Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs A-1 K.M. Rajakumar 45 Yrs on 6 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
PRESENT :Smt. LATHAKUMARI
M.A.LL.M.
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.21542/2007
Date of offence : 27-7-2007
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Halasurugate PS
Accused : A-1 K.M. Rajakumar 45 Yrs
S/o Late Mysurappa
R/at No.7, Near New Police
Station, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore.
A-2 Ramanjappa 38 Yrs
S/o Narayanappa
R/at Bandekodeganahalli,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
A-4 N. Kodandaramaiah 45 Yrs
S/o Narayanappa
R/at K. Narayanapura,
Bangalore South Taluk.
A-3 Jayachandra (split up)
2 CC.No.21542/2007
Offence : U/s.353 r/w 34 of IPC
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are
acquitted
Date of Order : 6-10-2015.
** ** **
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Police Sub Inspector of Halasurugate
Police Station submitted charge sheet against
the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence
punishable U/s.353 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution accused and
other 4-5 people came to survey office,
Bangalore North Taluk, Tahasildar Office
situated at K.R.Circle, Bangalore at about 12-
30PM on 27-7-2007. Accused demanded to furnish
copies of certain documents and asked CW.1 to
supply forthwith. It is alleged that CW.3 was
making xerox copies was being pulled by the
accused. Apart from this accused switched off
3 CC.No.21542/2007
the electricity supply for one hour. It is
further alleged that accused moved around the
office and prevented the public servants to
discharge their duties. Under these
circumstances on the basis of first information
statement lodged by CW.1, FIR has been
registered at Cr.No.259/2007 of Halasurugate
police station.
3. During the course of investigation
accused Nos.1 to 4 appeared before the court and
enlarged on the bail.
4. After submission of charge sheet
cognizance of the offence has been taken. Copy
of the charge sheet was furnished as
contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. During the
pendency of the case since accused No.3 remained
absent, case against accused No.3 was split up
and ordered to register a separate case. Plea
4 CC.No.21542/2007
was recorded. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. CWs.1 to 10 witnesses have been cited in
the charge sheet. During the course of the trial
PWs.1 to 5 were examined and EX.P--1 to Ex.P-5
got marked.
6. After closing the prosecution side
evidence, statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded. Accused did not adduce any defence
evidence.
7. Heard argument of Sr.APP and learned
counsel for the accused.
8. PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 are the eye
witnesses to the said incident. According to the
prosecution this incident took place in Survey
office, K.R.Circle, Bangalore. CW.1 was examined
as PW.1. According to PW.1, accused No.1 had
given a copy application on 27-7-2007 itself and
5 CC.No.21542/2007
demanded the certified copy on the same day.
Ex.P-5 is the true copy of application given by
accused No.1. It discloses that accused No.1 had
sought certain documents with respect to survey
No.40 of Bandikudigehalli. It discloses that
the copy application was given on 24-7-2007. In
other words copy application was given 3 days
earlier to the date of alleged incident. But
contrary to this documentary evidence, PW.1 has
deposed to the effect that accused No.1 had
given copy application on the same day and
insisted to supply copy of the document on the
same day. If copy application was given on 24-7-
2007, then the oral say of PW.1 that accused
No.1 had given copy application on 27-7-2007
falls on the ground. PW.5 is one of the employee
of Survey office. According to PW.5 also copy
application was given 3 days earlier to the date
of incident. Though PW.5 identified accused No.1
in her examination-in-chief but failed to
6 CC.No.21542/2007
identify other accused. During the course of
cross-examination PW.5 has duly admitted to the
effect that she could not able to identify any
accused. PW.3 was working as survey supervisor
in the said office. PW.3 has deposed regarding
the incident. But evidence of PW.3 does not
inspire any confidence in the mind of the court.
PW.2 was working as PSI of Halasurugate police
station at the relevant point of time. PW.2 has
deposed regarding receipt of complaint and
registration of FIR. PW.4 is the Investigation
Officer, who conducted investigation and
submitted charge sheet. It can be noticed that
according to the prosecution all the accused
pulled CW.3 and switched off electricity supply
for one hour. In spite of sufficient opportunity
prosecution could not able to secure the
presence of CW.3 before the court. In other
words one of the material witness was not
examined on the side of the prosecution. There
7 CC.No.21542/2007
are many material contradictions in the evidence
of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5. Documentary evidence
speaks that copy application was given on 24-7-
2007. Even if for the sake of argument that the
incident took place is presumed to be true, then
it discloses that even after 3 days copy of the
document was not supplied. At the most the
galata took place due to delay in supplying the
copy of the document. Unless 'mensrea' of the
accused is established it cannot be held that
accused committed these offences with criminal
intention. Necessary ingredients of Sec.353 of
IPC are not established. There is no substantial
evidence to prove that these witnesses were
prevented from discharging the duty as public
servant. Unless there is convincing and
acceptable evidence, it cannot be held that
prosecution proved the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand
there is no legal and acceptable evidence in the
8 CC.No.21542/2007
evidence of PWs.1, PW.3 and 5. Non examination
of other material witnesses is fatal to the
prosecution. Under these circumstances accused
No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.4 are entitled
to be acquitted for want of substantial
evidence.
9. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.353 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 6th day of October 2015).
(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city.
9 CC.No.21542/2007Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Doddegowda PW.2 Gangasasalaiah PW.3 A.V. Srinivas Ranga Iyangar PW.4 B.G. Rudresh PW.5 H.K. Sujatha.
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Complaint EX.P-1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-2 Panchanama Ex.P-2(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-3 Report Ex.P-4 Copy of Attendance Register Ex.P-5 Copy of application.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.10 CC.No.21542/2007
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.353 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
11 CC.No.21542/2007 12 CC.No.21542/2007(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.