Bangalore District Court
State By vs Keshava Reddy S/O.Krishna Reddy on 5 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 5th day of July 2016
PRESENT: Sri.NAGESH MURTHY,
B.A., LL.M.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.22102/2013
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
Indiranagar Police Station
/vs/
Accused 1. Keshava Reddy S/o.Krishna Reddy, 48
yrs.
2. Smt.Hemalath Reddy W/o.Krishna
Reddy, 43 yrs.
both r/o. No.10, Somasundarapalya,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The PSI of Indiranagar police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/S. 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention on 14/6/2012 around 7.30 PM at No.64, Mottappanapalya, Indiranagar, Bengaluru wrongfully confined CW.1 and when CW.1 was being rescued by CWs.4 to 7 wrongfully 2 CC No.22102/2013 restrained them and assaulted CW.1 with Sticks voluntarily causing simple bleeding injuries to him and also assaulted CWs.1, 4 and 6 with hands causing simple hurt to them and abused CW.1 in filthy language as 'bolimagne, sulemagne', insulted him and also threatened CWs.1, 4 to 7 with life and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered against the accused persons in Indiranagar P.S., Cr.No.219/2012 and FIR was submitted to the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas and statement of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offences was taken and summons was issued to the accused persons. Accused have appeared before the court through their counsel and have been released on bail. Copies of chargesheet were furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge were framed against the accused for the alleged offences and accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4. As no 3 CC No.22102/2013 incriminating evidence found against the accused their statement u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
7. The points for consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention on 14/6/2012 around 7.30 PM at No.64, Mottappanapalya, Indiranagar, Bengaluru wrongfully confined CW.1 and when cW.1 was being rescued by CWs.4 to 7 wrongfully restrained them and assaulted CW.1 with Sticks voluntarily causing simple bleeding injuries to him and also assaulted CWs.1, 4 and 6 with hands causing simple hurt to them and abused CW.1 in filthy language as 'bolimagne, sulemagne', insulted him and also threatened CWs.1, 4 to 7 with life and thereby committed the alleged offences?
2. What order?
8. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:
The prosecution in support of its case has examined three witnesses. PW.1 Venkataswamy Reddy is the complainant, PW.2 4 CC No.22102/2013 Vinay and PW.3 Rati are victims in the incident. They turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and denied any assault made by the accused persons to CW.1 and also denied wrongful restrain and abuse made by the accused in filthy language as 'bolimagne, sulemagne' and threaten made to their life. PWs.1 to 3 denied having made any statement before the police as per Exs.P1, 3 and 4. PW.1 also denied any mahazar drawn in his presence under Ex.P1. PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence deposed having compromised the dispute with the accused. PWs.1 to 3 who are injured and victims against whom accused persons have abused, insulted them and threatened with life turned hostile and compromise being reported between the parties, the prayer of Sr.APP to summons and examine other chargesheet witnesses was refused. PWs.1 to 3 who are the material witnesses turned hostile and compromise being reported between parties, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
10. POINT NO.2:
For the afore said reasons, I pass the following; 5 CC No.22102/2013
ORDER U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of the alleged offences punishable u/s 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. Property seized by the I.O. shall be destroyed on completion of the Appeal period.
(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 5th day of July 2016).
(NAGESH MURTHY.B.K)
X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 B.N.Venkataswamy Reddy. Nil
PW.2 Vinay.
PW.3 Smt.Rati.
Exhibits Marked
Ex.P1 Complaint.
Ex.P1(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P2 Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P3 Statement of PW.2..
Ex.P4 Statement of PW.3.
Material Objects got marked
-Nil-
X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
6 CC No.22102/2013