Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Manjunath B.T @ Manjunathgowda on 22 November, 2022
KABC010116752020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2022.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.Case.No.274/2020
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Yeshwanthapur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Manjunath B.T @ Manjunathgowda
S/o Thimmegowda,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.10/6, 3rd Main, 4th Cross,
Near BJP Party office, Divanara
Palya, Gokula, Yeshwanthapur,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.C.G.,Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence : 20-11-2019
2. Date of report of Offence : 20-11-2019
3. Name of the Complainant : D.Sudhakar
4. Date of commencement of : 02-11-2022
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 15-11-2022
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.504 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of
2 Spl.C.No:274/2020
SC/ST(POA) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
***
JUDGMENT
ACP, Yeshwanthapur Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 20.11.2022 at 10.30 AM, in the Atalji Park, near T.N Primary school of Ward No.36 at Deewanarapalya which is situated within the jurisdiction of Yashwantpur police station, the CW1 being the Supervisor of BBMP while taking the bio metric signatures of street sweepers, the accused came there and picked up quarrel with him, intentionally insulted him by abusing in filthy language and also insulted with intent to humiliate him by taking the name of caste. Accordingly, CW1-D.Sudhakar has lodged his compliant before the police. On the 3 Spl.C.No:274/2020 basis of said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.291/2019 on the file of Yeshwanthapur police station. The investigating officer has visited the place of incident, prepared spot panchanama, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected the materials and after completing investigation has filed charge sheet.
3. During the course of investigation, the accused apprehended and produced before this Court and subsequently he got enlarged on bail. After filing of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the offence and summons is ordered to be issued to accused. On service of the same he appeared before this court and charge sheet copy was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the above said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4 Spl.C.No:274/2020
4. To bring home the guilt of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4, got exhibited 2 documents as per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and closed their side. Since, P.W.1 to P.W.4 had turned hostile to the case of prosecution, this Court found the examination of other witnesses would not serve any purpose. Hence, rejected the prayer of learned Spl PP to issue summons to other witnesses and the evidence of prosecution side taken as closed. No incriminating circumstances appeared against accused. Hence, the recording of statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
5. Heard arguments and perused the documents and other materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20.11.2019 at about 10.30am., the accused has picked up quarrel with 5 Spl.C.No:274/2020 CW1 and intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation to CW1 intending that such provocation will cause the said CW1 to break the public peace and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place, the accused is not being a member of SC/ST, intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate CW1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Andra) in a place within the public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on afore said date, time and place, the accused No.1 is not belongs to SC/ST has abused CW1, who belongs to SC(Adi Andra) by taking the name of his caste in a place within public view and thereby committed offence punishable u/sec 6 Spl.C.No:274/2020 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
4) What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. It is the definite case of the prosecution that, on 20.11.2022 at 10.30 AM, the CW1 being the Supervisor of BBMP while taking the biometric signatures of street sweepers in the Atalji Park situated near the T.N Primary school of Ward No.36 at Deewanarapalya within the jurisdiction of Yashwantpur police station, the accused came there and picked up quarrel with CW1, intentionally insulted him by abusing in filthy language and also 7 Spl.C.No:274/2020 insulted with intent to humiliate him by taking the name of caste.
9. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4. P.W1-D.Sudhakar said to be the victim, PW2- Smt.Chandramma, PW3-Smt.Venkatamma and PW4-Smt.Kala are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident.
10. P.W.1 in his chief examination deposed that no quarrel was taken place between him and accused and accused has not abused him in filthy language and also not insulted with intent to humiliate him by taking the name of caste in public view. PW1 further deposed that he has not lodged complaint before the police and Police have not prepared spot mahazars in his presence. In these way, P.W.1 being the victim of this case had turned hostile to the case of prosecution. After treating this prime witness as hostile, the learned Special PP accord permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross examination of learned Special 8 Spl.C.No:274/2020 PP, nothing has been elicited from the his mouth to prove the commission of offence and also contents of Ex.P.1-complaint and Ex.P.2-spot mahazar.
11. P.W.2 to 4 are said to be eye witnesses to the incident, who turned hostile to the case of prosecution stating that no quarrel was took place between the accused and CW1 in their presence. After treating these prime witnesses as hostile, the learned Special PP accord permission to cross examine these witnesses. During the course of cross examination of learned Special PP, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witness to prove the alleged incident.
12. Since the victim/complainant and eye witnesses had turned hostile, the prayer of Special Public Prosecutor to issue summons to rest of the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet was rejected as no purpose will be served if they are examined. The materials available on record is not sufficient to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Hence, without much discussion, I have no hurdles to hold 9 Spl.C.No:274/2020 that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of accused. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 to 3 in the 'Negative'.
13. POINT No.4 :- In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
The accused is set at liberty and bail bonds of accused and his surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of November, 2022).
(PRAKASH.V) LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION: 10 Spl.C.No:274/2020
P.W.1 : D.Sudhakar P.W.2 : Smt.Chandramma P.W.3 : Smt.Venkatamma P.W.4 : Smt.Kala
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signatures of PW1 Ex.P.3 : Further statement of PW1 Ex.P.4 : statement of PW2 Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW3 Ex.P.6 : Statement of PW4
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (PRAKASH.V) LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.