Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya vs Venkatachala on 16 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE
Dated this the 16th day of March , 2020 .
:PRESENT:
Smt. SHIRIN J ANSARI B.A.LL.B(Hon's) LLM
V ACMM Bangalore .
CRIMINAL CASE No.10009/2015
Complainant : State by Kamakshipalya
Police station, Bangalore.(Rep by Sr.A.P.P)
-VS-
Accused : 1. Venkatachala
S/of. Venkatagiraiah
aged 56 years
R/at No.492, 4th main
11th cross, Annapoorneshwari nagar
Bangalore .
2. Girish
S/of Ramalinge Gowda
aged 31 years,
R/at No.492, 4th main
11th cross, Annapoorneshwari nagar
Bangalore .
1. Date of commencement of 31.01.2015
offence
2. Date of report of offence 31.01.2015
3 Arrest of the accused The accused are on bail
4. Name of the complainant D.C.Manju
5. Date of recording of 27.02.2017
evidence
6. Date of closing of evidence 26.10.2017
7. Offences complained of Secs. 427, 353, 332 r/w.34 of
IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused are found not
guilty
9. Complainant by The Learned Sr.APP
2
CC No.10009/2015
JUDGMENT
The IO of Kamakshipalya police station, Bangalore has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/Sections 427, 353, 332 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
It is the allegation of the prosecution that on 31.1.2015 at about 9.50 pm. CWs 1, 5 to 9 were registering the case against drunk and drive in Malagala Ring road under pass within the limits of Kamakshipalya police station. Accused No.2 was also driving his vehicle drunk for which Cw 6 registered a case against accused No.1 and 2 . At the same time accused No.1 and 2with common intention to commit an offence, abused Cw 1, 5 and 6 in filthy language . Accused No.2 pushed CW1 and asked his vehicle back and thereby restrained Cw 1 from discharging official duty. Further when CW5 intervened accused No1 slapped Cw 5 and broke his spectacles worth Rs.1,000/- and tore his uniform and also restrained him from discharging official duty.
Further accused No.1 snatched the walkie talkie from Cw 6 and threw the same and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 427, 353, 332 r/w.34 of IPC .3
CC.No.10009/2015 On the basis of above said allegations the police have registered a case in crime No.47/2015 and forwarded FIR to this court. During the course of investigation, police have arrested the accused and got enlarged on bail. Thereafter, police have as usually conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences.
3. On the basis of materials on record, cognizance for the aforesaid offences has been taken and issued summons to the accused. The accused faced the trial through the Advocate. Copies are furnished. The necessary charges were framed, read over and explained the same to the accused, wherein, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The incriminating evidence available against the accused has been brought to the notice of the accused No.1 and 2 by recording of 313 Cr.P.C. statement . The accused denied the same . But, did not choose to lead defence evidence.
Heard the arguments on both sides, perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
5. Based on the above facts and circumstances on record, the following points arise for my determination:- 4
CC.No.10009/2015 POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 31.1.2015 at about 9.50 pm. CWs 1, 5 to 9 were registering the case against drunk and drive in Malagala Ring road under pass within the limits of Kamakshipalya police station and registered a case against accused No.2 and that the accused persons with common intention to commit an offence, abused Cw 1, 5 and 6 in filthy language and accused No.2 pushed CW1 and asked his vehicle back and thereby restrained Cw 1 being a public servant from discharging official duty and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 353 r/w.34of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention to commit an offence when CW5 intervened accused No1 slapped Cw 5 and broke his spectacles worth Rs.1,000/- and tore his uniform and also restrained him from discharging official duty and that accused No.1 snatched the walkie talkie from Cw 6 and threw the same and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 427 & 332 r/w.34 of IPC?
