Bangalore District Court
State By Kamakshipalya P.S vs Kt Gurumurthy on 7 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 7th day of June 2016.
Present:
Sri A. Somashekara, B.A.L., L.L.M.,
V Addl., C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
CC No.8468/2015
Complainant: State by Kamakshipalya P.S.,
(Rep., by Sr. APP, Bengaluru)
Vs.
Accused: 1.KT Gurumurthy
S/o Late P Thimmaiah, 40 Yrs.,
R/a No.738, VHBS Layout, Halage
Vaderahalli Vilage,
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bangalore-560 094.
And also at Bettegowdana Koppaly,
KIthoor Grama, Bettadapura Hobli,
Periyapatna Tq., Mysore Dist.,
2.Chandan S/o Nagaraju, 29 Yrs.,
R/a No.4/2, 10th Cross Road, F Street,
Magadi Main Road, Near
Seshadripuram College, Bangalore City.
3.Mohan Kumar H
S/o Hanumantharayappa, 25 Yrs.,
R/a No.1519, 3rd Cross Road, 5th Block,
KRS Gowda, HMT Layout,
Chokkasandra, Nagasandra Church,
T Dasarahalli, Bangalore City.
2
CC No.8468/2015
4.Meenakshi YG
D/o YC Gangadharaiah, 34 Yrs.,
R/a No.940, Shanimahathma Temple
Road, Viyanandanagar, Nandini Layout,
Bangalore City.
(Rep. by..................., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT AS PER SEC. 355 Cr.P.C.
1. Serial number of the case : CC No.8468 /2015
2. Date of the commission of
the offence : 1.5.2013 to 18.01.2014
3. The name of the complainant : Sri Siddappa
4. Name of the accused persons
and their parentage and residence: As stated above.
5. The offence complained off
are proved : U/s.465 468 471 419 420 504
and 506 of IPC and Sec.3, 10
and 19 of Kar., Private Medical
Establishment Act 2007
6. The plea of the accused and :Pleaded not guilty and
their examination denied the incriminating
evidence.
7. The final order : Acquitted.
8. The date of such order : 07.06.2016
---
Judge Sign
3
CC No.8468/2015
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR FINAL ORDER:
The prosecution's case in brief is that the accused No.1 and
2 to make wrongful gain for themselves, without having any
permission from the Health Department established Shrusti Global
and Diagnostic Pvt., Ltd., at No.41/2-1, I Cross Road, KHB Colony
I Stage, Basaveshwaranagara, within the limits of Kamakshipalya
P.S., Bangalore, and provoked the publics to solve 100% infertility
through IVF treatment. Further with an intention to cheat CW.1
Siddappa and CW.2 Renuka gave false publication, without
displaying the board showing the expenses to the said treatment,
details of the Doctors, and the facilities available in the said
hospital. Further accused No.1 and 2 without having any
educational qualifications related to IVF, created the false
educational certificates, made believe that the same are originals,
even though they not the qualified Doctor, made believe that as
doctors, and falsely assured them that they will get children
through IVF treatment, and on 25.06.2013 received Rs.50,000/-
and on 12.12.2013 received Rs.3,00,000/- from CWs.1 and 2, and
Judge Sign
4
CC No.8468/2015
issued a receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- as donation given to the Shrusti
Medicare and Research Foundation, and issued receipt for
Rs.1,00,000/- as Base Fertility Center for IVF treatment,
misutilized the amount of CWs.1 and 2, and without solving the
infertility to CW.2 and without returning the amount cheated
CWs.1 and 2. Further accused No.1 to 4 abused and put threat
to the life of CWs.1 and 2, when they demanded to return the
amount. Therefore, the accused persons have committed an
offences punishable U/s.465, 468, 471, 419, 420, 504 and 506 of
IPC and Sec.3, 10 and 19 of Kar., Private Medical Establishment
Act 2007. Hence, the charge sheet.
. 2.During crime stage the accused persons are enlarged on
regular bail. After submission of this charge sheet, this court has
taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the aforesaid
accused persons. Copies of the charge sheet have been furnished
to accused persons as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., With no objection
from the Counsel for the accused persons, this Court framed
charge for the aforesaid offence against them. The same read
Judge Sign
5
CC No.8468/2015
over and explained to the accused person in the language known
to them. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined
the complainant and CW.2, as PWs.1 and 2, and it has got
marked three documents as Ex.P-1 to P-3. Statement of the
accused persons has been dispensed since no incriminating
evidence placed against them.
3.Heard the arguments of both sides, perused evidence
placed before the court.
4.The following points that would arises for my
determination:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all-
reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 to
make wrongful gain for themselves, without having
any permission from the Health Department
established Shrusti Global and Diagnostic Pvt., Ltd.,
at No.41/2-1, I Cross Road, KHB Colony I Stage,
Basaveshwaranagara, within the limits of
Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore, and provoked the
publics to solve 100% infertility through IVF
treatment. Further with an intention to cheat CW.1
Siddappa and CW.2 Renuka gave false publication,
Judge Sign
6
CC No.8468/2015
without displaying the board showing the expenses
to the said treatment, details of the Doctors, and
the facilities available in the said hospital. Further
accused No.1 and 2 without having any educational
qualifications related to IVF, created the false
educational certificates, made believe that the same
are originals, even though they not the qualified
Doctor, made believe that as doctors, and falsely
assured them that they will get children through IVF
treatment, and on 25.06.2013 received Rs.50,000/-
and on 12.12.2013 received Rs.3,00,000/- from
CWs.1 and 2, and issued a receipt for Rs.2,00,000/-
as donation given to the Shrusti Medicare and
Research Foundation, and issued receipt for
Rs.1,00,000/- as Base Fertility Center for IVF
treatment, misutilized the amount of CWs.1 and 2,
and without solving the infertility to CW.2 and
without returning the amount cheated CWs.1 and 2.
