Bangalore District Court
State By vs A.1 Krishnamurthy on 31 January, 2022
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 31 st day of January, 2022
PRESENT
Smt. K.KATHYAYANI, B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
SC.No.928 of 2018
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Jagajeevanram Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
ACCUSED: A.1 Krishnamurthy,
S/o Subramany,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.321, Binnypet,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.Elangovan, Advocate.)
A.2 Imran @ Imran Khan
@ Jooter Imran,
S/o Ashraf Khan
@ Yaseem Khan,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at C/o Siraj's house,
Near Bilal Masjid,
Shamanna Garden,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Mohammed Ibrahim,
Advocate.)
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 24.12.2016
2 S.C.No:928/2018
Commencement of trial : 24.09.2021
Closing of trial : 24.09.2021
Name of the complainant : Sri.Naveen Kumar.
Offence alleged : Under Sections 341,
504, 506, 323, 324 and
307 read with Section
34 of IPC.
Opinion of the judge : Charges leveled
against accused are
not proved.
Sentence or order : Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
Jagajeevanram Nagara (for short, "JJ Nagara") police have filed the present charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.297/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that;
a) On 24.12.2016, at about 9:30 p.m. CW-1/ Sri.Naveen Kumar along with CW-4/Sri.Guru @ Guruprasad were consuming tea at Tea shop of Papaiah, 1st B Cross, 1st Main, Binnypet, within the jurisdiction of JJ Nagara police station.
3 S.C.No:928/2018
b) At that time, A-1 came along with A-2 near the said shop, in view of the previous animosity with CW-4, A- 1 scolded CWs-1 and 4 in a filthy language.
c) When CW-1 questioned the same, A-2 said why they should not scold and continued to scold them in filthy language, restrained CW-1 from moving and held the neck of CW-1 and A-1 assaulted CW-1 with his hands all over his body.
d) When CW-1 assaulted back A-1; A-1 went to his house and brought a knife; started abusing CW-1 in filthy language by saying 'ಸಸಳ ಮಗನ' and threatened him with dire consequences by saying 'ನನಗಗ ಹಸಡಯಯತತಗಯ ನನನನಯ ನ ಸಯಸಯತತಗನ'.
e) With an intention to murder CW-1, A-1 stabbed on the left hand and left cheek of CW-1 and caused simple bleeding injuries.
f) A-2 with an intention to murder CW-1 by saying 'ನನನನಯ ನ ಕಸಲ ಮಡಬಡಯತತಗನ' took a stone which was lying on the ground and assaulted with the said stone on the left side of forehead of CW-1 and caused bleeding injuries. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. 4 S.C.No:928/2018
3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against both the accused.
4. On going through the charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against both the accused for the offences alleged and both the accused were enlarged on bail.
5. Since the offences are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the trial Court has committed the case against both the accused.
6. On committal, the case was made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
7. In response to the service of summons by this Court, both the accused appeared before this Court and were enlarged on committal bail.
8. After hearing both the sides on framing charges, charges framed and plea of A-1 and A-2 was recorded for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for which, both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this Court. Hence, the case was posted for trial. 5 S.C.No:928/2018
9. In the course of trial, the prosecution in all got examined 2 witnesses i.e., CWs-1 and 4 respectively as PWs-1 and 2. Got exhibited 4 documents at Ex.P-1 to 4. Got marked 1 material object at MO-1.
10. The prayer of prosecution to reissue process to CWs-2, 3 and 5 to 7 is rejected since, they could not be secured in spite of issuing sufficient process including proclamation.
11. When the case was posted for recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the counsel for A-2 filed memo reporting that A-2 is in JC in Cr.No.2/2022 of JJ Nagara police station under UTP.No.35/2022.
12. Hence, body warrant was issued against A-2, but it was returned unexecuted as the father's name shown in the body warrant is Ashraf Khan and as per the jail records, it is Yaseem Khan.
13. On enquiry, the SHO filed requisition stating that A-2 has disclosed the name of his father as Asraf Khan in some cases and Yaseem Khan in some other cases. Hence, requested to insert the other name of father of A-2 in the charge sheet.
