Bangalore District Court
Have Filed Protest Petition To The ... vs To 3 In Furtherance Of on 26 February, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 26th day of February 2021.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.41315/2010
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 41315-2010
2. The date of commission 11.10.2008
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Cottonpet P.S.
4. Name of the accused 1.N.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late
Narasimhamurthy, 52 years,
Working at Court of Small Causes,
Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru.
2.N.Jagadish, S/o. Late
Narasimhamurthy, 38 years.
3.N.Nagesh, S/o. Late
Narasimhamurthy, 34 years.
All are R/at No.14, II Cross,
Subbannachar Lane, Cottonpet,
Bengaluru-53.
5. The offence complained U/sec.504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
of or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KNM Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused-1 to 3 are acquitted.
10. Date of such order 26/02/2021
For the following:-
2
JUDGMENT
The complainants filed written complaint before the Cottonpet Police, based on the complaint the concerned police has submitted the FIR for the offence punishable U/sec. 504, 506, 420 of IPC. Later after investigation, the concernced poice have filed B-Final Report. The complainants have filed protest petition to the B-Final Report and sworn statement of the CW.2 has been recorded, based on the sworn statement, the cognizance has been taken against the accused -1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/sec.504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued process.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 11/10/2008 at about 9.30 p.m. accused-1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence came near House bearing No.13, II Cross, Subbannachar Lane, within the jurisdiction of Cottonpet Police Station and picked up quarrel with CW-1 and 2 and in the above said transaction abused them in filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused-1 to 3 are on bail. Charge framed for the offence punishable U/sec.504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC., which was readover and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Then the prosecution examined PWs:1 to 4 and got 3 marked Ex.P.1 to P16. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the accused have placed no evidence.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides .
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the complainants prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11/10/2008 at about 9.30 p.m. accused-1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence came near House bearing No.13, II Cross, Subbannachar Lane, within the jurisdiction of Cottonpet Police Station and picked up quarrel with CW-1 and 2 and in the above said transaction abused them in filthy language and thereby accused have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 r/w 34 of IPC.?
2. Whether the complainants further prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused-1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence picked up quarrel with CW-1 and 2 and in the 4 above said transaction threatened them with dire consequences and thereby accused have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 r/w 34 of IPC.?.
3. What order?
6.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 & 2: In the negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7.Point Nos.1 & 2 :-
The above two points are inter linked to each other hence, I took the two points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
It is the case of the complainant that the accused abused them in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences on 11.10.2008 at about 9.30 p.m.
8.In order to prove the case, the complainant no.1 is examined as PW.1, complainant No.2 is examined as PW.4 and other witnesses are examined as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked 16 documents. 5
9.The complainant no.1, who is examined as PW.1 has deposed that complainant no.2 is her sister and accused are their neighbours, but the relationship is not cordial with them. The accused used to picked up quarrel with the complainants unnecessarily. On 11.10.2008 between 9.30 p.m. To 10 p.m. when she was in the house along with the complainant no.2 accused -1 to 3 tress passed into their house No.13, along with clubs and other weapons and picked up quarrel with her and then abused in filthy language and also threatened to take away their lives, hearing the said galata neighbours rushed to the hosue of complainant, then the accused ran away by threatening the complainants. Thereafter she went to the Cottonpet Police Station and informed the police about the alleged incident, but the police has not registered the case. Therefore, she is constrained to file a private complaint before the court.
10.When the case is referred for investigation to the jurisdictional police, it is alleged that they have not investigated properly. Therefore, she filed a protest petition and based on the protest petition, cognizance has been taken against the accused. She identified the complaint same is marked as Ex.P1 and her signature is marked as Ex.P1(a). She identfied Encumbrance Certificate same is marked as Ex.P2, certified copy of the order in W.P. No.7012/2006 is marked as Ex.P3, Katha Certificate is marked as Ex.P4, Katha Extract is marked as Ex.P5, Tax 6 Paid Receipts are marked as Ex.P6 and 7, her elder sister's death certificate is marked as Ex.P8, death certificate of her elder sister's husband is marked as Ex.P9, certified copy of the partition deed is marked as Ex.P10, certified copy of the order sheet and order of Temporary Injunction of O.S. No.11107/2006 are respectively marked as Ex.P11 and 12, certified copy of the order sheet of O.S. No.1943/2008 is marked as Ex.P13, certified copy of the codicil is marked as Ex.P14, certified copy of the judgment of C.C. No.6969/2007 is marked as Ex.P15 and office copy of complaint filed by the complainants to the Cottonpet Police Station is marked as Ex.P16 and she also identified the accused.
