Bangalore District Court
State By Yashwanthpura vs No.1 Was Working As Police Inspector In on 23 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2016.
Present: Sri Krishna Prasad Rao Kalmady,
B.A.,LL.B.,
I Addl.C.M.M.,Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.24803/2011
Date of Offence : 14-3-2006
Name of complainant : State by Yashwanthpura
Police Station,
(CID H & B)
Bengaluru.
Name of Accused : 1.C.J.Rangaswamy,
Police Inspector,
Peenya Police Station,
Bengaluru
2.Hanumantharayappa,
P.C.7753,
Peenya Police Station,
Bengaluru
Offence complained : U/s.342, 323, 389 r/w 34 of
IPC.
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final Order
Date of Order : 23-1-2016.
2 C.C.No.24803/2011
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police (H & B), C.I.D. Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that, they had committed the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323 and 389 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased Prakash Reddy was working in Mysore Beverage Limited (MBL) Factory within the limits of Yashwanthpur Police Station. Accused No.1 was working as Police Inspector in Peenya Police Station from October 2005 to March 2008, accused No.2 was working as Police Constable from 2000 to 2008 and in the said Police Station Cr.No.76/2006 under Section 306 of IPC was registered and in that case the deceased Kum.Byramma had written Death Note stating that D.G.Mohan was promised to marry her and had physical relationship with her and subsequently cheated her without marrying her and as such he is 3 C.C.No.24803/2011 responsible for her death and also stated that the deceased Prakash Reddy of this case had knowledge about the said fact and when accused No.1 could not trace D.G.Mohan during investigation and appointed 2nd accused to trace Prakash Reddy and bring him and accordingly Prakash Reddy was propduced on 14-3-2006 at 10-30 A.M. Accused No.1 without following the rules illegally confined Prakash Reddy in the Police Station from 14-3-2006 10-30 A.M. to 15-6-2006 5 P.M. and through accused No.2 assaulted him and asked to give information about D.G.Mohan and put physical and mental pressure on him to search and bring D.G.Mohan.
Even though the deceased Prakash Reddy had no knowledge about the whereabouts of D.G.Mohan Reddy, accused No.1 under the impression that he is deliberately not co-operating with the investigation unauthorisidely took possession of Motor cycle, Factory I.D. Card and mobile of 4 C.C.No.24803/2011 Prakash Reddy and put pressure to search and bring absconding D.G.Mohan Reddy.
Subsequently when deceased Prakash Reddy through his uncle C.W.3 appointed C.W.17 Advocate and asked to return the articles illegally possessed by accused Nos.1, accused No.1 had threatened to add him as accused in that case and demanded to pay Rs.5,000/- and on 21-3-2006 at 4.00 P.M. obtained money and returned the articles and also threatened that within four days the absconding D.G.Mohan should be searched and bring him otherwise he will be made as accused in that case. At that time accused No.2 stating that he has helped deceased and demanded Rs.3,000/- and obtained Rs.500/- from deceased's uncle.
The deceased Prakash Reddy being mentally upset and became sad due to the act of the accused and wrote death note stating that accused are also responsible for his death and hanged in the cold room of the factory where he was working and died 5 C.C.No.24803/2011 and thereby accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 389 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. Cognizance of the offences was taken and the presence of the accused Nos.1 and 2 were secured and subsequently they were released on bail.
4. Copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused Nos.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge was framed for the said offences, which was read over and explained to accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had denied the charge levelled against them and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution had examined 33 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 33 and got marked Exs.P1 to P47 and closed its side. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. On behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 2, no 6 C.C.No.24803/2011 witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
6. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration are:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 389 r/w 34 of IPC ?