6 S.C.No:928/2018
14. Accordingly, permitting to insert the other name of father of A-2 in the charge sheet, directed to reissue body warrant against A-2, which was returned executed and A-2 is being produced from JC under body warrant.
15. Since there was no incriminating evidence against A-1 and A-2, their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed.
16. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of the case and perused the record.
17. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arose for the due consideration of this Court are;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all the reasonable doubt that on 24.12.2016 at about 9:30 p.m., when CW-1/Sri.Naveen Kumar along with CW-4/Sri.Guru @ Guruprasad, were standing having tea, near tea shop of Papaiah situated at 1 st B Cross, 1st Main, Binnypet, within the jurisdiction of JJ Nagara police station, with a common intention of committing crime, A-1 and A-2 came near the tea shop and started abusing CWs-1 and 4 in filthy language.
When CW-1 questioned them as to, why they are abusing them, A-2 insulted them by abusing in filthy 7 S.C.No:928/2018 language and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all the reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 on the afore said date, time and place, with a common intention, when CW-1 questioned their act, A-2 restrained CW-1 by holding his collar and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all the reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 on the afore said date, time and place, with a common intention, A-1 assaulted CW- 1 on his body with his hands and caused hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all the reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 on the afore said date, time and place, with a common intention, in continuation, A- 1 went inside the house and brought a knife and intimated injury to the life of CW-1 and there by committed the offence punishable under Section 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all the reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 on the afore said date, time and place, with a common intention to murder CW-1 8 S.C.No:928/2018 caused injuries on his left hand and left chin with a knife and A-2 by taking a stone hit on the forehead of CW-1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC?
6. What Order?
18. The answer of this Court to the above points are;
1. Points Nos.1 to 5 : In Negative.
2. Point No.6 : As per the final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
19. POINTS Nos.1 TO 5:- As these points require common discussions, to avoid repetitions and for the sake of convenience, they are taken together for consideration.
20. As noted above, in this case, the complainant police have filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
21. But, after hearing before charge, charges were framed against A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Sections 504, 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 i.e., except the offence alleged under Section 324, for all the other offences alleged 9 S.C.No:928/2018 and in respect of 506 for 506(2), the charges were framed and plea was recorded.
22. So, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt against A-1 and A-2 beyond all the reasonable doubts with the material, supportive and corroborative evidence for the offences under Sections 504, 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
23. Before venturing into the discussions on the evidence let in by the prosecution, let this Court first to go through the relevant provisions i.e., Sections 504, 341, 323, 506(2), 307 and Section 34 of IPC to know the ingredients that attract the offences alleged for the better appreciation of the evidence on record.
"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.- Whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
24. So, the ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS are; 10 S.C.No:928/2018
(a) A person intentionally insults any person.
(b) He thereby gives provocation to that person.
(c) He intends or knows it be likely that such provocation will cause him:
(i) to break the public peace, or
(ii) to commit any other offence.
25. The next offence is Section 323 of IPC which reads;
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
26. For better understanding of the above provision, let this Court to go through the provision of Section 319 which deals with the meaning of "hurt" and Section 334 of IPC which are extracted here below;
"319. Hurt.- Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
334. Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation.- Whoever voluntarily 11 S.C.No:928/2018 caused hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
27. The next offence alleged for which charge framed is Section 341 of IPC which is extracted here below;
341. Punishment for wrongful restrain.- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
28. Now, let this Court to have a look at Section 339 of IPC which defines wrongful restraint and reads;
339. Wrongful restraint.-
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restraint that persons.
Exception.- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not 12 S.C.No:928/2018 an offence within the meaning of this Section.
29. So, the essential ingredients for wrongful restraint are;
(a) A person causes obstruction to any person.
(b) Such obstruction is caused voluntarily.
(c) The obstruction prevents the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed.
30. The next offence alleged is Section 307 of IPC which reads;
"307. Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.- When any person offending under this Section is under sentence of 13 S.C.No:928/2018 imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
31. To understand the above provision let this Court to go through Section 300 of IPC which deals with the concept of murder which reads;
"300.- Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1.- When culpable homicide is not murder. - culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, 14 S.C.No:928/2018 whilst deprived of the power of self-
control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos.-
First.- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing 15 S.C.No:928/2018 more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or acting a public servant action for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation 4.- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
32. So, the ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS to attract the offence under Section 300 of IPC i.e., murder are; 16 S.C.No:928/2018
"Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done with any of the intentions or knowledge mentioned below:
(a) Intention of causing death.
