Bangalore District Court
Purushothama vs Manjunatha on 16 November, 2024
KABC030305142021
Presented on : 12-05-2021
Registered on : 12-05-2021
Decided on : 16-11-2024
Duration : 3 years, 6 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 16th Day of November-2024
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.11167/2021
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C
Date of Offence 14.12.2019
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
(R/by: Learned Senior APP)
V/s.
Accused A1. Manjunath
S/o. Late.Shivanna,
Aged about 33 years,
A2. Smt. Parvathamma
W/o. Late.Shivanna,
Aged about 55 years,
Judgment 2 C.C. No.11167/2021
A3. Smt. Ramya
W/o. Manjunath,
Aged about 25 years,
All are R/at. No.35, 2nd Main,
1st Cross, Puttenahalli,
MLR Conventional Hall,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bengaluru City.
A4. Smt. Hemavathi
W/o. Lakshman,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at.No.60, Behind Government
Primary School, 1st Main,
23rd Main, Laggere,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s.278, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506
R/w sec., 149 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 22.03.2024 and accused
persons are pleaded not guilty.
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 4 are Acquitted
Date of Order 16.11.2024
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 3 C.C. No.11167/2021
JUDGMENT
The accused persons are facing trial for the charge sheet submitted by the Subramanyapura Police, for the offences punishable U/s.278, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.12.2019 at about 06.00 PM, within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station, the accused persons were unloading the wastage of the building items to the lake in Subramanyapura, at that time, the Cw.1 and 2 were questioned the same with the accused persons, for that the accused persons came to the Cw.1 and 2 illegally formed the group and picked up the quarrel with the Cw.1 and 2 abused them in filthy language and the accused No.1 illegally restrained the Cw.1 from not moving forward and assaulted the Cw.1 with his hands on Cw.1's ear, further the accused No.3 and 4 assaulted the Cw.1 by pulling his hair and assaulted the Cw.1 with a stone and caused bleeding injury and assaulted the Cw.1 with their hands and caused simple injury to Cw.1. Further, the accused No.1 assaulted the Cw.1 with a wooden club on Cw.1's hip and caused injury, further the accused persons given life threat to the Cw.1 and 2 if they come to stop them they will chop them with a sword and thereby the accused Judgment 4 C.C. No.11167/2021 persons have committed the above said alleged offences which are punishable U/s.278, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 of IPC.
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/s.278, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 of IPC against the accused persons and the accused persons were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the accused persons in kannada language to them wherein they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons, prosecution has been examined 02 witnesses out of 08 and during the examination of Cw.1 and 2 got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 in this case the Cw.1 is complainant injured/victim witness and Cw.2 is the eye witness, such being the case, the said Cw.1 and 2 were turned hostile to the prosecution case. Hence, this court rejected the prayer of the learned Senior APP to examine other charge sheet witnesses, as no purpose would be served in examining them and also the valuable time of the court would be saved. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, hence the examination of the accused Judgment 5 C.C. No.11167/2021 persons as required U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has been dispensed with.
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available on record.
6. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points arise for consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 14.12.2019 at about 06.00 PM, within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station, the accused persons were unloading the wastage of the building items to the lake in Subramanyapura by spoiling the environment by spreading bad smell of the wastage and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec.,278 R/w sec., 149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons with a common object, when the Cw.1 and 2 were questioned the same with the accused persons, the accused persons came to the Cw.1 and 2 illegally formed the group and picked up the quarrel with the Cw.1 and 2 abused them in filthy language and thereby the accused Judgment 6 C.C. No.11167/2021 persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec., 504 R/w sec., 149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons with a common object, illegally restrained the Cw.1 from not moving forward and thereby the accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/sec., 341 R/w sec., 149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons with a common object, assaulted the Cw.1 with their hands on Cw.1's ear, further the accused No.3 and 4 assaulted the Cw.1 by pulling his hair and caused simple injury and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec., 323 R/w sec., 149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons with a common object, assaulted the Cw.1 with a stone and further the accused No.3 and 4 assaulted the Cw.1 with a wooden club and caused bleeding injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec., 324 R/w sec., 149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons with a common Judgment 7 C.C. No.11167/2021 object, given life threat to the Cw.1 and 2 if they come to stop them they will chop them with a sword and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec., 506 R/w sec., 149 of IPC?
7. What order.?
07. My findings on 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: In The Negative
Point No.5: In The Negative
Point No.6: In The Negative
Point No.7: As per final order
REASONS
08. Points No.1 to 6: These points are inter connected to each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on records.
