Bangalore-62.
A2) Chandrashekar s/o. Kempaiah,
Age: 22 years, r/at H. Gollahalli,
Near Water Tank, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
A3) Puneeth s/o. Venkatesh,
Age: 20 years, r/at No .......,
Katanayakanapura, H. Gollahalli,
Choodenapura Post, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
A4) Manjunath s/o. Shimla,
Age: 24 years, r/at No......,
V.V. Bakery Road,
Ittamadu, Kathriguppe,
Bangalore.
2 S.C.No. 1208/2015
A5) Chandru s/o. Late Devaiah,
Age: 30 years,
R/at Channaveeranapalya village,
Vidyapeetha Post, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore.
(By Sri M.S. Shankar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
(U/sec.232 of Cr.P.C.)
1. Date of commission of 27-1-2015 Offence
2. Date of report of 26-6-2015 Occurrence
3. Date of commencement 07-03-2018 of evidence
4. Date of closing of 20-6-2018 Evidence
5. Name of the complainant Sri Nagaraju
6. Offence complained of u/secs. 364(A), 324 & 506 r/w.
149 of IPC
7. Date of arrest A1 - On 27-1-2015 A2 - On 27-1-2015 A3 - On 27-1-2015 A4 - On 27-1-2015 A5 - On 27-1-2015
8. Date of release A1 - On 16-2-2015 A2 - On 16-2-2015 A3 - On 16-2-2015 A4 - On 16-2-2015 A5 - On 16-2-2015
9. Opinion of the Judge Offence not proved 3 S.C.No. 1208/2015
10. Duration: (from date of 03 years, 04 months & 26 days commission of offence)
11. Order of sentence Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted In this case the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kengeri Police station, Bangalore, has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6, alleging that they have committed the offence of "kidnapping for ransom", "voluntarily caused hurt" and "causing alarm" p/u/sec. u/secs. 364(A), 324 and 506 r/w. 149 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution as per charge sheet, in brief, is that the incident took place on 27-1-2015 at about 10-30 a.m. accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 5 were present near Krishnapriya Kalyana Mantap signal in Mysore Road of Kengeri within the limits of Kengeri police station at Bangalore, kidnapped CW1 Nagaraju @ Naga in order to demand to huge amount money from him, took him in a I-10 Car bearing No. KA- 04-MM-2697 near Tamarind tree of Sri Shivalingaswamy Basaveshwara temple on NICE Road in Kengeri Hobli of Thalaghattapura at Bangalore south taluk in order to demand to huge amount money from him, took him threatened him to 4 S.C.No. 1208/2015 cause death to compel him to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and they were voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with clubs on his back, chest, ear and caused injuries and committed criminal intimidation by threatening CW1 with intent to cause alarm to CW1's wife and brother and put forth their demand for Rs.5 lakhs to release the CW1, otherwise they will kill him and thereby they have committed the alleged offence.
3. On receipt of charge sheet, the learned 3rd ACMM, Bangalore city has taken cognizance of the offence against A1 to A6 as per charge sheet. Inspite of grant of sufficient opportunity by issuing NBW against the accused No.6 the prosecution has not secured accused No.6 and as such in order to expedite the trial against accused Nos.1 to 5, the case against accused No.6 is split- up as per order dated. 6-10-2015. Then, after compliance of sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. the learned 3rd ACMM., Bangalore has committed the case u/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. against A1 to A5 for trial.
4. This being a sessions trial case, both the parties are heard u/sec. 227 of Cr.P.C before framing the charge. It was found that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the 5 S.C.No. 1208/2015 accused have committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the charge has been framed u/sec. 228 of Cr.P.C for the offence p/u/secs. 364(A), 324 and 506 r/w. 149 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5. It was read over and explained to them. They have pleaded not guilty and have claimed to be tried. Accordingly the case is tried by this court.