2. What Order ?
8. My findings to the above Points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- In the Negative.
Point No.2:- As per the final order:
for the following:-
REASONS
9.Point No.1:-
In order to establish its case the prosecution had examined 33 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 33 and got marked 47 documents as per Exs.P1 to P47 during the trial.7 C.C.No.24803/2011
a. P.Ws.1, 11 to 14, 18 and 19 are said to be the colleagues of deceased Prakash Reddy in MBL Factory and are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident and also the death note said to have been executed by deceased Prakash Reddy and the contents of the said death note and are also the attesting witnesses to the Inquest Panchanama Ex.P3.
b. P.W.1, 11 to 14, 18 and 19 did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Sr.APP., after obtaining permission from the Court had cross-examined them. Nothing worth was elicited during the cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 11 to 14, 18 and 19.
c. P.W.2 is the wife of deceased Prakash Reddy had deposed that on 23-3-2006 the deceased went to Factory for work and was missing and thereafter gave complaint as per Ex.P2 to Yashwanthpur Police Station. P.W.2 had also deposed that deceased had told her that Peenya Police took him to the Police Station and he was kept in the Police Station for 8 C.C.No.24803/2011 1½ days and harassed him and told to trace out D.G.Mohan Reddy and informed him and took his mobile, motor cycle key, I.D. card and Rs.2,000/- and to search said Mohan, deceased, deceased's uncle and Advocate went to Peenya Police Station.
P.W.2 had also stated in the examination in chief that:
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ¢£À DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ ¦Ãtå ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¨ÉÊPÀÄ, LqÉAnn PÁqïð, 2 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¹zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉÊgÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ EªÀgÀ ®ªï C¥sÉÃgïì EzÀÄÝ, D §UÉÎ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¸ÁQë EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ºÉÀýzÀgÀÄ CAvÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÉÊgÀªÀÄä JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÀ¢zÀÄÝzÀPÉÌ CªÀ¼À ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAQ ºÀaÑPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼ÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢vÀÄ. ¨ÉÊgÀªÀÄä CªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ qÉvï £ÉÆÃmï£À°è ¥ÀæPÁ±ï CªÀjUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CªÀgÉà CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ºÁUÀÆ gÉqÀØ¥ÀàgÉrØ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÄqÀÄQPÉÆqÀÄ CAvÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄÈvÀ UÀAqÀ¤UÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ qÀ¯ï DVzÀÝgÀÄ. AiÀiÁPÉ qÀ¯ï DV¢ÝÃgÁ CAvÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ PÉýzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ K£ÀÆ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¦Ãtå ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ 9 C.C.No.24803/2011 ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁPÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±À²zÀsgï DZÁAiÀÄð J£ÀÄߪÀ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ°è ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ºÁUÀÆ gÉqÀ¥ÀàgÉrØ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ CAvÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. C°èAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉqÀØ¥ÀàgÉrØ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÄqÀÄPÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzɪÀÅ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. JgÀqÀÄ ¢£À CzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ±À²zÀsgï DZÁAiÀÄð ºÁUÀÆ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä JA§ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ JgÀqÀÄ ¢£À PÀ¼É¬ÄvÀÄ, ªÀÄvÉÛ E£ÉßgÀqÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ°è ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉqÀØ¥ÀàgÀÉrØ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ J¥sïLDgï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that:
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ DzÀ PÁgÀt ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï ¦nñÀ£ï ºÁQgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D jmï ¦n±À£ï ªÀeÁ D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. F PÉù£À°è vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr J¹¦ ªÀįÉÃè±ÀégÀA ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ '©' j¥ÉÇÃmïð ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è". 10 C.C.No.24803/2011
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.03.2006 jAzÀ 27.03.2006 gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ¥sÉÆãï PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÉÝ CzÀÄ ¹éZï D¥sï DVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉÆà E®èªÉÇ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï C£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¨ÉPï, L.r PÁqïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2,000 /- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÊAiÀÄgï D¦üøÀgïUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
"¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÉÄrPÀ¯ï ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃmï PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ±ÀªÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁÌgÀªÁzÀ MAzÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ dAiÀÄgÁªÀÄgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ qÉvï £ÉÆÃmï §UÉÎ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ C¨ÁµÀð£ï DVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