(b) Intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm is caused.
(c) Intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(d) Knowledge that the act is immunently dangerous that it must in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death, the act having been committed without any excuse for murdering, the risk of causing death for such (bodily) injury as aforesaid.
Exceptions.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the case falls within any of the five exceptions to Section
300.
33. The next offence for which charge framed is Section 506(2) of IPC which reads;
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which 17 S.C.No:928/2018 may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat to be cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death for imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
34. For better understanding of the above provision, let this Court to know first what is criminal intimidation which is defined in Section 503 of IPC which is extracted here below;
"503. Criminal intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the persons or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any such act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.18 S.C.No:928/2018
Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this Section".
35. So, the ESSENTIAL INGREIDENTS are;
"(a) A person threatens another with injury.
(b) The injury is to-
(i) his person, reputation or property, or
(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(c) The intention is -
(i) to cause harm to that person, or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as means of avoiding, execution of such threats, or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding execution of such threat.
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
36. In the present case on hand, as noted above, it is the allegation of the prosecution that on the alleged date, 19 S.C.No:928/2018 time and place, with a common intention of committing crime, A-1 and A-2 came near the tea shop and started abusing CWs-1 and 4 in filthy language; when CW-1 questioned them as to, why they are abusing them, A-2 insulted them by abusing in filthy language; when CW-1 questioned their act, A-2 restrained CW-1 by holding his collar and A-1 assaulted CW-1 on his body with his hands and caused hurt; A-1 went to the house and brought a knife and intimidated injury to the life of CW-1 and with a common intention to murder CW-1 caused injuries on his left hand and left chin with a knife and A-2 by taking a stone hit on the forehead of the CW-1 and thereby committed the offences alleged.
37. So, the above allegations clearly attract the ingredients of the offences alleged noted above.
38. As noted above, to prove its allegations, during the course of trial, in support of its case, the prosecution in all got examined 2 witnesses i.e., CWs-1 and 4 respectively as PWs-1 and 2. Got exhibited 4 documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 and 1 material object at MO-1. 20 S.C.No:928/2018
39. It is stated in the charge sheet that CW-1 Sri.Naveen Kumar is the complainant, victim eye witness. He is examined as PW-1 and has deposed that;
a) He knew A-1 and A-2. There was no galata between him and the accused. The accused did not assault him. But due to some misconception of facts, he gave complaint at Ex.P-1 before the police, wherein his signature is Ex.P- 1(a).
b) The police did not come and conduct any mahazar in his presence and seized any weapon. He did not give any further statement before the police.
40. So, the prosecution cross examined him and suggested that;
a) On 24.12.2016, around 9:30 p.m., when he was having tea near Binnypete Bakery, A-1 came over there and started kindling and commenting his friend Sri.Guru Prasad/CW-4 with filthy language.
b) When he questioned, A-1 abused him and holding his collar, assaulted him with hands. In protest, he also assaulted A-1.
21 S.C.No:928/2018
c) Immediately, A-1 went out and brought a knife from his house, abused him with filthy language and questioning him as to assault him/A-1, saying that he will kill him, forwarded to stab with knife over his neck and when he tried to resist the assault, the knife came into contact with his left hand and caused bleeding injury.
d) A-1 gave a slap over his left cheek and when he forcibly snatched the said knife and tried to assault A-1, A- 1 threatened him with his life and caused bleeding injury over the left portion of his forehead and accordingly, he lodged the complaint at Ex.P-1.
41. But, CW-1 denied all the above suggestions. At this stage, let this Court to have a look at the complaint averments. The complaint at Ex.P-1 reveals that it is alleged that;
a) On 24.12.2016, around 9:30 p.m., while returning from Emme Maidana/field after watching cricket match, CWs-1 and 4 were having tea near Binnypete Bakery. By that time, Krishnamurthy (A-1) came over there and having old animosity with CW-4, started abusing them in filthy language.
