Bangalore District Court
And The Accused Person Was In Possession ... vs Has Committed The Aforesaid Offence on 27 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
Dated this the 27th day of October 2016
Present: Sri. G.V.Chandrashekhar., B.E (Civil), LL.M., P.G.Dip. in
International Law and International Relations, New Delhi.,
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 15828/2004
2. Date of offence : 9.3.2004
3. Complainant : State by Malleswaram Police Station
4. Accused : Sathya Venkatesha
r/at No. 118, 18th cross,
Ranganathapura Main Road,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore-560 003.
5. Offences complained of : 341, 354, 289 & 506 IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused is acquitted
The complainant police have filed the charge sheet against the
accused alleging that the accused has committed offence punishable under
Sec. 341, 354, 289 & 506 IPC.
2
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.3.2004 at about 7 a.m. at
Ranganathapura Main Road, in front of house No. 18, when complainant
was going by walk, accused quarrelled with complainant and wrongfully
restrained him, outraged her modesty by dragging the dupatta of
complainant and the accused person was in possession of dog which is
sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life and caused
grievous hurt to complainant and criminally intimidated her and thereby the
accused has committed the aforesaid offence.
3. After filing the charge sheet, the accused was secured and later
released on bail. Charge framed and read over to him. He pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. After that prosecution examined 4 witnesses
as P.W.1 to 4 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5. The accused
was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating
circumstances appeared against him. He denied the same and not chosen to
adduce evidence on his behalf.
4. Heard arguments from both sides.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are :
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
on 9.3.2004 at about 7 a.m. at Ranganathapura Main Road, in
3
front of house No. 18, when complainant was going by walk,
accused quarrelled with complainant and wrongfully restrained
him, outraged her modesty by dragging the dupatta of
complainant and the accused person was in possession of dog
which is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to
human life and caused grievous hurt to complainant and
criminally intimidated her and thereby the accused has
committed the aforesaid offences ?
(2) What order ?
6. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No.1 :
7. P.W.1 Poornima, who is the complainant has stated in her evidence
that her house is situated at 18th cross, Malleswaram, and the house of the
accused also situated 3 house next to her house and on 9.3.2004 when she
was passing in front of the accused, the accused teased her and when she
questioned the same, accused dragged her Dhuppatta and let his dog to
attack her and the dog bit the left leg and she sustained bleeding injuries.
P.W.1 has further stated that when she questioned the accused, the accused
4
being the Advocate is it right on his part to behave in such manner, the
accused threatened her with dire consequences and the accused was in the
habit of letting his dog and the dog has bitten several persons in the locality.
P.W.1 has further stated that she informed the incident to her mother and
later went to hospital and took treatment and lodged complaint to
Malleswaram Police station as per Ex.P.1. Then the Police came to spot and
drew mahazar Ex.P.2 and the wound certificate issued by the K.C.General
hospital is marked as Ex.P.3.
8. P.W.2 Varada Manjunath has stated in her evidence that she knows
C.w.1 Poornima and accused and during March 2004 Malleswaram Police
came near the house of accused for investigation of the case filed by the
complainant and the police conducted mahazar Ex.P.2 in his presence and he
and C.W.1 have signed the same.
9. P.W.3 Shashidhara has stated in his evidence that on 9.3.2004 at 7
a.m. the dog of accused bitten C.W.1 and he sustained injuries to his leg.
10. P.w.4 Dr. Manjula, Retired Doctor, has stated in her evidence that
on 9.3.2004 at 9.45 a.m. one Poornima Devaraj C.W.1 came to hospital with
5
the history of dog bite and he treated her and issued wound certificate as per
Ex.P.3.
11. From the perusal of the above, it is to be noted that there have
been past litigations between the accused and the witnesses who have
deposed in this case and a Criminal Case is also pending and that another
Criminal Case is filed against the accused. It is also to be noted that the
said witnesses are all interested witnesses. It has also come in the cross-
examination regarding the past relationship between the accused and C.W.1
and there have been several transactions and interactions between the
witnesses and the accused. The Doctor who has given Wound certificate has
stated in his wound certificate that the injuries suffered by C.W.1 may be
caused if a person is scratched by nails or with bush, but he has not stated
that the injuries sustained by C.W.1 is with regard to biting of dog. P.W.2
has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, a
serious doubt arises with regard to the case of the prosecution and the benefit
of doubt shall be extended to the accused. Hence, I answer this point in the
negative.
Point No. 2 :
6
12. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R:
Acting U/s. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 354, 289 & 506 of IPC.
Acting under Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that the personal bonds executed by the accused and surety bond executed by the surety for accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months from this day.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 27th day of October 2016) (G.V.CHANDRASHEKHAR), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Poornima
P.W.2 : Varada Manjunath
P.W.3 : Shashidhara
P.W.4 : Manjulamma
7
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Mahazar Ex.P.3 : Wound certificate Ex.P.4 : Medical book Ex.P.5 : Statement of P.W.3
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Nil For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU. 8 9