Further accused No.1 to 4 abused and put threat to
the life of CWs.1 and 2, when they demanded to
return the amount and thereby committed an
offences punishable U/s.465 468 471 419 420 504
Judge Sign
7
CC No.8468/2015
and 506 of IPC and Sec.3, 10 and 19 of Kar.,
Private Medical Establishment Act 2007 as alleged?
2.What order?
5.My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 - in the negative
Point No.2 - As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
6.POINT NO.1:-
This case has been registered in view of Ex.P1 complaint
that submitted to the then SHO of Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore
by the complainant-Siddappa S/o puttaswamygowda, 45 Yrs., on
14.10.2014 at about 21.00 Hours. Thereafter, the then SHO of
Kamakshipalya P.S., has got registered the case, submitted FIR to
the Court, visited the spot and conducted Ex.P2 spot mahazar on
16.10.2014 in the presence of the complainant and other two
panch witnesses in between 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. at Shrusti
Global and Diagnostic Pvt., Ltd., at No.41/2-1, I Cross Road, KHB
Colony I Stage, Basaveshwaranagara, that lies within the limits of
Judge Sign
8
CC No.8468/2015
Kamakshipalya P.S., Bangalore City. Thereafter, the I.O., has
recorded statements of witnesses, collected the documents, and
after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge
sheet against the accused person before this Court.
In this background, now let us examine whether the
prosecution is able to prove the following essential ingredients to
constitute the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC.
Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or
to make, alter or destroy the whole or
any part of a valuable security or
anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into
a valuable security.
7.In the complaint marked as per Ex.P-1, PW.1 has
specifically stated to the IO by reiterating almost all the facts as
averred in the Cl. No. 7 of Charge sheet and in para No.1 of this
judgment. Whereas, during the course of his oral evidence, PW.1
has not stated the evidence as stated in the complaint marked as
Judge Sign
9
CC No.8468/2015
per Ex.P-1 or in Cl. No. 7 of charge sheet or in para No.1 of this
judgment. PW.1 has stated that he knows the accused persons,
about two years back, he obtained treatment for infertility, and he
has not been cheated from the institution of accused persons,
and because of angry with the accused persons, he lodged
complaint against the accused persons. He has further deposed
before the Court that he did not know the contents of the
documents marked at Ex.P-1 and P-2 and now he compromised
the case with the accused. PW-1 has further deposed that he did
not know that for when, where and for what reason he put his
signature on the documents that are marked as Ex.P-1 and P-2.
The evidence of PW.1 is not in accordance with Ex.P-1 Complaint
and Ex.P-2 Mahazar.
8.PW.2 is the wife of PW.1 she has also deposed that he
knows the accused persons, two years back she obtained
treatment for infertility, the accused persons have not cheated
them, she didn't know filing of the complaint by her husband,
because of angry with the accused persons, and she didn't made
Judge Sign
10
CC No.8468/2015
any statement to the police. PWs.1 and 2 are treated as hostile
witnesses at the request of the prosecution. They were subjected
to cross examination on behalf of case of the prosecution. But
nothing is elicited in support of the case of the prosecution in the
evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that recorded during the course of their
respective cross-examination. Further PWs.1 and 2 have
admitted in their respective cross-examinations that they have
received the amount through DD from the accused in two
installments, which they have paid to the accused, and now they
are not interested to prosecute the case against the accused, as
they have compromised the matter with the accused. The said
evidence of PWs.1 and 2 did not disclose that the accused
persons have committed the offences as alleged against them.
Since the complainant/victim turned as hostile, other witnesses
have been discharged, since no purpose would be survived if they
were examined in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
that reported in 1996(3) Crime 85. Further, in this case the
prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients to
Judge Sign
11
CC No.8468/2015
constitute the offences as alleged against the accused persons.
Therefore, I am of opinion that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case as alleged against the accused persons
beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused persons are entitled for
acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
9.Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid discussion, this
court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
By acting U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.465, 468, 471, 419, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.3, 10 and 19 of Kar., Private Medical Establishment Act 2007.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail and surety bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 months from this date in view of Secs.437(A) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the Stenographer through computer, printout taken by him is verified, after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of June 2016).
(A. Somashekara) V Addl.C.M.M., B'luru.
Judge Sign 12 CC No.8468/2015 ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW.1 : Siddappa PW.2 : Smt. Renuka
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint dtd., 14.10.2014 Ex.P. 2 : Mahazar dtd., 16.10.2014 Ex.P. 3 : Statement of PW.2.
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL.
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION: NIL.
(A. Somashekara) V Addl. C.M.M., B'luru.
Judge Sign 13 CC No.8468/2015 07.06.2016 State by Sr. APP A1 to A4 on bail For Judgement.
Case called. A1 to A4 Pt., /Abt., Judgement pronounced in the open Court as under vide separate Judgement kept in the file.
By acting U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.465, 468, 471, 419, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec.3, 10 and 19 of Kar., Private Medical Establishment Act 2007.
They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to other cases. However, their bail and surety bonds are hereby extended for a period of 6 months from this date in view of Secs.437(A) of Cr.P.C., (A. Somashekara) V Addl. C.M.M., B'luru.
Judge Sign 14 CC No.8468/2015 Judge Sign 15 CC No.8468/2015 Judge Sign