Bangalore District Court
Is Examined As Pw.1 And His Elder Son I.E vs Has Neither Assaulted Cw.1 With Hallow ... on 3 August, 2022
1
KABC030674532018
Presented on : 11-09-2018
Registered on : 11-09-2018
Decided on : 03-08-2022
Duration : 3 years, 10 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2022.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.24999-2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1) Sl. No. of the Case 24999-2018
2) The date of commission 08/07/2018
of the offence
3) Name of the complainant Byatarayanapura Police Station
4) Name of the accused Manjunath, S/o.Hanumanthaiah, 26
years, R/at No. House No.7C, 4th
Cross, I Main, Deepanjalinagar,
Mysore Road, Hanumanthappa
Layout, Bengaluru.
5) The offence complained U/sec.324, 504, 506, 427 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 by: Sri.KMVK Advocate, Bengaluru.
9) Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
2
10) Date of such order 03/08/2022
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Byatarayanapura Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.324, 504, 506, 427 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 8.7.2018 at about 9.00 p.m. near House No.7C, situated at 4 th Cross, I Main, Deepanjalinagar, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 to
3 and in the above said transaction assaulted with hallow block brick on the head of CW.1, abused them, threatened them and pelted brick on the RCC sheet roofing of the house of CW.1, thereby accused has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec.324, 504, 506, 427 of IPC.
Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 4. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the 3 accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 8.7.2018 at about 9.00 p.m. near House NO.7C, situated at 4 th Cross, I Main, Deepanjalinagar, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and in the above said transaction assaulted with hallow block brick on the head of CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 324 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 to CW.3 and in the above said transaction abused them in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC?
4
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and in the above said transaction threatened them with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and in the above said transaction pelted brick on the RCC sheet roofing of the house of CW.1 thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 427 of IPC ?
5. What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point Nos.1 to 4 :-
5 The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took all the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
9.In order to substantiate the contents of complaint, very complainant is examined as PW.1 and his elder son i.e., CW.2 is examined as PW.2, but they fully turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In their evidence they have deposed accused is the 2 nd son of CW.1 and CW.3 is the wife of CW.2. They further deposed that, accused has neither assaulted CW.1 with hallow block brick nor abused CW.1 to 3 in filthy language . They further deposed that, the accused has not put any kind of life threat to CW.1 to 3 and not caused any loss to them. They further deposed that, CW.1 had been to Police Station for some other reason, wherein police took his signatures on documents as per Ex.P1 and P2, but he does not know the contents of the complaint - Ex.P.1 and Mahazar Ex.P2. PW.1 and 2 denied for having further statement and statement as per Ex.P3 and 4.
10. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has specifically denied about filing of complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. As I discussed above, after evidence of PW.1 & 2, learned Sr.APP has prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. In this case, 6 PW.1 & 2 being the complainant and victim have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the cross-examination PW.1 and 2 have clearly admitted that matter is ended in compromise. Admittedly investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.324 of IPC., which is non-compoundable in nature. In my considered view, due to compromise, PW.1 and 2 might have said goodbye to the case of prosecution.
12.Apart from this, when PW.1 & 2 being the complainant and victim have not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Moreover, in order to maintain cordial relationship between accused and complainant in future days and to save the precious time of court, other witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.
13.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence of the victim as well as other independent witnesses, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt against the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above point Nos. 1 to 4 are in the negative.
14. Point No.5:- For the reasons discussed herein above, I proceed to pass the following:
7 ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.324, 504, 506, 427 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
The property seized in PF.No.89/2018 dated 09.07.2018 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 3 rd day of August 2022.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. Hanumanthaiah
2. Mahadev.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint.
2. Mahazar
3. Further statement of PW.1
4. Statement of PW.2.
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 -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
8 9 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.324, 504, 506, 427 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
The property seized in PF.No.89/2018 dated 09.07.2018 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
10
11
12
13
Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020
The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
14 Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020 The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
JUDGMENT The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 10.02.2020 at about 5 p.m. at Chaitra Bar & Restaurant bearing No.40, situated at T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of 15 Bagalagunte Police Station accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction wrongfully restraned CW.1, assaulted with beer bottle on the mouth of CW.1 and on account of the same CW.1 lost six front teeth and bleeding injury to lips thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt. Further, accused abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and threatened him with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby accused has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and 2. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.02.2020 at about 5 p.m. at Chaitra Bar & Restaurant bearing No.40, situated at T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and 16 in the above said transaction wrongfully restrained CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 341 of IPC.?
12) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction assaulted with beer bottle on the mouth of CW.1 and on account of the same CW.1 lost six front teeth and bleeding injury to lips thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 326 of IPC.?
13) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 & 2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC?
14) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable 17 doubt that accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and 2 quarrel with CW.1 & 2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction threatened CW.1 with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 of IPC ?
15) What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point Nos.1 to 4 :-
The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took all the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
9.In order to substantiate the contents of complaint, very complainant is examined as PW.1, but he fully turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In his evidence he has deposed that accused has neither wrongfully restrained him nor abused him in filthy language .
He further deposed that, the accused has not assaulted him with beer bottle or caused any injury to his teeth. PW.1 further deposed that the 18 accused has not threatened him. PW.1 has simply identified his signatures in complaint and Mahazar, which are marked as Ex.P1 and
2. In-fact PW.1 does not know the contents of Ex.P1.
10. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has specifically denied about filing of complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. This being the evidence of PW.1. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. As I discussed above, after evidence of PW.1, learned Sr.APP has prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. In this case, PW.1 being the material witness and victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the cross-examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that matter is ended in compromise. Admittedly investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.326 of IPC., which is non-compoundable in nature. In my considered view, due to compromise, PW.1 might have said goodbye to the case of prosecution.
12.Apart from this, when CW.1 being the material witness and victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Moreover, in order to maintain cordial relationship between accused and complainant in future days and to save the precious time of court, other witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.
13.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence of the victim as well as other independent witnesses, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt against the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above points are in the negative.
14. Point No.5:- For the reasons discussed herein above, 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.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today. 19 The property seized in PF.No.17/2020 dated 17.02.2020 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 22 nd day of September 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
6. Manjanna.C.R.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint.
2. Mahazar
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 -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
20 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.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
The property seized in PF.No.17/2020 dated 17.02.2020 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
21
22
Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020
The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
23 Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020 The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
24 Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020 The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
JUDGMENT The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 10.02.2020 at about 5 p.m. at Chaitra Bar & Restaurant bearing No.40, situated at T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of 25 Bagalagunte Police Station accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction wrongfully restraned CW.1, assaulted with beer bottle on the mouth of CW.1 and on account of the same CW.1 lost six front teeth and bleeding injury to lips thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt. Further, accused abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and threatened him with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby accused has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and 2. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
16) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.02.2020 at about 5 p.m. at Chaitra Bar & Restaurant bearing No.40, situated at T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and 26 in the above said transaction wrongfully restrained CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 341 of IPC.?
17) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction assaulted with beer bottle on the mouth of CW.1 and on account of the same CW.1 lost six front teeth and bleeding injury to lips thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 326 of IPC.?
18) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 & 2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC?
19) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable 27 doubt that accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and 2 quarrel with CW.1 & 2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction threatened CW.1 with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 of IPC ?
20) What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point Nos.1 to 4 :-
The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took all the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
9.In order to substantiate the contents of complaint, very complainant is examined as PW.1, but he fully turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In his evidence he has deposed that accused has neither wrongfully restrained him nor abused him in filthy language .
He further deposed that, the accused has not assaulted him with beer bottle or caused any injury to his teeth. PW.1 further deposed that the 28 accused has not threatened him. PW.1 has simply identified his signatures in complaint and Mahazar, which are marked as Ex.P1 and
2. In-fact PW.1 does not know the contents of Ex.P1.
10. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has specifically denied about filing of complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. This being the evidence of PW.1. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. As I discussed above, after evidence of PW.1, learned Sr.APP has prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. In this case, PW.1 being the material witness and victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the cross-examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that matter is ended in compromise. Admittedly investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.326 of IPC., which is non-compoundable in nature. In my considered view, due to compromise, PW.1 might have said goodbye to the case of prosecution.