d. P.W.3 is the Police Inspector of Yashwathpur Police Station had deposed that in UDR No.19/2006 of Yashwanthpur Police Station during the inquest, under panchanama Ex.P3 he had seized the death note of deceased Prakash Reddy Ex.P6 and on the basis of 11 C.C.No.24803/2011 its contents, he registered the case in Cr.No.120/2006 of Yashwanthpur Police Station.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3 that:
"zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä J¹¦ ºÉƸÀPÉÃjAiÀĪÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. J¹¦ ºÉƸÀPÉÃjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ F PÉù£À°è '©' CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀÄ '©' CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä J¹¦ ºÉƸÀPÉÃjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ r¹¦AiÀĪÀgÀ C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀÄ«ÄvÀægÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ, £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ gÀÆ.25.00 ®PÀë ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉý PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀÄÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï ¦n±À£ï £ÀAB 3668-2008 C£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj jmï Cfð ªÀeÁ D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
e. P.W.4 the father of P.W.2 is the hearsay witness. P.W.4 had deposed in the examination in chief that:
"¨ÉÊgÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ¦æÃw ªÀiÁrzÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÁQë AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀÄÄAzÉ D PÉøÀÄ K£Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÄÁwÛ®è. D PÉù£À «µÀAiÀĪÁV £ÀªÀÄä C½AiÀĤUÉ K£Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. F «µÀAiÀĪÁV ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÀÄ. ¨ÉÊgÀªÀÄä ¯Élgï §gÉzÀÄ EnÖgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ 12 C.C.No.24803/2011 ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥sÁåPÀÖj¬ÄAzÀ F «µÀAiÀĪÁV PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÉÆãï£À°è £À£ÀUÉ w½¹zÀݼÀÄ. ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉÊUɯÁè ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀ ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ L.r. PÁqïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƨÉʯï, n«J¸ï JPÉì¯ï ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀƪÀgÉ ¢ªÀ¸À ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ©nÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉqÀØ¥ÀàgÉrØ F »AzÉ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ gÀƪÀiï ªÉÄÃmï DVzÀÄÝ, ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ CªÀj§âgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØUÉ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
"¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÉÄeɹÖPï£À MAzÀÄ D¦üøïUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉݪÀÅ. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉ»PÀ¯ï, L.r.PÁqïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƨÉʯï EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆr JAzÀÄ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉýgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¦Ãtå ¥ÉÇ.oÁuÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï J¯Áè ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ gÀÆ.5,000-00 PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉ, J¯Áè LlAUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆr JAzÀÄ PÉýzɪÀÅ. ¦¹ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà EªÀjUÉ gÀÆ.3,000-00 PÉÄÁnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¦.¹. ±À²zÀsgÀ DZÁAiÀÄð EªÀjUÉ gÀÆ.500-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀ§â£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr oÁuÉUÉ 13 C.C.No.24803/2011 gÀÆ.20,000-00 vÀA¢zÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¯ÁAiÀÄgï ¦üà C£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÁ±ï PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉÆà E®èªÉÇà £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï£À£ÀÄß j°Ã¸ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØUÉ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ªÉÆúÀ£ïgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉqÀØ¥ÀàgÉrØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §¤ß, E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£Éßà 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÁßV ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ".
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.4 that:
"¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ £Á®ÄÌ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä CªÀjUÉ ªÀÄUÀÄ ºÀÄnÖ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D «ZÁgÀªÁV ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØ vÀÄA¨Á £ÉÆAzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ".
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÀQîjUÁUÀ°Ã ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀįÁèUÀ°Ã zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
"qÉvï£ÉÆÃmï£À°è K£ÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥sÁåPÀÖj ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï gÀeÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£À ªÀÄUÀÄ ¸ÀwÛgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt CªÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃeÁgÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÁÛ£É JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉý GZÀÑ 14 C.C.No.24803/2011 £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï ¦nµÀ£ï UÉÆvÀÄÛ DzÀgÉ CzÀÄ r¸ï«Ä¸ï DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è".
"DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£Àß C½AiÀĤAzÀ Lr PÁqïð, ªÉƨÉʯï, n«J¸ï JPÉì¯ï QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÀ§â£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr §AzÀ gÀÆ 20,000/- ºÀtzÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ zÁR¯É EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è".
