Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Mahadevapura P.S vs Vijay Kumar S/O. B.Ramaiah on 25 April, 2023

  KABC0C0100122021




       IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M
            MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
                 Dated: The 25th April 2023
                 PRESENT: Sri. SANDEEP PATIL,
                                                  B.A., LL.M.,
                 XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.


                      C.C.No.53039/2021

COMPLAINANT :-                    State by Mahadevapura P.S

                                  (By Sr.APP)

ACCUSED :-                        1. Vijay Kumar S/o. B.Ramaiah,
                                     Aged 50 years,
                                  2. Abhishek.V
                                     S/o. R.Vijay Kumar,
                                     Aged 19 years,
                                  3. Charan S/o. Subramani,
                                     Aged 20 years,
                                  4. Kemparaj
                                     S/o. Late Ramakrishna.K,
                                     Aged 43 years,
                                     All are R/at.No.138,
                                     Baddi Krishnappa Layout,
                                     near Gangamma Temple,
                                     Mahadevapura, Bengaluru.
                                     (By Sri. R.M.R., Adv.,)
                                       2                    C.C.No.53039/2021




DATE OF COMMENCEMENT                            06.04.2023
OF EVIDENCE

DATE OF CLOSING OF                              06.04.2023
EVIDENCE

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                25.04.2023
                           JUDGMENT

This final report filed by the PSI of Mahadevapura P.S against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 504 and Sec.506 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.

2. BRIEF FACTS:-

The case of prosecution is that on 14.05.2021 at about 7.30 P.M near weighing bridge, Ranganatha Layout within the jurisdictional limits of Mahadevapura Police Station the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention have wrongfully restrained CW.1, assaulted CW.1 with hands causing simple injuries, intentionally insulted CW.1 causing breach of peace and criminally intimidated him.

3. Based on the first information of CW.1, the police have registered the case, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation final report is filed against the accused stating that they have committed the offences P/U/Sec.341, 323, 504 and Sec.506 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.

4. The accused No.1 to 4 have entered appearance in response to the summons and have been enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused. After hearing, the charge against the accused was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined PW.1 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are exhibited. There are no incriminatory statements are available against the accused and accordingly the statement of the accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments on both sides, perused materials placed on record.

7. The following points arise for my consideration:-

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 14.05.2021 at about 7.30 P.M near weighing bridge, Ranganatha Layout within the jurisdictional limits of Mahadevapura Police Station the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention have wrongfully restrained CW.1 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention have assaulted CW.1 with hands causing simple injuries 4 C.C.No.53039/2021 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?

3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention have intentionally insulted CW.1 causing breach of peace thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.504 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?

4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above mentioned date, time and place the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention have criminally intimidated CW.1 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC?

5. What order?

8. My answer to the aforesaid points is as under:-

Point No.1 to 4 - In the Negative Point No.5- As per final order for the following:-

REASONS

9. Point No.1 to 4: As the facts pertaining to these points are related to each other, all these points are taken together for common discussion for brevity.

10. In the instant case PW.1 is the injured who has testified that the accused No.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention have neither wrongfully restrained CW.1 nor intentionally insulted him causing breach of peace nor 5 C.C.No.53039/2021 assaulted CW.1 with hands causing simple injuries or criminally intimidated him. PW.1 has stated that he has not given the complaint as per Ex.P1 in this regard. Although PW.1 subscribes to his signature appearing in the complaint at Ex.P1 and spot mahazar at Ex.P2, he pleads ignorance to the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW.1 is treated hostile and cross-examined by the Ld.Sr.APP wherein nothing substantial is elicited in order to support the case of prosecution. PW.1 admits to have compromised with the accused.

11. This Court was of the opinion that PW.1 is the material witness who have turned hostile and therefore the remaining witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of Ld.Sr.APP.

12. On considering the evidence of PW.1 the complaint at Ex.P1 his evidence appears to be contradictory. The evidence of PW.1 is inconsistent with Ex.P1. PW.1 admitted to have compromised with the accused. Therefore I hold that the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused deserves to be acquitted. Therefore I answer point No.1 to 4 in the NEGATIVE.

13. Point No.5: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 504 and Sec.506 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.

The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 4 stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 to 4 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification. (Dictated by me on computer, typed by the steno, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 25th April 2023).

(Sandeep Patil) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 7 C.C.No.53039/2021 ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 Naveen LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.1 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-

NIL (Sandeep Patil) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 8 C.C.No.53039/2021 25.04.2023 State by APP Accused For Judgment (Judgment passed separately in the Open Court) ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 504 and Sec.506 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.

The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 4 stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 to 4 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.

XXIX ACMM