Bangalore District Court
Inspector vs No.1 To 3 Criminally Trespassed In To ... on 2 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF JULY, 2018
Serial Number of the C.C.657/2011
case
Date of commencement 30.08.2010
of offence
Name of the State by Police Sub
complainant Inspector, Kengeri Police
station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1). Mariyappa,
person S/o.Sampaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
2). Renuka,
S/o.Mariyappa,
Aged about 23 years,
3). Smt.Ningamma,
W/o.Mariyappa,
Aged about 35 years,
All accused are
R/At.No.112, Ganakallu
Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(Reptd.by Sri. M.A.B... Adv.,
2 C.C.657/2011
Offences complained of U/Sec.323, 324, 448 r/w
Sec. 34 of the IPC
Name of informant of Smt.Bengaluramma
crime
Offences Proved Nil
Plea of the accused and Not guilty for the offences
his examination : U/s. 451, 323 and 324 r/w
Sec.34 Of the IPC.
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 02.07.2018
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C I. The facts which are necessary to decide this case are as under:-
1. The allegations against the accused :
1(a). That on 28.08.2010 while C.W.1- Smt.Bengaluramma and C.W.5-Nagaraj was taking coconuts from the coconut tree infront of the house of C.W.1, the accused no.1 to 3 objected for the same saying that they had planted the coconut tree and in this regard exchange of words took place.3 C.C.657/2011
Further on 30.08.2010 at about 8.00 A.M, the accused no.1 to 3 criminally trespassed in to house of C.W.1 and assaulted C.W.5-Nagaraj with hands and caused hurt and further assaulted C.W.1 with a wooden club and caused bleeding hurt and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 323 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.
2. After submitting the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences taken and criminal case against accused no.1 to 3 came to be registered. Section 207 Cr.P.C complied. Accused appeared before court and were enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copy furnished to the accused. The charge framed and read over to the accused for the offence U/s. 451, 323 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC. Accused No.1 to 3 denied the charges leveled against them as false and pleaded not guilty.
3. On behalf of prosecution, evidence of P.W.1 to 4 adduced and documents as per Ex.P.1 to 4 are got marked. 4 C.C.657/2011
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused no.1 to 3 came to be recorded U/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances found against them as false. No defence evidence on behalf of accused.
5. After going through the material placed on record and considering the arguments and circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused, is not proved for the reasons stated below:
II. Brief statement of reasons
1. In support of the case of the prosecution, informant of crime Smt.Bengaluramma is examined as P.W.1, the son of C.W.1 by name Nagaraj (C.W.5) is examined as P.W.2. Both P.W1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that the accused no.1 is the younger brother of C.W.1- Bengaluramma and the P.W.2 was taking coconuts from the coconut tree and for that the accused no.1 raised objection and picked up quarrel with P.W.2. Due to this hostility on 30.08.2010 at about 8.00 A.M, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and 2 and pulled them out of 5 C.C.657/2011 the house and assaulted them with hands and club and cuased bleeding injury on the head of P.W.1.
In the incident P.W.1, lost her consciousness. Further, P.W.2 deposed that C.W.2 and 6 shifted the P.W.1 to Manipal hospital.
2. Further P.W.1 and 2 deposed that police taken statement, which is as per Ex.P.1, of C.W.1 and registered the crime and conducted mahazar on the spot as per Ex.P.2.
3. C.W.2 one Nagaraj Kumar is examined as P.W.4, claiming to be spot mahazar witness. This witness fully turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and in the lengthy cross examination made by Learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution. C.W.9 Investigating Officer examined as P.W.3 and he deposed that he took up further investigation of this case from C.W.8, received the wound certificate, electricity bill and submitted charge sheet against accused. Wound certificate and electricity bill 6 C.C.657/2011 identified by the Investigating Officer are marked as Ex.P3 and 4.
4. The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Repeatedly NBW was issued against other witnesses. Repeatedly NBW was issued through DCP also. As per order dated 23.05.2018 by rejecting the prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor to reissue process, the prosecution evidence is taken as closed.
5. Now the material question which arises before court is whether the evidence placed on record is establishing the guilt of the accused. As I have stated the evidence of P.W.3 and 4 is not taking material role in deciding the real controversy. The evidence of P.W1 and 2 available on record to adjudicate the matter. No doubt admittedly there is dispute between the parties in respect of ownership over the property as well as coconut tree. Such being the circumstances, the prosecution has not produced any documents to establish that P.W.1 and 2 are owners of the said property. Absolutely no documents are placed on 7 C.C.657/2011 record to establish that the said coconut tree belongs to the P.W.1 and 2.
6. On looking into the cross examination of P.W.1 and 2 it discloses that they are claiming right over the coconut tree only on the ground that they are residing near coconut tree for a long period. Existence of civil dispute may not be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. But in the background of the circumstances, care is to be taken in appreciating the evidence or believing the interested witnesses. In this present case on hand, admittedly there are eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution failed to secure the Investigating Officer and other witnesses to corroborate the evidence of interested witnesses i.e, P.W.1 and 2.
7. The P.W 1 in the cross examination admitted that her father executed will in favor of accused no.1 in respect of disputed property. The P.W.1 explained in the cross examination that she spent Rs.30,000/- for treatment. Further she deposed that she cannot say the contents of 8 C.C.657/2011 Ex.P.1-Complaint. The say of P.W.1 is contrary to the case of the prosecution and it creates a doubt.
8. The Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of C.W.2 who is eye witness, according to P.W.2. Further P.W.2 stated that other persons also witnessed the incident but he cannot say the names of other persons. Further P.W.2 admitted that said Nagesh and Kumar came to the spot one hour after the incident. Further he explained that the saree of his mother (C.W.1) was blood stained in the incident. He admitted that neither the saree or the club was recovered by police.
9, It is defence of the accused that the C.W.1 and 2 before lodging this complaint occupied the house claiming right over the property and they in order to avoid legal steps for eviction, filed false complaint against them. Further these witnesses denied such suggestions as false. It is clear that there is dispute between the parties and the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is not free from material contradictions and remained uncorroborated by the evidence of independent 9 C.C.657/2011 witnesses. Under these circumstances, this court comes to the conclusion that it is not safe and proper to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and convict the accused for the alleged offences. With this view, this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal.
III. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs.451, 323 and 324 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.
Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bonds of accused and that of surety stand cancelled.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of July 2018).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
10 C.C.657/2011:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Smt.Bengaluramma P.W.2: Sri.Nagaraju P.W.3: Police Inspector Harish Babu P.W.4: Nagesh
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1:-Complaint Ex.P.2:-Spot mahazar Ex.P.2(a); Signature Ex.P.3:- wound certificate Ex.P.3(a); Signature Ex.P.4:-Electricity bill Ex.P.4(a); Signature
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused Nil
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.