11.In the cross-examination PW.1 admitted that, she is having 2 sons, out of them the elder son i.e., Manjunath is residing at House No.1, II Cross, Subbannachari Lane at Cottonpet and another son by name Seshadri is residing at Vijayanagar .She is residing with her first son by name Manjunath at House No.1 along with the wife and children of the said Manjunath. She also admitted about the filing of the civil suit in respect of House No.13 and the defendants are appeared in the said case and contested the same. She further deposed that she is not able to say which accused holds club and which accused has hold rod and chopper at the time of alleged incident. She is also unable to say in which words the accused have abused her. Further, the counsel for 7 accused has suggested that due to pending of civil cases between the complainant and accused she filed the false complaint, but she denied the said suggestion.
12.CW.2 is examined as PW.2 is alleged to be one of the eye witness. In the chief-examination he depsoed that on the date of alleged incident at about 9.30 p.m. he saw the accused at the time of abusing to the complainants. So, he suggested the complainants to file complaint before the police and he also given his mobile number to the complainants and then he went away from the said place. In the cross-examination he deposed that he is working as a driver in a private company on the date of alleged incident . After completion of the duty, he gone to Cottonpet area for purchase of smoking item namely (nasya) at that time he saw the accused and also heard the sound regarding galata. He also admitted that he is not having habit of smoking. When he was examined on 23.04.2016. he has not deposed about the holding of weapons by the accused, but when he was recalled on 20.03.2018. He further improved his version and said at the time of incident the accused were present along with the rods, clubs at the time of incident, but he was not able to say, which accused has hold which weapon. He further said the accused were ran away by throwing the said weapons in the said place. He did not know where the accused were residing.
8
13.CW.3 is examined as PW.3. he is alleged to be another eye witness. He also deposed in the same tune of PW.2 in the chief- examination he deposed that he about to leave the house by reporting to his owner because the house of the said owner was situated at Subbannachari Lane at that time he heard the voice of the accused, but he has not tried to file the complaint against the accused.
14.In the cross-examination PW.3 deposed that he is working as a writer in a Transport Company at Whitefield and house of the said company owner is situated at cottonpet. So, on the date of alleged incident after completion of his duty he was about to visit the house of his owner and he left the whitefield at about 9 p.m. and came to Majestic, then he proceed to the house of his company owner by walk. He met with his owner at about 9.55 p.m. and then he returned to his house. He is also not able to say which words uttered by the accused for abusing the complainants. He further said the accused did not hold any weapons at the time of alleged incident. Again when he was recalled on 20.03.2018 he changed his version and said the accused have hold weapons like clubs, rod in the hands at the time of incident, but he was not able to say which accused holds which weapon and he also said the accused were ran away by throwing weapons in the said place. Again when he was cross-examined by the accused counsel, he said his latest version is true and he admitted that his earlier version was not true. 9
15.Complainant No.2 is examined as PW.4. She has also deposed in the chief-examination that on 11.10.2008 when she was at House No.13 along with the complainant no.1 and with the family members the accused tress-passed into their house and abused them in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. She also identified the Ex.P1 to 16. In the cross-examination she admitted about the stay of Manjunath in House No.1, II Cross at Subbannachari Layout and she further added that in house no.13 she is also residing along with the complainant no.1, she is not able to say which accused holds which weapon at the time of incident. The counsel for accused has suggested that due to civil disputes between the parties she is deposing false in order to support the complainant no.1, but she denied the said suggestion .