4(a) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and has produced the documentary evidence such as complaint, mahazar and statement of witnesses ... etc and got them marked as Exs.P1 to 6. In this case the complainant/victim and his wife mahazar witness all are turned hostile. Therefore, no need to examine further witnesses. Accordingly the court has rejected the request made by the learned Public Prosecutor to re-issue suit summons to all the witnesses as there is no evidence on behalf of PW1, who has to say about the alleged incident and examining the other witnesses is nothing but a futile exercise waster of time as the victim who has to depose about the alleged incident completely turned hostile inspite of strong cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6 S.C.No. 1208/2015 Therefore the request made by the P.P to re-issue once again to all the witnesses is rejected and taken as prosecution side closed.
4(b) After closure of prosecution evidence it is noticed that there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused persons. Therefore, the recording of statements of accused u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. There is no recording of defence side evidence u/sec. 233 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides.
6. Now the following points will arise for my consideration and determination:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 27-1-2015 at about 10-30 a.m. accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 5 were present near Krishnapriya Kalyana Mantap signal in Mysore Road of Kengeri within the limits of Kengeri police station at Bangalore, kidnapped CW1 Nagaraju @ Naga in order to demand to huge amount money from him, took him in a I-10 Car bearing No. KA-04-MM-2697 near Tamarind tree of Sri Shivalingaswamy Basaveshwara temple on NICE Road in Kengeri Hobli of Thalaghattapura at Bangalore south taluk in order to demand to huge amount money from him, took him threatened him to cause death to compel him to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and thereby they have committed the offence of 7 S.C.No. 1208/2015 "kidnapping for ransom" p/u/sec. 364-A r/w.149 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the same date, time and place accused Nos.1 to 5 were voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with clubs on his back, chest, ear and caused injuries and thereby they have committed the offence of "voluntarily caused hurt" p/u/sec.
324 r/w. 149 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the same date, time and place accused Nos.1 to 5 were committed criminal intimidation by threatening CW1 with intent to cause alarm to CW1's wife and brother and put forth their demand for Rs.5 lakhs to release the CW1, otherwise they will kill him and thereby they have committed the offence of "causing alarm" p/u/sec. 506 r/w. 149 of IPC?
4) What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : In the Negative,
Point No.3 : In the Negative,
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1:-
8. There are totally Nineteen witnesses named in the charge sheet who are numbered as CWs1 to 19. Among them the 8 S.C.No. 1208/2015 prosecution has examined three witnesses CW1 to 3 as PW1 to 3. Therefore, the prosecution is now depending upon the oral evidence of PW1 to 3 and the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to 6 to prove its case.
9. As already noticed above, the case of the prosecution is that the incident took place on 27-1-2015 at about 10-30 a.m. accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 5 were present near Krishnapriya Kalyana Mantap signal in Mysore Road of Kengeri within the limits of Kengeri police station at Bangalore, kidnapped CW1 Nagaraju @ Naga in order to demand to huge amount money from him, took him in a I-10 Car bearing No. KA-04-MM-2697 near Tamarind tree of Sri Shivalingaswamy Basaveshwara temple on NICE Road in Kengeri Hobli of Thalaghattapura at Bangalore south taluk in order to demand to huge amount money from him, took him threatened him to cause death to compel him to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and they were voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 by assaulting him with clubs on his back, chest, ear and caused injuries and committed criminal intimidation by threatening CW1 with intent to cause alarm to CW1's wife and brother and put forth 9 S.C.No. 1208/2015 their demand for Rs.5 lakhs to release the CW1, otherwise they will kill him.