22 S.C.No:928/2018
b) CW-4 told CW-1 that the said abuse of A-1 is towards him. So, CW-1 questioned as to, why A-1 is abusing him/CW-4.
c) In turn, A-1 questioning why he should not abuse, abused CW-1 in filthy language and holding his collar, assaulted CW-1 with hands. CW-1 also assaulted A-1.
d) Then, A-1 went back to his house, brought, knife, abused CW-1 with filthy language; gave a life threat and forwarded to stab with knife over the neck of CW-1. When CW-1 protested by raising hands, the knife came into contact to his left hand and caused bleeding injuries and thereafter assaulted over the left cheek.
e) When CW-1 snatched the knife and tried to assault, A-1 by saying that he will kill CW-1, took a stone, assaulted over the left cheek and forehead and caused bleeding injuries to CW-1. Hence, prayed action against A-
1.
42. So, though the narration of the incident at Ex.P-1 are clearly in support of the above suggestions of the prosecution to CW-1, there is no allegation against A-2 in the complaint averments.
23 S.C.No:928/2018
43. It is also suggested to CW-1 for the prosecution that;
a) On receipt of the complaint, on 25.12.2016, the police visited the spot and conducted the mahazar in between 10:15 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. in the presence of panchas by name Sri.Venkata Ram/CW-2 and Sri.Subramanyam/CW-3 and also seized a knife shown by him.
b) The police put the knife into a cotton cover, duly packed and sealed the cover, affixed the chit containing the details of the property and having signatures of panchas and the IO.
c) The contents of the mahazar were also read over to him and the said mahazar is the mahazar shown to him at Ex.P-2.
d) The said knife is the knife shown to him at MO-1.
44. CW-1 not only denied the above suggestions, but also deposed that he did not see the knife at MO-1. At this stage, let this Court to have a look at the spot and seizure mahazar at Ex.P-2 which demonstrates that; 24 S.C.No:928/2018
a) On 25.12.2016 on CW-1 showing the spot i.e., in front of Papaiah's Bakery, on the public road at 1 st B Cross, 1st Main, Binnypete, within the jurisdiction of JJ Nagar police station, the police have conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of the panchas Sri.Venkataram/CW-2 and Sri.Subramanyam/CW-3 in between 10:15 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
b) On CW-1 producing the knife fell on the said spot and telling that the said knife is the knife used for commission of offence, the police seized the same.
c) By then, CW-1 also narrated about the incident.
45. So, the above suggestions of the prosecution to CW-1 are in support of the contents at Ex.P-2 but, CW-1 denied the above suggestions and also did not identify the knife at MO-1.
46. It is also suggested to CW-1 for the prosecution that on 02.01.2017, he gave further statement by saying the involvement of A-2 in the incident as per Ex.P-3 and to help the accused, he gave false evidence and the said suggestion is denied by CW-1.
25 S.C.No:928/2018
47. At this stage, let this Court to go through Ex.P-3 which reveals after reiterating the complaint averments, CW-1 has also stated that;
a) Since, he was in pain and shock, he lodged compliant against only A-1 and left the name of A-2 who was also present with A-1 at the time of incident and threatened his life and by saying that he will kill him/CW-1 assaulted him with a stone. Hence, sought for action against A-2 as well.
48. But, as noted above, CW-1 though deposed that he knows both the accused, he has specifically deposed in his chief evidence that the accused did not commit any offence against him and he denied the suggestions put forth on behalf of the prosecution in support of its allegations. Thus, the evidence of CW-1 is not at all helpful to the prosecution in any way to prove its allegations.
49. The next witness examined for the prosecution is CW-4 Sri.Guru @ Guruprasad who is also the victim eye witness. He is examined as PW-2 and has deposed that;
a) He knows CW-1 as well as A-1 and A-2. There was no galata between him, CW-1 and the accused. The 26 S.C.No:928/2018 accused did not assault either him or CW-1. He did not give any statement before the police that there was galata between him, CW-1 and the accused.
b) He did not see the knife at MO-1.
