Bangalore District Court
Rajagopala Nagara P.S vs A6 Alagu on 5 March, 2025
KABC010322592022
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2025
S.C.No.2090/2022
Complainant: State by Rajagopalanagar
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused: 1. Harisha @ Kuri
2. Guruprasad
3. Krishna
4. Naveena @ RX
5. Rakesh @ Appaji
6. Halagu S/o Perumal,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.202, 9th Main,
5th Cross, Rajagopalanagar,
Bengaluru.
7. Ravi @ Tiles Ravi
8. Umesha
9. Bharatha
10. Praveena @ Hitacha
11. Abhi @ Andraalli Abhi
12. Santhosha
13. Shashi @ Hatti Shaashi
14. Vasu
15. Khani
16. Rizwan
17. Rakesh
18. Muzahid
19. Anil
2 S.C.No.2090/2022
20. Satheesh
21. Vinay
22. Praveenkumar
23. Shivu @ RX Shiva
A-1 to 5, 8 to 23: Split up
A-7 - dead
(A-6: By Sri. P.K, Adv.)
Date of offences: 03.07.2016
Date of report of 04.07.2016
offences:
Name of complainant: Savithramma T.
Date of recording of 08.12.2023
evidence:
Date of closing of 12.06.2024
evidence:
Offence complained of: U/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 &
307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
Opinion of the judge: Acquittal
*****
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that:
There were frequent altercations between C.W.2, who is also rowdy, and the accused persons. C.W.2 along with his associates was often troubling rowdy- Bharath. Being frustrated by this, rowdy Bharath in order to take revenge against C.W.2, on 04.07.2016 at around 10.30 p.m, in front of house No.292/1, behind New Carmel school, 7 th Cross, Hegganahalli Mayura Nagar, within the limits of complainant Police station, the accused persons assembled by holding deadly weapons 3 S.C.No.2090/2022 like long, machete and knife and when they assaulting C.W.2, C.W.1 came to the rescue of C.W.2 and threw chilli powder on the accused persons and the accused persons damaged the house windows and doors and did house trespass and assaulted C.W.1 and caused bleeding injuries and also tried to commit the murder of C.W.2. The Police have registered the case in Cr.No.587/2016 for the offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 427, 447, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
3. The Police after completion of the investigation have submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 23 before the VII ACMM, Bengaluru. Since the accused No.2, 6, 7, and 16 could be traced, split- up case has been registered against them. After securing the presence of accused No.6, the trial Court has committed the case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn, the case has been made over to this Court for disposal. This Court has framed the charge against accused No.6 for the offence punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC and he has pleaded not guilty and hence the trial was conducted.
4. The prosecution in support of its case has totally cited 25 witnesses as C.Ws.1 to 25. The prosecution was able to secure and examine 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 11 documents and M.Os.1 to 7 marked in S.C.No.583/2017. C.W.2 is reported to be dead. In spite of issuance of proclamation against C.Ws.3 to 12, they could not be secured and as such, the said witnesses are dropped. The prosecution has given up the C.Ws.19 and 21. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, the counsel for accused No.6 got marked the portion of her statement as Ex.D.1. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused 4 S.C.No.2090/2022 No.6 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C, was recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him which was read over and explained to him. The accused No.6 did not choose to adduce any oral evidence on his behalf.
5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my consideration in both cases are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 04.07.2016 at around 10.30 p.m, in front of house No.292/1, behind New Carmel school, 7th Cross, Hegganahalli Mayura Nagar, Rajgopalnagar, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with an object to commit an offence and used criminal force and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.143 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like Long, machete and knife, which can be used as a weapon of offense and are likely to cause death, and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.144 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.147 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.148 r/w Sec.149 IPC?5 S.C.No.2090/2022
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons broken the house window and door of C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.427 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.447 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons caused grievous injuries to C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.324 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
8. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.6 along with other accused persons with an intention to kill C.W.2 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.307 r/w Sec.34 IPC?
9. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are.
