Bangalore District Court
State By Sanjaynagara P.S vs Are Acquitted on 3 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 3rd Day of April 2018.
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.B.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.9261/2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 9261/2014
2. The date of commission 04/11/2013
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Sanjaynagara P.S.
4. Name of the accused Nagashree w/o late
Guruswamy, aged about 32
years, r/at 34, Chikkanna
Building, Geddalahalli,
Bangalore.
5. The offence complained of U/s.323, 355, 504, 506(B) of
or proved IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused are acquitted.
8. Date of such order 03-04-2018
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the PSI of Sanjay Nagara P.S. against the accused for the 2 C.C.9261/2014 offences punishable U/sec. 323, 355, 504, 506(B) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
On 04-11-2013 at about 12.45 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with CW1 with regard to dress material at Prakruthi Dress Material's Shop which belongs to CW1 situated at Sanjay Nagar Main Road, in the above said transaction the accused assaulted with the hands on the cheek of CW1, thus voluntarily caused hurt, the accused dishonour CW2 assaulted with slipper on the face of CW2, accused picked up quarrel with CW1 and abused in filthy language and threatened CW1 by showing seizure with dire consequences and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused was on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 323, 355, 504 and 506(B) of IPC. 3 C.C.9261/2014 The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 and P2. Accused has been questioned u/sec. 313 of Cr.PC.
5. Heard arguments from both the sides.
6. The points that arise for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04-11-2013 at about 12.45 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with CW1 with regard to dress material at Prakruthi Dress Material's Shop, which belongs to CW1 situated at Sanjay Nagar Main Road and in the above said transaction assaulted with the hands on the cheek of CW1 thus voluntarily caused hurt and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 323 of IPC?
2. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW1 and in the above said transaction accused with an intention to dishonour CW2 assaulted with slipper on the face of CW2 and thereby 4 C.C.9261/2014 committed the offences punishable u/s 355 of IPC?
3. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW1 and in the above said transaction abused CW1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 504 of IPC?
4. On the above said date, time and place you accused picked up quarrel with CW1 and in the above said transaction threatened CW1 in by showing seizure with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 506(B) of IPC?
5. What order?
7. The answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 4:- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e., PW1 who is the IO who has deposed that 5 C.C.9261/2014 on 04-11-2013 when he was at police station at that time he has received a complaint as per Ex.P1 and based on the complaint he has registered crime No.305/2013 at Sanjaynagar Police Station and thereafter he has handed over the further investigation to CW9.
9. It is paramount of the fact that in the present case on hand even after issuance of summons warrant and proclamation to CW1 to 6 and CW8. The prosecution has failed to secure the presence of CW1 to 6 and 8. As such by rejecting a prayer of Sr.APP by evidence of CW1 to 6 and 8 has dropped has not secured. Since, the prosecution has not examined material witness i.e., complaint and mahazar and other independent witness and IO i.e., CW8. Under those circumstances the prosecution case fall short and based on the sole evidence of PW7 who has registered the crime the guilty of the accused cannot 6 C.C.9261/2014 be proved. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 to 4 in the negative.
10. Point No.5:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.
323, 355, 504, 506(B) of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and her surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 3rd day of April 2018.) (M. Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.7 C.C.9261/2014
: Annexure :
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 : T.Nagarajaiah
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
3. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
- NIL -
4. List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-NIL -
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore. 8 C.C.9261/2014 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 323, 355, 504, 506(B) of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and her surety bond stands cancelled.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.