Bangalore District Court
The State Through vs Nadeem Pasha on 19 August, 2022
1 C.C.8978/2021
KABC030248352021
Presented on : 06-04-2021
Registered on : 06-04-2021
Decided on : 19-08-2022
Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 13 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 19th August 2022
C.C.No.8978/2021
Complainant : The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
RT Nagar Police Station
( By Asst. Public Prosecutor )
--- V/s ---
Accused : Nadeem Pasha
S/o Late Ahmed
aged about 34 years,
R/at:11, 1st Cross,
Lakshmaiah Block,
Gangangar, RT Nagar,
Bengaluru.
( By Sri.NK Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 09/12/2020
offence
Date of report of offence : 10/12/2020
2 C.C.8978/2021
Arrest of the Accused : ---
Name of the Informant : Abdul Razak
Date of commencement of : 12/8/2022
recording evidence.
Date of closing of evidence. : 12/8/2022
Offences complained of : U/Secs.323, 324 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge. : Accused is found not guilty
Date of Judgment : 19/8/2022
XXXII Addl.C.M.M
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of RT Nagar P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable Under Secs.323, 324 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That 09.12.2020 at about 3.00 P.M the accused went to the J.P.Mutton stall, No.26, 4th cross, 5th main, Vasanthappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T.Nagar belonging to C.W.1-Abdul Razaq and without any provocation assaulted C.W.1 with a hockey bat on his hands and legs and the accused caused simple hurt and without any provocation punched on the face of C.W.1 and caused hurt. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s. 323, 324 of IPC .3 C.C.8978/2021
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW-1, the RT Nagar Police have registered a case under Crime No.308/2020 for the offences punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 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/Secs.323 and 324 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/Secs. 323 and 324 of IPC and read over to him. accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence. 4 C.C.8978/2021
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined one witnesses as PW-1, out of the total charge sheet witnesses as CW-1 to 8 and got marked one document as Ex.'s P1 and P2. Since PW-1 who is the material witness has 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(1)(b) 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.
5 C.C.8978/2021
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration :
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 09.12.2020 at about 3.00 P.M the accused went to the J.P.Mutton stall, No.26, 4th cross, 5th main, Vasanthappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T.Nagar belonging to C.W.1-Abdul Razaq and without any provocation assaulted C.W.1 with a hockey bat on his hands and legs and the accused caused simple hurt and thereby you have committed an offence of "voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon" punishable U/s 324 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused without any provocation punched on the face of C.W.1 and caused hurt and thereby the accused committed an offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" punishable U/s 323 of IPC?
3. What Order ?6 C.C.8978/2021
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REA S ON S
9. Point Nos.1 and 2: 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.It is the allegation that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 of the IPC.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined the informant of crime/C.W.1 as P.W.1. Out of the documents marked for the prosecution Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar.
11. In support of the case of prosecution, C.W.1-
informant by name Abudul Razak is examined as P.W.1. This witness deposed that he knows C.W.2 to 5 and accused. He further deposed that the accused did not assault him and he 7 C.C.8978/2021 has not taken treatment at any point of time. He further deposed that he has not lodged complaint before police and police took his signature on the blank paper, but he does not know the contents of complaint which is at Ex.P.1.
12. 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 and he denied the suggestion that he has compromised the matter with the accused.
13. Now the question which arises before the court is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. As I have above stated, the prime witness-P.W.1 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 is not inspiring confidence to act upon and to hold that the accused committed the alleged offences.
14. Now on overall perusal of the evidence and prosecution witness as complainant/PW-1 is the material 8 C.C.8978/2021 witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and he denied the entire case of the prosecution and also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The PW-1 during the course of his evidence has not at all stated in respect of assault by the accused and he has denied the involvement of the accused and at the out set he has denied the entire case of the prosecution.
15. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays to issue summons to other witnesses. 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 9 C.C.8978/2021 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".
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 Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
16. Point No.3: - In view of the findings of point No.1 to 4, 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/Sec. 323 and 324 of
Indian Penal Code.
10 C.C.8978/2021
Bail bond of the accused and Surety bonds shall stand canceled.
Section 437A 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 19th day of August, 2022).
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Abudul Razak C.W.1 12/8/2022 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
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
--Nil--
List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
--Nil--11 C.C.8978/2021
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil--
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru 12 C.C.8978/2021 Order pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORD ER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec. 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bond of the accused and Surety bonds shall stand canceled.
(Latha. J) XXXII Addl.C.M.M, Bengaluru.