Points No.1 to 8: In the negative,
Point No.9: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
7. Points No.1 to 8: These points are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition facts.
6 S.C.No.2090/20228. The case of the prosecution is that there were frequent altercations between C.W.2, who is also rowdy, and the accused persons. C.W.2 along with his associates was often troubling rowdy- Bharath. Being frustrated by the act of C.W.2 and in order to take revenge against him, on 04.07.2016 at around 10.30 p.m, in front of house No.292/1, behind New Carmel school, 7th Cross, Hegganahalli Mayura Nagar, within the limits of complainant Police station, the accused persons assembled by holding deadly weapons like long, machete and knife and while assaulting C.W.2, C.W.1 came to the rescue of C.W.2 and threw chilli powder on the accused persons. The accused persons damaged the house windows and doors and did house trespass and assaulted C.W.1 and caused bleeding injuries to her and also tried to commit the murder of C.W.2.
9. According to the prosecution, C.W.1- Savitramma T is the complainant as well as victim/ injured in this case. She is examined as P.W.2. C.W.22- Dr. Nagesh Kumar is examined as P.W.8, he is the medical officer who treated the injured- C.Ws.1 and 2. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are P.Ws.1, 3 to 7, 9 and 10, who are the Police officers.
10. As per prosecution case, P.W.2, who is wife of C.W.1, was present at the time of alleged incident of assault on her husband and when she tried to rescue him, the accused persons assaulted her and caused bleeding injuries to her. She has deposed about the ordeal that on 03.07.2016 at about 10.30 p.m, nearly 30-40 people gather near her house and at that time, her husband- C.W.1 had been to washroom and on hearing the hue and cry of her husband, she came outside and saw that those persons were holding long and machete and beating on her house door and window. She has further deposed 7 S.C.No.2090/2022 that she telephoned to the Police and then gave chilli powder to her husband and when she was holding the door as the accused persons were beating it with weapons, and at that time, she got blow on her left hand by long and she sustained bleeding injury. It is her further evidence that the accused persons with intention to murder her husband, they assaulted him with machete and long and caused bleeding injuries on his forehead and hands. P.W.2 has further deposed that on arrival of Hoysala Police, the said persons fled away from the spot. They came on the leadership of Tiles Ravi and Bharath. She had also deposed that she lodged complaint at Ex.P.2 and she identified her signature on Ex.P.2. In the further chief-examination, P.W.2 has deposed with respect to drawing of spot-mahazar at the spot of incident i.e., in front of her house in the presence of C.Ws.3 and 4 and she has further deposed that thereafter she went Police station and handed over the blood stained T-shirt at M.O.1 and the Police seized the same by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.5. and she does not remember who are all present at that time. She has further deposed that on 06.08.2016, the Police called her to the station for identification of accused persons. Except identifying the accused -Anil, she did not identify the accused with their names. The alleged machete and long used for commission of offence are already marked as M.Os.2 to 6 in S.C.No.583/2017. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor has treated P.W.2 as partly hostile witness and sought the permission of the Court to cross-examine her. In the cross- examination, the learned Public Prosecutor has suggested that on 04.07.2016, during drawing of spot-mahazar, the Police have seized the piece of her house door, which is marked as M.O.7 in S.C.No.583/2017.
8 S.C.No.2090/202211. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.2 at length and she has admitted the suggestions that her husband was rowdy-sheeter; there were number of criminal cases registered against him; there were murder case against him; he was a boozer and he underwent imprisonment for two years in the case registered under Goondas Act. P.W.2 has denied the other suggestions made with respect to denying the investigation conducted by the Police. It is pertinent to note that in her further statement given before the Police at the time of identification of accused, she stated that she was informed that the said accused persons are involved in the case, and since P.W.2 has admitted in her cross-examination in respect of giving such narration in her further statement, concerned portion is marked as Ex.D.1. P.W.2 has further denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused that as her husband was involved in the murder case of Chethan, she lodged false case against accused persons in order to avoid the troubles that may be given by them, she has further denied that though the accused were not involved in the case, she has implicated them falsely.