f. P.W.5 is the brother of deceased came to know from C.W.2 that deceased was missing and he came to Bangalore and he searched deceased along with C.W.3 and regarding missing of deceased gave complaint to Yashwanthpur Police Station along with C.W.3 and saw the deceased and came to know about the death note of the deceased and he was also present during inquest and gave statement.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.5 that:
"D ªÀÄUÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØUÉ ¨ÉÃeÁgÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. qÉvï£ÉÆÃmï£À°è ¥sÁåPÀÖj ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgïgÀªÀjAzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÉrØ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".15 C.C.No.24803/2011
g. P.W.6 the father of the deceased, P.W.7 the mother of the deceased, P.Ws.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Sr.APP., had treated P.Ws.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 as hostile witnesses and after obtaining permission from the Court had cross-examined them. Nothing worth was elicited during their cross-examination.
h. P.W.15 Advocate had deposed in examination in chief that:
"ZÁ¸Á-18 ¸Àwñï EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. ZÁ¸Á-18 FvÀ £ÀªÀÄä §½ mÉʦ¸ïÖ CAvÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. ZÁ¸Á-18 ¸ÀwñÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¢B18-3-2006 gÀAzÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ ¥ÀjavÀ£ÁzÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØ JA§ÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä D¦üøïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ£ÀÄ. DvÀ£ÀÄ ¦ÃtåzÀ §½ MAzÀÄ ¥ÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JA§ÄzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, DvÀ ¦Ãtå ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï C£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹PÉÆr CAvÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, CzÉà ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇ.oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV C°èzÀÝ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV CªÀgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãÀ£ÀÄß KvÀPÉÌ ElÄÖPÉÆAr¢ÝÃj PÉÆr JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ£ÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï CzÀgÀ°è PÁ¯ï°¸ïÖ ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CzÀPÁÌV ElÄÖPÉÆArzÉÝÃªÉ 16 C.C.No.24803/2011 JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÉà ¢£À PÁ¯ï °¸ïÖ ZÉPï ªÀiÁr CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï ¥ÀæPÁ±ïgÉrØUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
P.W.15 has not supported the case of the case. The learned Sr.APP., had treated P.W.15 as a hostile witness and after obtaining permission from the Court had cross-examined him. Nothing worth was elicited during his cross-examination.
i. P.W.16 Typist of P.W.15 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Sr.APP., had treated P.W.16 as a hostile witness and after obtaining permission from the Court had cross- examined him. Nothing worth was elicited during his cross-examination.
j. P.Ws.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 to 26, 30 and 31 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Sr.APP., had treated P.Ws.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 to 26, 30 and 31 as hostile witnesses and after obtaining permission from the Court had cross-examined them. Nothing worth was elicited during their cross-examination.
17 C.C.No.24803/2011
k. P.W.22 doctor had deposed that he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the Prakash Reddy and submitted Postmortem Report as per Ex.P23.
l. P.W.27 Handwriting Expert had deposed that he had examined the death note and leave application written by deceased Prakash Reddy and submitted his Report as Ex.P35.
m. P.W.28 Police Inspector had deposed that in 2006 he was working in Peenya Police Station, accused No.1 was conducting investigation of Cr.No.76/2006 and he came to know that the witness of the said case Prakash Reddy committed suicide while conducting enquiry in that case.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.28 that:
"ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÉrØ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. DªÀgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀgɬĹzÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. PÉçÊ 76B2006 ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀAvÀzÀ®Æè £Á£ÀÄ 18 C.C.No.24803/2011 ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÁÌV ¸ÀvÀÛgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è".
n. P.W.29 Police Sub Inspector had deposed that on 27-3-2006 when he was working as Station House Officer C.W.2 came to the Police Station at 2-30 p.m., and lodged a missing complaint as per Ex.P2 and on the basis of the said complaint he registered the case in Cr.No.119/2006 and submitted FIR to the Court. P.W.29 further deposed that on the same day at 3-15 p.m., C.W.21 Manager lodged a written complaint as per Ex.P30 that the deceased Prakash Reddy had committed suicide in the cold storage of MBL Factory and on the basis of the said complaint he registered the case in UDR No.19/2006.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.29 that:
"¤¦-2 C£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÀÄ«ÄvÀæ CªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÀßqÀzÀ°è ºÉýPÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. CzÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". 19 C.C.No.24803/2011
o. P.W.32 had deposed that he had recorded the statement of witnesses C.Ws.2 to 5 in Kannada after translating from Telugu and read over the same to the witnesses by translating to Telegu.
p. P.W.33 Dy.S.P., had deposed the role played by him during the investigation and after completion of the investigation had submitted the charge sheet.
