Bangalore District Court
The State Through vs Chikkanna on 2 November, 2022
1 C.C.No.9309/2020
KABC030407582020
Presented on : 10-09-2020
Registered on : 10-09-2020
Decided on : 02-11-2022
Duration: 2 years, 1 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT:
SMT.LATHA .J , B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of November 2022
C.C.No.9309/2020
Complainant : The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
RT Nagar Police Station
Bengaluru.
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
--- V/s ---
Accused : Chikkanna
S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at:No.7, 1st Main,
2 C.C.No.9309/2020
7th Cross, Lakshmidevamma
Block, Ganganagar, RT Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.RVK Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 22/2/2020
offence
Date of report of offence : 25/2/2020
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : Smt.Kenchamma
Date of commencement of : 12/10/2022
recording evidence.
Date of closing of evidence. : 12/10/2022
Offences complained of : U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of
IPC
Opinion of the Judge. : Accused is found not guilty
Date of Judgment : 2/11/2022
XXXII Addl.C.M.M
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of RT Nagar has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of IPC. 3 C.C.No.9309/2020
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That on 22.02.2020 at about 7.00 P.M, at the house of CW1 Kenchamma and CW2 Raju at 1st Main, 7th Cross, Lakshmidevamma Block, Ganganagar, RT Nagar Post, Bengaluru the accused picked up quarrel with C.W.2 with respect to taking water connection and abused the CW1 and CW2 in filthy language knowingly that the act provoke the CW1 and CW2 to breach public peace and the accused assaulted the CW1 with hands on the shoulder and caused simple bleeding hurt and thus voluntarily without any provocation the accused assaulted CW1 with intent to outrage her modesty and the accused assaulted CW1 with hands and abused in filthy language intending to outrage the modesty of CW1 and thereby accused has committed offences punishable U/S. 323, 341, 504, 509 of IPC and thereby accused has committed offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW-1, the RT Nagar Police have registered a case under Crime 4 C.C.No.9309/2020 No.70/2020 for the offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 354 of IPC against the accused and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of IPC. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused, the accused surrendered before court and were released on bail. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of IPC and read over to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined two 5 C.C.No.9309/2020 witnesses as PW-1 and PW2, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 9 and got marked three documents as Ex.P1 to P4. Since PW-1 and 2 who are the material witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the presence of the rest of the material witnesses could not be secured and since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused from the material witnesses, no purpose would be served by issuing summons to rest of the witnesses. Hence, the evidence of the rest of the witnesses is dropped by rejecting the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The statement of the accused as required Under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there were no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration :
6 C.C.No.9309/2020
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22.02.2020 at about 7.00 P.M, at the house of CW1 Kenchamma and CW2 Raju at 1st main, 7th cross, Lakshmidevamma Block, Ganga nagar, RT Nagar Post, Bengaluru the accused picked up quarrel with C.W.2 and abused the CW1 and CW2 in filthy language knowingly that the act provoke the CW1 and CW2 to breach public peace and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/S. 504 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the CW1 with hands on the shoulder and caused simple bleeding hurt and thus voluntarily without any provocation and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/S. 323 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted CW1 with intent to outrage her modesty and thereby the 7 C.C.No.9309/2020 accused has committed an offence punishable U/S. 354 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted CW1 with hands and abused in filthy language intending to outrage the modesty of CW1 and thereby the accused has committed offences punishable U/S. 509 of IPC?
5. What Order ?
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Points No.1 to 4 : In the Negative.
Point No.5 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 4 :- As these points are interlinked with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10. It is the allegation that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of IPC.8 C.C.No.9309/2020
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined the informant of crime/C.W.1 by name Kenchamma examined as P.W.1, C.W.2 Raja is examined as P.W.2.
12. Out of the documents marked for the prosecution Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Spot mahazar, Ex.P3 is the statement of P.W.1. Ex.P4 is the statement of P.W.2.
13. In support of the case of prosecution, C.W.1-
informant of crime - Kenchamma is examined as P.W.1. This witness deposed that she knows the accused persons and C.W.2 is her son and CW3 is her sister's son. She further deposed that the accused has not abused in filthy language and not assaulted him with hands and not intending to outrage her modesty. She further deposed that she has not lodged complaint before police and police took her signatures on a blank paper and police have not drawn mahazar in her presence and she does not know the contents of Ex.P.1- complaint and Ex.P.2-Mahazar.
9 C.C.No.9309/2020
14. This witness was treated as hostile witness by the Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor and cross examined at length. In the cross examination also nothing worth could be elicited from her mouth to support the case of the prosecution. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false evidence as she has compromised the matter with the accused.
15. C.W.2- Raju is examined as P.W.2. This witness deposed that C.W.1 is his mother and he knows the accused persons and the accused has not abused CW1 in filthy language and did not assault her with hands and not intending to outrage her modesty. He further deposed that he has not given statement before police.
16. This witness was treated as hostile witness by the Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor and cross examined at length. In the cross examination also nothing worth could be elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
17. Now the question which arises before the court is whether the evidence placed on record is 10 C.C.No.9309/2020 sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. As I have above stated, the prime witnesses P.W.1 and 2 fully turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is not inspiring confidence to act upon and to hold that the accused persons committed the alleged offences.
18. Now on overall perusal of the evidence and prosecution witnesses as complainant/PW-1 is the material witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 prime witness denied the entire case of the prosecution and also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The PW-1 and 2 during the course of their evidence have not at all stated in respect of abuse, assault, use of criminal force against C.W.1 and threatening of C.W.1 and 2, by the accused and they have denied the involvement of the accused and at the out set they have denied the entire case of the prosecution.
19. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to issue summons to other witnesses. 11 C.C.No.9309/2020 Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this court was of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined, it would be a futile excise and no lawful purpose would have been served. As such examination of the prosecution witnesses only for the purpose of completing the procedural aspect and will not serve any judicial purpose and it is sheer waste of the precious time of the court. Therefore, the prayer of the learned APP to issue summons to other witnesses was rejected. At this stage this court relied upon judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 (3) Crimes 84 Sathish Mehra V/s Delhi Administration & another: wherein at page No.13 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".12 C.C.No.9309/2020
20. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is applicable in this case also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Points No.1 to 4 are answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
21. Point No.5: - In view of the findings of point No.1 to 5, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORD ER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/S.323, 354, 504, 509 of IPC.
Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., has been complied.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online and typed by her, judgment corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of November 2022).
(Latha J.), XXXII A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
13 C.C.No.9309/2020ANNEXURE List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Kenchamma C.W.1 12/10/2022 PW-2 Raju C.W.2 12/10/2022 List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW-1
Ex.P4 : Statement of PW-2
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the
Prosecution:
--Nil--
List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil--
XXXII A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.14 C.C.No.9309/2020