12. P.W.8- Dr. Nagesh Kumar is the medical officer, who treated the injured- C.Ws.1 and 2, has deposed that on 04.07.2016, Savithramma came to the hospital with alleged history of assault by some unknown persons on 03.07.2016 and on her examination, he found abrasions over the left forearm and blunt injuries to the both hands and abdomen. P.W.8 has opined that the said injuries are simple in nature and sustaining of said injuries are not possible if assaulted with machete. in this regard, he issued wound certificate at Ex.P.8. With respect to examination of C.W.2, P.W.8 has deposed that on 03.07.2016, he examined one Narasimha with alleged history of assault by unknown on that day and he found abrasions over the 9 S.C.No.2090/2022 forehead and scalp and left forearm of Narasimha, and he has deposed that the said injuries are simple in nature and he has issued Ex.P.9- wound certificate in this regard. P.W.8 has also opined that the injuries sustained by C.W.2 are not possible if assaulted with long. In the cross-examination, the learned Public Prosecutor has suggested that the injuries sustained by injured are possible if assaulted with machete to C.W.1 and with long to C.W.2, and P.W.8 has withstood on his evidence in chief-examination. During the course of cross- examination by learned counsel for accused, P.W.8 has admitted the suggestions the said injuries mentioned in Ex.P.9 are possible if a person falls from the bike or met with an accident, and the timings of both the victims visited the hospital are different.
13. P.W.7- B.G. Govindraju was the ASI, who received the complaint from P.W.2 at Ex.P. 2 and based on which, he registered the case and prepared FIR at Ex.P.7, and thereafter he handed over the case file to C.W.25/ P.W.9 for further investigation. P.W.9 - Santhosh Ram has deposed that after receiving the case file from P.W.7, he recorded the statements of C.Ws.2 and 10 to 12 and visited the spot i.e., house of complainant at Sanjeevinagara Hegganahalli as shown by her; drawn the spot-mahazar in the presence of panchas- C.Ws.3 and 4; seized the broken wooden door piece, glass pieces and chilli powder fell near the place of incident by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.10. P.W.9 has identified the broken wooden piece at M.O.7. He has further deposed that C.W.1 produced the blood stained shirt of her husband before the Police station and he seized the same by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.5, which is already marked in S.C.No.583/2017. P.W.9 has also deposed with respect to his further investigation performed in this case, such as, deputing his staff- C.Ws.13 to 17 for tracing of accused; production of accused by them along with report at 10 S.C.No.2090/2022 Ex.P.11; after following the arresting procedure, he recorded the voluntary statements of the accused persons; he seized the vehicles bearing No.KA-04/JB-1763 and KA-53/J-7094 produced by his staff, which are said to have used for commission of offence, and did panchanama at Ex.P.12; as per the voluntary statements of accused No.6, 7 and 1 at Exs.P.13 to 15 respectively, seized the longs at M.Os.2 to 6 in their respective houses by drawing respective mahazar at Ex.P.16 in the presence of panchas- C.Ws.6 to 8 and he has recorded the statements of C.Ws.14 to 17. P.W.9 has further deposed that he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons after completion of investigation.
14. The learned counsel for accused No.6 has cross-examined the P.W.9 at length by denying the part of investigation done by him and he has denied all those suggestions. P.W.9 has admitted the suggestions that he did not receive MLC from the hospital; did not send M.O.1 for FSL; the husband of C.W.1 was in the rowdy-sheeter list and there were many murder, kidnap and robbery cases against C.W.2 and he was in prison in the case registered under the Goondas Act. The learned counsel for accused No.6 has further made the suggestions with respect to other part of investigation performed by P.W.9 and he has denied those suggestions. It is also suggested that C.W.1 gave further statement that she was informed that the accused persons are involved in the case. It is also the specific suggestion to P.W.9 that though there is no connection of accused with this case, he has filed false charge sheet against them, and he denied the said suggestion.
15. P.W.6- Sharathkumar H.P. was worked as PSI in complainant Police station and he has deposed that on 18.08.2016, he received the 11 S.C.No.2090/2022 case file from C.W.25 for further investigation and on 19.08.2016, his staff have produced the accused Shivu @ RX Shivu @ Dande Shivu along with report of C.W.20 at Ex.P.3. P.W.6 has identified the accused No.23 before the Court. P.W.6 has further deposed that after recording the statement of accused, he was produced before the Court and handed over the case file to C.W.25 for further investigation.
