Bangalore District Court
State By vs Babu S/O Srinivas on 1 August, 2017
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST 2017.
PRESENT
SRI.A.VIJAYAN, B.A.(LAW),LL.M.,
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-67)
S.C. 489/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Hulimavu Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
ACCUSED: Babu s/o Srinivas,
Aged 34 years,
R/at No.79, Krishna Layout,
Hulimavu, B.G.Road,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.M.Nagesh , Advocate)
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 28/2/2014
Report of the occurrence : 28/2/2014
Commencement of trial : 20/4/2015
Closing of trial : 26/7/2017
Name of the complainant : Sri Sunil Kaul
2 S.C.No.489/2015
Offence alleged : U/s 506, 504, 436
of IPC
Opinion of the judge : Charges not proved
Sentence or order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Hulimavu police filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 122/2014 for the offence punishable under Sec.504, 506 and 436 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:-
Accused on 28/2/2014 at about 5 p.m. at Shravanthi Apartment, Flat No.014, Thippareddy Layout, near Hulimavu Gate scolded CW.1 in filthy language and when CW.3 and 4 were inside the house, accused lit fire to the front door of house of CW.1, immediately CW.2 extinguished the fire. Therefore, the complainant prayed police to take appropriate legal action against the accused Babu.
3. Police after registering the complaint, registered the case in crime number of their police 3 S.C.No.489/2015 station and submitted FIR before the V ACMM, Bengaluru. Visited spot, conducted spot mahazar, recorded statement of witnesses. After collection of relevant documents and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet before V ACMM, which has been registered in C.C.No.33253/2014. Thereafter, the learned V ACMM, issued copy of charge sheet to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and by an order of committal based on jurisdiction to try this offence, the learned magistrate committed this case to this court. This court has registered the case is S.C.No.489/2015.
4. Thereafter, heard before charge, charge framed and the plea of the accused was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty, but claimed to be tried by this court. Hence, this case was posted for trial. 4 S.C.No.489/2015
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined its witnesses as P.W. 1 to 3 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.4.
6. Accused statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed.
7. Heard arguments on both the sides and case was posted for judgment.
8. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the case, and material evidence on record, points that arise for my consideration are as under for the following reasons:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused has committed offences punishable under Sec.
504, 506 and 436 of IPC?
2. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under for the following reasons:-
Point No.1 : In the negative 5 S.C.No.489/2015 Point No.2 : As per final Order, for the following REASONS
10. POINT No.1: In this case, police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.504, 506 and 436 of IPC. It is burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with the material, supportive and corroborative evidence with cogent reasons.
11. During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined its witness P.W. 1 to 3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.4.
12. P.W. 1 Sri Sunil Kaul in his examination in chief deposed that he knows accused and now he is residing at Shrawanthi Grace plant, Hulimavu at Bengaluru. Accused is not came to his house and scolded him in filthy language and intimidated injury 6 S.C.No.489/2015 to the life of his wife and further accused has not lit fire to his house and he denied his complaint before the police but he admitted his signature in complaint at Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a) and failed to recount whatever written in Ex.P1. He has absolutely denied occurrence of incident and turned hostile. During his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, prosecution failed to elicit any gainful evidence in favour of prosecution.
13. P.W.2 Vanishree Kaul deposed identically as P.W. 1 in her examination-in-chief and turned hostile. During the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, prosecution fails to elicit any gainful evidence in favour of prosecution.
14. P.W.3 H.R.Bhat the neighbourer of P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that both the accused and complainant are strangers and he did not see the incident and also denied his statement before the 7 S.C.No.489/2015 police as eyewitness to the incident and turned hostile. During the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, prosecution fails to elicit any gainful evidence in favour of prosecution.
15. PWs.1 to 3 who are material prosecution witnesses and king stone of prosecution case upon whose evidence entire prosecution case relied failed to materialize and support prosecution case absolutely and turned hostile. During their cross- examination also, prosecution fails to elicit any gainful evidence in favour of prosecution. Under these circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed this court to take further steps against remaining charge sheet witnesses. His prayer is rejected as it will not serve for the purpose of prosecution case. Under these circumstances, since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, accused statement under Section 313 8 S.C.No.489/2015 Cr.P.C., is also dispensed. Heard arguments in both sides. In the result, prosecution miserably failed to prove guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court holds point no.1 in the negative.
16. POINT No.2: In view of my finding to above point and for reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass following:-
ORDER Acting U/Sec 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec 504, 506 and 436 of IPC.
Accused is directed to execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with the surety for the likesum as required under the existing law.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on Computer, typed by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August 2017) (A.VIJAYAN), LXVI Addl., City Civil & Sessions 9 S.C.No.489/2015 Judge, Bangalore.
-:ANNEXURE:-
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Sunil Kaul PW.2 Vanishree Kaul PW.3 H.R.Bhat
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :-
Nil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature
Ex.P2 Mahazar
Ex.P3 Statement
Ex.P4 Statement
DOCUMENT MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
Nil
(A.VIJAYAN),
LXVI Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.10 S.C.No.489/2015
Case called out. Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide Separate Order:-
Acting U/Sec 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/Sec 504, 506 and 436 of IPC.
Accused is directed to execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with the surety for the likesum as required under the existing law.
LXVI Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.11 S.C.No.489/2015