16.The advocate for complainant has vehemently argued and filed written arguments alleging that on the date of alleged incident the accused in order to threaten the complainants, tress-passed into their hosue in the night time and abused them in filthy language by holding deadly weapons and threatened with dire consequences.
17.The advocate for accused has argued that there is no such incident took place because of the pending of civil cases in order to take 10 revenge the complainants have filed false complaint and the complainants have failed to prove the allegations against the accused. Therefore, he prays for acquittal of the accused.
18.It is an admitted fact that there are pending of civil cases between complainants and accused . It is the case of the complainants that the complainants elder deceased sister by name Janakamma had purchased Hosue No.13 from the predecessors of the accused and got mutated their name. Later after the death of the elder sister Janakamma the complainants inherited the said property by virtue of codicil. Even after sale of the said house the accused persons have created a partition deed in order to grab the house property . Therefore, they have filed 2 civil suits against the accused persons and they are pending because of the filing of the civil suits the accused with dishonest intention tress- passed into their house at about 9.30 p.m. on 11.10.2008 along with the deadly weapons such as clubs, crow bar, rods and abused them in filthy language and also threatened to take away their life. Therefore, they have filed a complaint against the accused before the Cottonpet Police Station, but the police have not registered the case. So, they have constrained to file the private complaint. After filing the private complaint, it was referred to the concerned police for investigation u/sec. 156(3) of Cr.PC and the police has filed B-Report. So, the complainants have filed protest petition and thereafter the sworn 11 statements has been taken and cognizance taken against the accused for the ofences punishable u/sec. 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The complainants have deposed about the alleged incident regarding tress- pass, abusing by the accused and also threatening with dire consequences, but they have not at all deposed about the presence of PW.2 and 3 at the time of incident. As per the version of PW.1, she is residing along with her elder son in House No.1, II Cross, Subbannachari Layut, but the alleged incident took place near the house no.13. So, the presence of the complainant in the place of incident becomes doubtful.
19.Another contradiction is PW.4, who is complainant no.2, who is again changed her version and said she is residing along with the complainant no.1 at House No.13, along with the other family members, but the complainant no.1 has not whispered anything aobut the stay of complainant no.2 along with her in House No.13. So, it also creates doubt. Further if at all the accused have entered the house of complainant along with the deadly weapons and they ran away by showing the said weapons, atleast the complainants ought to have produced the said deadly weapons before the court, but they have not not done so. PW. 2 and 3 who have deposed first time in the year 2016 have not deposed about the holding of deadly weapons by the accused, when they have been recalled in the year 2018 they improved their version and said that the accused were came to the place of incident 12 along with the deadly weapons, but they also not able to say which accused holds which weapon at the time on incident. PW.3 admitted that he deposed false first time and changed his version and said his latest version is true, this shows that he is not trustworthy person.
20. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence , the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused and due to the rivalry between the accused and complainants and also civil disputes, it appears that the present case has been filed. Whenever doubt arises in prosecution case, the benefit of doubt will goes in favour of the accused. Hence, the aforesaid points-1 & 2 are answered in the negative.
21.Point No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused- 1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 26 th day of February 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
13 Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
1. Smt.Savithramma
2. A.Srinivas Raju
3. Renuka Prasad
4. Smt.Shakunthalamma.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Encumbrance Certificate
3. Certified copy of the order in W.P. No.7012/2006
4. Katha Certificate
5. Katha Extract
6. Tax Paid Receipt
7. Tax Paid Receipt
8. Death certificate
9. Death certificate
10. ertified copy of the partition deed
11. Certifie d copy of the order sheet of O.S. No.11107/2006
12. Certifie d copy of the order of Temporary Injunction of O.S. No.11107/200
13. Certifie d copy of the order sheet of O.S. No.1943/2008
14. Certifie d copy of the codicil
15. Certifie d copy of the judgment of C.C. No.6969/2007
16. Office copy of complaint filed by the complainants
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Mos: -NIL - 14
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
15 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused-1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today. 16 31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. 17 18 19 20