16. P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 and 10 are the Police officials who were deputed for tracing of accused persons of this case. P.Ws.1, 5 and 10 have given similar evidence that they along with C.Ws.16 and 17 apprehended the accused No.1, 2, 5 to 8 and 23 on 05.07.2016. P.W.1 has further deposed that on 18.07.2016, he and C.W.19 arrested the accused No.18 and produced before C.W.25. P.W.5 has further deposed that he, C.Ws.14, 16 and 17 arrested the accused No.19 to 22 and produced them before C.W.25 along with report at Ex.P.6. P.W.3 has deposed that he and C.W.21 traced the accused No.23 and produced him before C.W.24 along with report at Ex.P.3. P.W.4 has deposed that on 17.07.2016, he and C.W.19 have arrested the accused No.16 and 17 and produced them before C.W.25 along with report at Ex.P.4. The learned counsel for accused has put denial suggestions by denying their part of duty performed in this case in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 and 10 and they have denied those suggestions.
17. On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is notice that P.W.2 being complainant has reiterated the complaint averments in her evidence. Her allegations are that on the date of alleged incident the accused persons assaulted her and her husband by long and machete with intention to commit their murder and they sustained bleeding injuries. According to P.W.8- the medical officer, the injuries 12 S.C.No.2090/2022 sustained by both the injured are simple in nature and they are not possible if assaulted with long or machete. As such, the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 and wound certificates at Exs.P.8 and 9 are inconsistent to the prosecution case that the accused persons have caused bleeding injuries to C.Ws.1 and
2. The rest of the witnesses - P.Ws.1, 3 to 7, 9 and 10 are Police officials. The C.W.2 is material witness to this case, since he is reported to be dead, his evidence is not available for prosecution. Though P.W.2 has deposed that the accused No.6 along with other accused persons has committed the alleged offence against her and her husband- C.W.2, there is no corroborative evidence by any independent witness.P.W.9 has also deposed that he conducted the mahazar at the spot as per Ex.P.10 and seized the wooden piece in presence of the C.W.1- complainant, but the signature of the complainant is not forthcoming in the said Ex.P.10 and the prosecution to prove the incident and the seizure has not examined any other witness. C.Ws.3 and 4 who are the panchas to said Ex.P.10- mahazar. The prosecution having failed to prove the mahazar of the place of incident, it has also failed to prove the alleged incident. The P.W.2- complainant evidence does not corroborate with any independent witness as no independent are examined in the present case. The P.W.2 has not identified any of the accused persons before the Court. As per the cross-examination of the accused persons, P.W.2 has admitted that her husband was rowdy sheeter and involved in many other cases. The evidence of the doctor also does not corroborate with the evidence of P.W.2 with respect to the injuries sustained by them, whereas P.W.8- doctor has admitted that the injuries sustained by C.Ws.1 and 2 are simple in nature and the said injuries are not possible if assaulted with long and machete. Further, there is no 13 S.C.No.2090/2022 evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of Police witnesses, and based on their evidence, the accused cannot be made guilty of the alleged offences. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused No.6 beyond reasonable doubt. The available evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.6. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused No.6 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to him. In the result, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.6. Accordingly, I answer Points No.1 to 8 in the negative.
19. Point No.9: For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.6 hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
The personal bond and surety bond of the accused No.6 shall remain in force for a period of three months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. and the same shall stand cancelled automatically after three months.
Note: Office is hereby directed to preserve entire case file along with material objects in connection with the split up accused No.3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 13 to 17.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this 5th day of March, 2025) (HEMANTH KUMAR C.R.) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.14 S.C.No.2090/2022
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
P.W.1: Sudhakar K.G. P.W.2: Savitramma T. P.W.3: Harshith P.W.4: Chowdegowda P.W.5: Jaishankar P.H P.W.6: Sharath Kumar H.P P.W.7: B.G.Govindaraju P.W.8: Dr. Nagesh Kumar P.W.9: Santhoshram P.W.10: V. Srinivas
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: Complaint Exs.P.3 & 4: Reports Ex.P.5: Seizure-mahazar Ex.P.6: Report Ex.P.7: FIR Exs.P.8 & 9: Wound certificates Ex.P.10: Spot-mahazar Ex.P.11: Report Ex.P.12: Seizure-mahazar Exs.P.13 to 15 voluntary statements of A-6, 7 & 1. Ex.P.16: Seizure-mahazar
List of material object marked in S.C.No.583/2017 on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1: Blood stained T-shirt M.Os.2 to 5:Long M.O.6: Knife M.O.7: Wooden door piece
List of witnesses examined and material objects marked on behalf of defence: -Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D.1: Marked portion in the statement of P.W.2 LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.