3. What order ?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1& 2 - In the "Negative"
Point No.3 - As per final order
for the following:-
5
CC.No.10009/2015
REASONS
7.POINT Nos.1 & 2 :- It is the allegation of the
prosecution that on 31.1.2015 at about 9.50 pm. CWs 1, 5 to 9 were registering the case against drunk and drive in Malagala Ring road under pass within the limits of Kamakshipalya police station. Accused No.2 was also driving his vehicle drunk for which Cw 6 registered a case against accused No.1 and 2 . At the same time accused No.1 and 2 abused Cw 1, 5 and 6 in filthy language . Accused No.2 pushed CW1 and asked his vehicle back and thereby restrained Cw 1 from discharging official duty. Further when CW5 intervened accused No1 slapped Cw 5 and broke his spectacles worth Rs.1,000/- and tore his uniform and also restrained him from discharging official duty. Further accused No.1 snatched the walkie talkie from Cw 6 and threw the same and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 427, 353, 332 r/w.34 of IPC .
8. In support of the case, the prosecution cited 13 witnesses before the court , but, got examined only 8 witness as PW 1 to 8. The prosecution got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P 4 . 6
CC.No.10009/2015
9. At the outset it is necessary to state that none of the indep9endent witnesses except official witness have supported the case of the prosecution. CW 2/ PW 1 and CW 3/PW2 both the independent witnesses have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but nothing fruitful was extracted from the mouth of these witnesses.
10. Further PW3/CW1, the complainant is examined by the prosecution . During the course of cross-examination this witness had admitted that they have not produced any documents before the court to show that they had been deputed to regisgter case of drunk and drive. Though this witness admits that they had no written order from the higher authority, but, it is stated that they received message on the wire less. But no such record or message is placed before the court .
11. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused persons were driving the vehicle drunk on the alleged date of incident .But the prosecution has not placed any material or record to show that the accused persons were tested with alcometer on the date of incident to show that they were driving 7 CC.No.10009/2015 the vehicle drunk . This aspect of the matter creates fatal doubt on the very case of the prosecution .
12. Further PW 4 has deposed with regard to the collection of wound certificate from the hospital and filing of the charge sheet against the accused persons . The testimony of this witness does not throw much light on the case of the prosecution .
13. PW5 has also admitted in the cross-examination that this witness has not produced any material before the court for having deputed them on duty on the alleged date of incident. Though the prosecution witnesses have alleged that the accused persons destroyed the Walkie Talkie , but neither the photographs nor the destroyed pieces of Walkie talkie are produced before the court . The prosecution has not produced any materials to show that the accused persons were tested with alcometer to show that they were drunk on the date of alleged incident. Though the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused persons were drunk to an extent of 60% but no any materials are produced to that effect before the court .
8
CC.No.10009/2015
14. The prosecution has failed to make out grounds against the accused persons . There are no satisfactory, convincing, and absolute evidence available on record to record conviction against the accused persons . Except the official witnesses , the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses . Hence in view of this the court find no reasons to record conviction against the accused persons.
15. Further the prosecution has also examined and Medical Officer. Even the medical witness has admitted in the cross- examination that she has not mentioned the age of the injury in the wound certificate .
16. All the points which have been raised above creates fatal doubt on the very case of the prosecution. More importantly the prosecution has not produced any material objects in this case. Though the prosecution has alleged that the accused tore his uniform and slapped on his face due to which his spectacles was broken, but, neither the spectacles nor Walkie Talkie are produced before the court. This aspect of the matter creates fatal doubt on the very allegation of the case of the prosecution. Therefore for the reason of non production of these materials before 9 CC.No.10009/2015 the court the accused should be made entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Hence, in view of this the court finds no reasons to record conviction against the accused persons . Hence, in view of this I answer Point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative.
17.POINT No.3:- In view of findings on point Nos.1 &2 ,I find that the accused persons are not guilty and in the result , I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/Sec 248(1) the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sections 427, 353 & 332 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Accused No.1 and 2 shall execute personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- each towards compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this the 16th day of March , 2020).
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1 Sujith
10
CC.No.10009/2015
P.W.2 Kumar
P.W.3 Manju
P.W.4 Balegowda
P.W.5 Krishnappa
P.W.6 Dr. Nirmala
P.W.7 Boraiah
P.W.8 Puttaramu
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of CW 2 & CW 3 Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature of CW 1 Ex.P.3 Wound certificate Ex.P.3(a) (b) Signatures Ex.P4 FIR Ex.P4(a) Signature of CW 12.
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence : Nil
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence: Nil
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence: Nil (SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM,Bangalore.
11 CC.No.10009/2015