It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.33 that:
"£Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ ¥ÀægÀA¨Às ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä F PÉù£À°è '©' j¥ÉÇÃmïð ºÁQgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É r¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï J£ïPÉéÃj D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D r¥ÁmïðªÉÄAl¯ï J£ïPÉéÃjAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® qÉvï £ÉÆÃlÄ ¹Ã¯ïØ PÀªÀgï£À°è EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. eÉgÁPïì qÉvï £ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ".
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. 20 C.C.No.24803/2011
11. The case of the prosecution suffers from fundamental infirmities which cannot be cured.
12. The case of the prosecution is that accused had committed the offences under Sections 323, 342, 389 r/w 34 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that one Byramma committed suicide and in the death note she had stated that deceased Prakash Reddy was aware of love affairs between her and Mohan Reddy and Cr.No.76/2006 was registered by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru on 13-3-2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 306 of IPC against one D.G.Mohan. In the said case deceased of this case Prakash Reddy was summoned by police for interrogation on 14-3-2006 on the ground that deceased Prakash Reddy was known to Mohan Reddy. On 27-3-2006 at 2-30 p.m. C.W.2 Smt.Sumithra, wife of Prakash Reddy lodged complaint that her husband Prakash Reddy working in MBL Factory had not returned from his second shift duty on 23-3-2006 and that he went to duty at about 21 C.C.No.24803/2011 2.00 P.M., on 23-3-2006 and the same was registered in Cr.No.119/2006. On the same day on 27-3-2006 at about 3-05 P.M. MBL Factory Manager Gopalakrishna C.W.21 filed a complaint that on 23-3-2006 Prakash Reddy had worked from 2 to 10 P.M. and afterwards he had not attended his duty and committed suicide in the east propagation room by hanging. During Inquest Mahazar a death note was found in the pant pocket of Prakash Reddy and in that death note Prakash Reddy had mentioned about the persons who are responsible for him to commit suicide. On the basis of the said death note Cr.No.120/2006 was registered.
13. P.W.2 wife of deceased Prakash Reddy, P.W.4 father of P.W.2 and P.W.15 Advocate are the only important witnesses in this case. At the out set the ingredients of Section 389 of IPC., are that putting a person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were investigating the case in Cr.No.76/2006. In 22 C.C.No.24803/2011 that case deceased Prakash Reddy was called for enquiry to the Police Station and ID card, motor cycle and mobile of deceased were detained in the Police Station. P.W.15 Advocate had deposed that he met accused No.1 and the seized items were returned. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 there is no extortion, there is no fear of accusation. Even though P.W.4 had deposed that ID card, motor cycle and mobile of deceased were detained and he made offer of Rs.5,000/-, P.W.4 had not deposed that there is demand by accused to pay money.
14. Except the evidence tendered by P.Ws.2 and 4 there exists no incriminating evidence against the accused persons. The question that arises for consideration is whether the uncorroborated testimonies of interested witnesses are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Prudence and caution would require the Court to look after for corroboration. It is true that under Section 134 of Indian 23 C.C.No.24803/2011 Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
15. The husband of P.W.2 Prakash Reddy is no more. It is quite natural that the wife and father- in-law could have developed hatred against the accused persons. P.Ws.2 and 4 may be nurturing grouse against the accused. The possibility of P.Ws.2 and 4 taking revenge against the accused cannot be ruled out. Enemity between the parties is double edged weapon and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 requires to be scrutinized with caution. No independent witness has come forward to tender the evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. On this background the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses shall be evaluated.
16. Cr.No.120/2006 was investigated by Peenya Police and transferred to Yashwanthpura Police. Yashwanthpura Police filed a 'B' Report against the accused. In the death note, references are made to 24 C.C.No.24803/2011 several other accused persons also. Looking at the death note apart from the accused, others had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is not known why despite there being a death note of the deceased wherein he has named the persons who are responsible for his suicide, why all of them are not made as accused and subsequently 'B' Report was filed. Filing of 'B' Report creates serious doubt as to bonafides of the case of the prosecution.