9. PW.1 is the complainant/injured he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, the Cw.2 is his father, he Judgment 8 C.C. No.11167/2021 knows the accused persons and there was no quarreled between the themselves and the accused persons, further he has identified the signature in the Ex.P1, where in he signed the said document before the police about 05 years ago and denied the rest of the things which is written in the said document. Further he had not taken any treatment in hospital with regard to the said incident. The PW.2 who is the injured and eye witness to the case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, Cw.1 is his son, he knows the accused persons and there was no quarreled between the themselves and the accused persons, further he has identified the signature in the Ex.P2, where in he signed the said document before the police about 05 years ago and denied the rest of the things which is written in the said document. Further he had not taken any treatment in hospital with regard to the said incident. Accordingly, the learned Senior APP has failed to elicited the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2 from the mouth of Pw.1 and 2.
10.It is crucial to note that Pw.1 is the material/injured/witness and Pw.2 is the eye witness to the incident and they have not supported to the prosecution case. The learned Senior APP made several suggestions to the said witnesses during the cross-examination, but the said witnesses, they have been denied the all material Judgment 9 C.C. No.11167/2021 suggestions, except mere suggestions and denials nothing worth, was elicited in the cross-examination. Regarding the value of suggestions during the cross-examination and burden of proof concerned. The Hon'ble High Court Gujarat in Legal Heirs of Umedmiya R Rathod Vs State of Gujarat, in First Appeal NO. 5952 of 1995 held as under:
"74. .... It is a settled position of law that mere suggestions are not sufficient to dislodge or disprove the case of the plaintiff. Suggestions in cross- examination have no evidentiary value. In absence of any evidence, nor any material traced in the cross examination in support thereof, the findings so far could not have been answered in the affirmative by the Trial Court as well as by this Court in the First Appeal.
78. The expression "burden of proof" is used in two senses, i.e. The burden of proving an issue or issues sometimes termed the 'legal burden', and the burden of proof as a matter of adducing evidence during the various stages of the trial. What is called the burden of proof on the pleading should not be confused with the burden of adducing evidence which is described as "shifting". See, observations in Narayan v. Gopal [AIR 1960 SC 100]; Pickup v. Thames Insurance Co., [(1878) 3 QBD 594]; Lakshmana v. Venkateswarlu, Judgment 10 C.C. No.11167/2021 [76 Ind APP 202 : (AIR 1949 PC 278); 15 Halsbury (Simond) 267]; HuytonwithRoby Urban District Council v. Hunter, [(1955) 2 All E. R. 398 at p. 400] per Denning L. J. These two aspects of the burden of proof are enunciated in Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 shows that the initial burden of proving a prima facie case in his favor is on the plaintiff. When he gives such evidence as will support a prima facie case, the onus shifts on the defendant to adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case made out by the plaintiff. As the case continues to develop, the onus may shift back again to the plaintiff."
11. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused persons can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
12. In the present case, it is important to note that the material/injured witness and eye witness have denied the alleged commission of the offences by the accused persons.
Judgment 11 C.C. No.11167/2021 As such the accused persons have certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since material/injured witness and eye have turned hostile to the prosecution case.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 - AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon'ble Apex held thus hereunder:
''56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ''may be true''' but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of ''must be true''. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available one Judgment 12 C.C. No.11167/2021 pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.''
13. Thus, the above Hon'ble Apex Court decision has opt to the present case on hand and the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. As the the Pw.1 is the complainant who was material/injured/victim witness and Pw.2 is the eye witness to the case, were turned completely hostile to the prosecution case. Hence, this court rejected the prayer of the learned Senior APP to examine other charge sheet witnesses, as no purpose would be served in examining them and also the valuable time of the court would be saved. In view of the material witness and eye witness turned hostile to the prosecution and compromise is reported by the parties, the prosecution has not able to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Points No.1 to 6 in the Negative.
Judgment 13 C.C. No.11167/2021
14. POINT NO.7: In view of the above findings on Points No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
In the exercise of powers conferred U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby Acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.278, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 4 and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of November- 2024) (Thimmaiah.G) 30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th Judgment 14 C.C. No.11167/2021 AN EXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Sri. Purushotham PW.2 : Sri. Sadashivachar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of Pw.2 Ex.P3 : Statement of Pw.2 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENSE:
- NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENSE:
-NIL-
LIST OF MARKED MATERIAL OBJECTS:
-NIL- Digitally
signed by
THIMMAIAH G
THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2024.11.30
12:54:34
+0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
Judgment 15 C.C. No.11167/2021
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
Judgment 16 C.C. No.11167/2021
Judgment 17 C.C. No.11167/2021