10. The PW1 alleged victim has stated that he saw all the five accused persons and all the accused persons are his old friends. In the year 2015 he was doing agriculture work and also performing the poojas for the temple and staying in the Soligara colony. He was performing only auspicious functions and other religions auspicious functions and he further stated that on 27-1- 2015all the five accused persons did not kidnapped him from Kengeri and forced him for ransom and assaulted with clubs and did not gave a life threat. He identified the signature of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.1(a) is his signature and he do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and he identified his signature in Ex.P.2, signature is at Ex.P.2(a) and he do not know the contents of Ex.P.2 and he also not known what are the articles seized by the police at the time of mahazar police have not recorded his statement and he did not identified the clubs before the court. This witness treated as hostile witness and permission granted to Public Prosecutor to cross-examine the witness. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestions made by the Public Prosecutor that on 27-1-2015 10 S.C.No. 1208/2015 in the morning at 7-30 a.m. he was proceeded from Mysore to Bangalore and got down at Kengeri in a bus and at that time accused Girish and his car driver came and pick up in a car and went to Mysore Road on a NICE Road and demanded money and gave a life threat to him by kidnapping and he further denied by that time three accused persons were came to the spot. Accused No.1 and other accused assaulted with club on his back and left ear caused pain. They demanded ransom of Rs.3,50,000/- to release him and also they demanded Rs.5,50,000/- is to be paid and he has to call his wife, who were phone and she has to bring Rs.5,50,000/- and give it to the accused persons or else his life will no more and also gave they will murder him and he further denied he has lodged a complaint and police have came to the place of occurrence on 28-1-2015 and conducted the mahazar at 11-45 to 12-30 p.m. in the spot and seized 2 clubs, which was laying there and he has not identified the clubs and he further denied that he has taken treatment in the Rajarajeshwari Hospital and further denied that he has identified accused and gave statement before the police as per Ex.P.3 dt.28-1-2015. He agreed that he compromised with the accused and but denied 11 S.C.No. 1208/2015 because of that he is deposing false. The main witness to the prosecution papers and completely twisted and turtled the case of prosecution and gave a contradictory and different version in comparing with prosecution papers. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is no concern to the prosecution case.
11. Now coming to the evidence of PW2, who is none other than the wife of PW1 and she has also spoken that when she was in the house somebody has called her that her husband was kidnapped and she has not given statement before the police. This witness is treated at hostile and permission granted Public Prosecutor to cross-examine the witness. In the cross-examination she completely denied the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor that on 27-1-2015 as per Ex.P.4 she has given a statement before the Police and Police have took her husband to Rajarajeshwari Hospital where he was given a medical treatment and then he went to the police station and lodged a complaint and she identified the accused as per Ex.P.5 and she stated that now they have all of them have compromised, but she denied on that reason only she is deposing false.
12 S.C.No. 1208/2015
12. PW3 is the brother of the alleged victim spoken same as PW2. The evidence of PW1 to 3 is no supports the case of prosecution to believe that the incident occurred on the alleged date and the accused have committed the offence as alleged.
13. On perusal of the witnesses examination no other witnesses were examined as no need to examine the other witnesses as important prime witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor prayer to re-issue suit summons to all the witnesses rejected.
14. Now on analyzing the evidence of PW1 to 3 there is no evidence on record to believe the prosecution case as the main prime witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are entitled for clear acquittal. Hence the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
Point No. 2:
15. In view of the finding already given on point No.1 above, I proceed to pass the following:
13 S.C.No. 1208/2015
ORDER In exercise of the power conferred u/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted for the offence p/u/secs. 364(A), 324 and 506, r/w. 149 of IPC and they are set at liberty.
2) The bail bonds executed by accused Nos.1 to 5 and their surety bonds stand cancelled.
3) The interim order passed by the court in giving interim custody of the vehicle I-10 car bearing No.KA-04-MM-2697 is made absolute and the unmarked properties two wooden clubs reported in P.F. No. 14/2015 dt.28-1-2015 are worthless and ordered tobe destroyed after expiry of appeal period. [Directly, dictated to the Judgment writer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this 23rd day of June 2018.] (Nagarathna H.G.) th 55 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURES List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW1 Nagaraju
PW2 Anasuya
PW3 Nanjunda
14 S.C.No. 1208/2015
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P1(a) PW1's signature Ex.P2 Mahazar Ex.P2(a) PW1's signature Ex.P3 PW1's statement Ex.P4 PW2's statement Ex.P5 Re-statement of PW2 PW6 PW3's statement
List of Material Objects Marked on behalf of the prosecution:
-NIL-
List of Witnesses Examined and documents marked on behalf of the defense:
-NIL-
(Nagarathna H.G.) th 55 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.15 S.C.No. 1208/2015