17. If the assault as alleged is true, there would have been at least some injury like contusion or discolouration on the body of deceased Prakash Reddy which would not have gone unnoticed by the Medical Officer. It is difficult to believe the prosecution witnesses. The story of the prosecution is full of suspicion and cannot be believed. It appears that the entire investigation in this case was conducted in a casual manner. It is rather risky to base conviction on inconsistent facts.
25 C.C.No.24803/2011
18. The prosecution witnesses had admitted that the deceased Prakash Reddy was a soft natured man and he was hypersensitive. The prosecution witnesses had admitted that the wife of deceased C.W.2 had suffered abortion. Further it is an admitted fact that deceased was unhappy as he was not granted leave. On perusal of death note of deceased, it reveals that he was totally disturbed. The only witness who spoken about the incident is P.W.4. C.W.2 the wife of deceased had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka claiming compensation and the same was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. P.W.33 had deposed that the accused No.1 was acquitted in the departmental enquiry instituted against accused No.1.
19. P.W.33 further admitted that initially 'B' Report was filed in this case. Even if considering the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 15 coupled with death note, there is absolutely no material to prove the 26 C.C.No.24803/2011 guilt of the accused persons. The ingredients of the offences is not traceable in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The self serving statement of deceased Prakash Reddy is not corroborated by any independent evidence. There is no criminal intention to extort money. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were investigating the case of deceased Byramma. They were searching for Mohan Reddy. The deceased was one of their relative. The counsel for the accused argued that accused Nos.1 and 2 being the Police Officers and investigating the case, Section 79 of Indian Penal Code is applicable to the facts of the case and accused No.1 is justified by law in doing it. No prosecution witness has spoken about the illegal confinement of deceased by accused and hence the ingredients of Section 342 of IPC are not proved. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are not reliable and trustworthy. Admittedly there exists ill will between the prosecution witnesses and the 27 C.C.No.24803/2011 accused persons. The exaggerated version of the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. On the basis of evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that accused had committed the alleged offences. No independent witness had supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence on record is insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. There is absolutely no evidence as to how the incident took place. Almost all the witnesses had turned as hostile witnesses. Nothing worth was elicited by the learned Sr.APP., while cross examining them. When the witnesses to the incident had been treated by the prosecution as hostile witnesses, it is not safe to accept the case of the prosecution. It appears that nobody is interested in prosecuting the accused persons. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 323, 342 and 389 of IPC are not traceable in the evidence. There is no scope to discuss the evidence tendered by the 28 C.C.No.24803/2011 prosecution. There is no legal evidence to establish that the accused had committed the alleged offences. There is no link to connect the alleged crime with the accused. It is true that the fact of P.Ws.2 and 4 are interested witnesses by itself may not be a ground for rejecting their evidence. The close relatives of the victim are also not interested in prosecuting the case against the accused. Therefore, it is rather risky to accept the uncorroborated evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 15. On the basis of inconsistent and unreliable evidence of the witnesses and on the basis of shabby investigation, the prosecution has failed to establish its case.
20. I conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused. The prosecution has not adduced cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the accused had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
29 C.C.No.24803/2011
21. Point No.2:-
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. I hold that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 389 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against them and they are set at liberty forthwith.
The bail bonds executed by the accused persons and their sureties' stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of January 2016).