12.Apart from this, when CW.1 being the material witness and victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Moreover, in order to maintain cordial relationship between accused and complainant in future days and to save the precious time of court, other witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.
13.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence of the victim as well as other independent witnesses, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt against the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above points are in the negative.
14. Point No.5:- For the reasons discussed herein above, 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.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today. 29 The property seized in PF.No.17/2020 dated 17.02.2020 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 22 nd day of September 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
7. Manjanna.C.R.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint.
2. Mahazar
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 -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
30 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.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
The property seized in PF.No.17/2020 dated 17.02.2020 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
31
32
Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020
The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
33 Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020 The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
34 Sl. No. of the Case 6497/2020 The date of commission 10/02/2020 of the offence Name of the State by Bagalagunte P.S. complainant Name of the accused Karagaiah, S/o. Late Solaiah, 30 years, R/at No.45/1, 7th Cross, I Main, Manjunathnagar, Near Sani Mahatma Temple, Bengaluru .
Permanent Address:
Hosahalli Village, Goluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk &Dist.
The offence complained U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC. of or proved Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and his examination
9. 7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.KKK Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC Accused is acquitted.
10. Date of such order 22/09/2021 For the following:-
JUDGMENT The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 10.02.2020 at about 5 p.m. at Chaitra Bar & Restaurant bearing No.40, situated at T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of 35 Bagalagunte Police Station accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction wrongfully restraned CW.1, assaulted with beer bottle on the mouth of CW.1 and on account of the same CW.1 lost six front teeth and bleeding injury to lips thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt. Further, accused abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and threatened him with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby accused has committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and 2. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
5. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
21) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.02.2020 at about 5 p.m. at Chaitra Bar & Restaurant bearing No.40, situated at T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and 36 in the above said transaction wrongfully restrained CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 341 of IPC.?
22) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction assaulted with beer bottle on the mouth of CW.1 and on account of the same CW.1 lost six front teeth and bleeding injury to lips thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 326 of IPC.?
23) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 & 2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC?
24) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable 37 doubt that accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and 2 quarrel with CW.1 & 2 with regard to marriage and in the above said transaction threatened CW.1 with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 of IPC ?
25) What order?
7.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 to 4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point Nos.1 to 4 :-
The above points are inter linked to each other hence, I took all the points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
9.In order to substantiate the contents of complaint, very complainant is examined as PW.1, but he fully turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In his evidence he has deposed that accused has neither wrongfully restrained him nor abused him in filthy language .
He further deposed that, the accused has not assaulted him with beer bottle or caused any injury to his teeth. PW.1 further deposed that the 38 accused has not threatened him. PW.1 has simply identified his signatures in complaint and Mahazar, which are marked as Ex.P1 and
2. In-fact PW.1 does not know the contents of Ex.P1.
10. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 has specifically denied about filing of complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. This being the evidence of PW.1. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. As I discussed above, after evidence of PW.1, learned Sr.APP has prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. In this case, PW.1 being the material witness and victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, in the cross-examination PW.1 has clearly admitted that matter is ended in compromise. Admittedly investigating officer has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.326 of IPC., which is non-compoundable in nature. In my considered view, due to compromise, PW.1 might have said goodbye to the case of prosecution.
12.Apart from this, when CW.1 being the material witness and victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Moreover, in order to maintain cordial relationship between accused and complainant in future days and to save the precious time of court, other witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr.APP.
13.In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence of the victim as well as other independent witnesses, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved guilt against the accused. Accordingly, my answer to the above points are in the negative.
14. Point No.5:- For the reasons discussed herein above, 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.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today. 39 The property seized in PF.No.17/2020 dated 17.02.2020 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 22 nd day of September 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
8. Manjanna.C.R.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint.
2. Mahazar
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 -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
40 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.341, 326, 504, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled after six months from today.
The property seized in PF.No.17/2020 dated 17.02.2020 is worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. 41 42 on 8.7.2018 at about 9.00 p.m. near House NO.7C, situated at 4th Cross, I Main, Deepanjalinagar, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and in the above said transaction assaulted with hallow block brick on the head of CW.1, abused them, threatened them and pelted brick on the RCC sheet roofing of the house of CW.1.
43