(Krishna Prasad Rao Kalmady) I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
P.W.1, Ashok Siddapur,
30 C.C.No.24803/2011
P.W.2, Smt.G.Sumithra,
P.W.3, C.Sampath Kumar,
P.W.4, G.Venkataramana Reddy,
P.W.5, Jayaram Reddy,
P.W.6, Gatteppa,
P.W.7, Subbamma,
P.W.8, Thippamma,
P.W.9, Udaykumar Reddy,
P.W.10, Babu S.,
P.W.11, Muniswamy,
P.W.12, Krishnamurthy,
P.W.13, S.K.Dathathreya,
P.W.14, K.V.Srinivas,
P.W.15, R.Krishnareddy,
P.W.16, Sathish S.A.,
P.W.17, Srinivasa Gowda N.,
P.W.18, Krishnaiah,
P.W.19, Mallishwar S.,
P.W.20, Smt.Vijayalakshmi,
P.W.21, Siddegowda,
P.W.22, Dr.S.Praveen,
P.W.23, H.D.Basavaraj,
P.W.24, B.T.Ramakrishna,
P.W.25, C.V.Narasimhamurthy,
P.W.26, B.G.Bangarappa,
P.W.27, Shankarappa,
P.W.28, B.G.Kumara Swamy,
P.W.29, H.Nagaraju,
P.W.30, Mehaboob Pasha,
P.W.31, Gopalakrishna,
P.W.32, Anand Krishna,
P.W.33, M.S.Khakandaki;
List of documents on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1, Statement of P.W.2,
Ex.P2, True copy of missing complaint,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P3, True copy of Inquest Report,
Ex.P3(a) Signature of P.W.3,
31 C.C.No.24803/2011
Ex.P3(b) Signature of P.W.13,
Ex.P3(c) Signature of P.W.14,
Ex.P4, Complaint,
Ex.P4(a) Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P5, FIR,
Ex.P5(a) Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P6, Original Death Note,
Ex.P6(a), True copy of original Death Note,
Ex.P7, Statement of P.W.6,
Ex.P8, Statement of P.W.7,
Ex.P9, Statement of P.W.8,
Ex.P10, Statement of P.W.9,
Ex.P11, Statement of P.W.12,
Ex.P12, Statement of P.W.11,
Ex.P13, Statement of P.W.12,
Ex.P14, Statement of P.W.13,
Ex.P15, Statement of P.W.14,
Ex.P16, Statement of P.W.15,
Ex.P17, Statement of P.W.16,
Ex.P18, Statement of P.W.17,
Ex.P19, Statement of P.W.18,
Ex.P20, Statement of P.W.19,
Ex.P21, Statement of P.W.20,
Ex.P22, Statement of P.W.21,
Ex.P23, True copy of True copy of Postmortem
report,
Ex.P23(a) Signature of P.W.22,
Ex.P23(b), Relevant portion of opinion, Ex.P24, Statement of P.W.23, Ex.P25, Statement of P.W.24, Ex.P26, Statement of P.W.25, Ex.P27, Statement of P.W.26, Ex.P28, Letter written by CID to Director FSL Ex.P29, True copy of FIR, Ex.P30, True copy of complaint, Ex.P31, True copy of FIR, Ex.P32, Q.2 leave letter related to Mysore Breweries Ltd., 32 C.C.No.24803/2011 Ex.P32(a), Counter foil, Ex.P32(b) & Ex.P32(c), True copies of Q.2 leave letter, Ex.P33, Letter dated 5-1-2015, Ex.P33(a), True copy of letter dated 5-1-2015, Ex.P33(b), Signature of P.W.33, Ex.P34, Original FIR report, Ex.P34(a), Signature of P.W.27, Ex.P35, Reasons for FIR, Ex.P35(a), Signature of P.W.27, Ex.P36, Photographs of copies, Ex.P36(a), Signature of P.W.27, Ex.P37: Statement of P.W.30, Ex.P38, Statement of P.W.31, Ex.P39, Letter from P.W.33 to Manager to provide details of Prakash Reddy, Ex.P39(a), Signature of P.W.33, Ex.P40, Letter from P.W.33 to Police Inspector Yashwanthpura to provide original death note, Ex.P41, Stamp paper, Ex.P41(a), Signature of P.W.33, Ex.P42, Letter from P.W.33 to Manager, MBL Factory, Ex.P42(a), Signature of P.W.33, Ex.P43, True copies of dairy and report, Ex.P44, True copy of Memo issued by accused No.1 to accused No.2, Ex.P45, Report about producing deceased before accused No.1 Police Inspector, Ex.P45(a), Signature of P.W.33, Ex.P46, Permission to prosecute the accused Nos.1 and 2 from Court, Ex.P47, Letter from Factory to P.W.33, Ex.P47(a), Signature of P.W.33;33 C.C.No.24803/2011
Material Objects Produced:- NIL List of witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the defence:-
NIL I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.34 C.C.No.24803/2011
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. I hold that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 389 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against them and they are set at liberty forthwith.
The bail bonds executed by the accused persons and their sureties' stand cancelled.
I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.35 C.C.No.24803/2011