50. So, the prosecution cross examined him and suggested that;
a) On 24.12.2016, around 9:30 p.m., when he was having tea near Binnypete Bakery with his friend CW-1, A- 1 and A-2 came over there and started kindling him with filthy language.
b) When CW-1 questioned, A-1 and 2 abused them and A-1 holding the collar of CW-1, assaulted him with his hands. In protest, CW-1 also assaulted A-1.
c) Immediately, A-1 went out and brought the knife at MO-1 from his house, abused them in filthy language and questioning CW-1 in respect of assault to him, saying that he will kill CW-1, forwarded to stab with knife over the neck of CW-1. When CW1 tried to resist the assault, the knife came into contact on the left hand of CW-1 and caused bleeding injury.
27 S.C.No:928/2018
d) A-1 gave a slap over the left cheek of CW-1 and when CW-1 forcibly snatched the said knife and tried to assault A-1, A-1 threatened them with their life and caused bleeding injury over the left portion of forehead of CW-1 and saying the above facts, he gave statement before the IO on 26.12.2017 as per Ex.P-4, despite of that compromising with the accused, to help them, he gave false evidence.
51. CW-4 has denied the above suggestions. Let this Court at this stage to have a look at the statement of CW-4 at Ex.P-4 which shows that CW-4 gave statement about the incident as narrated by CW-1 in his complaint and further statement respectively at Ex.P-1 and 3.
52. But, as observed above, CW-4 also though identified the accused, turned completely hostile to the prosecution in respect of the alleged incident. He has specifically deposed that no incident taken place between him, CW-1 and both the accused as alleged by the prosecution.
53. Therefore, in view of CWs-1 and 4, who are not only alleged eye witnesses, but complainant and eye 28 S.C.No:928/2018 witnesses to the incident completely turned hostile to the prosecution, there is no evidence at all in support of the prosecution allegations.
54. Of course it is cited in the charge sheet that CWs- 5 to 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident, but as noted above, despite of issuing proclamation, for the dismay of the prosecution, the presence of CW-2 , 3 and 5 to 7 could not be secured.
55. Thus, as no purpose will be served, no summons is ordered against CWs 8 to 11 who are respectively, the doctor treated the CWs 1 and 4, the police staffs who brought A-1 and produced before the IO and the IO of the case who did not entire investigation.
56. However, in view of CWs-1 and 4 completely turning hostile to the prosecution, and in view of the presence of CWs-2, 3, 5 to7 could not be secured despite of issuing proclamation, the non issuance of process to CWs- 8 to 11 is not fatal to the prosecution.
57. Moreover, even it is the allegation of the prosecution that A-2 giving life threat to CW-1, with an intention to murder CW-1 took the stone and assaulted 29 S.C.No:928/2018 with the same over the forehead of CW-1 and caused bleeding injury, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, admittedly no stone is seized in the present case on hand which is fatal to the prosecution to prove its above allegations.
58. Hence, from the above observations, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A-1 and A-2 for the offences alleged beyond all the shadow of doubts. Accordingly, these points are answered in negative.
59. POINT No.6:- In view of the findings to the points Nos.1 to 7 and for the reasons discussed above, this Court proceeds to pass following order.
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., A-1 and A-2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and the surety bonds executed by and on behalf of A-1 and A-2 shall be canceled after lapse of appeal period. 30 S.C.No:928/2018 MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2022).
(K. KATHYAYANI), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.
-:ANNEXURE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Naveen Kumar.
PW.2 Guru @ Guruprasad.
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :-
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P-1 Complaint
Ex.P-1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P-2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-3 Further statement of PW-1
Ex.P-4 Statement of PW-2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
- Nil -31 S.C.No:928/2018
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
MO-1 Knife LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:
- Nil -
(K. KATHYAYANI), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.32 S.C.No:928/2018
The respective counsels for A-1 and A-2 are present.
The counsel for A-1 has filed EP. Heard, allowed for the day.
A-2 is secured through VC from JC under body warrant.
The Judgment is pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Order).
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., A-1 and A-2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
33 S.C.No:928/2018
The bail bonds and the surety bonds executed by and on behalf of A-1 and A-2 shall be canceled after lapse of appeal period.
MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru The office is directed to issue intimation to the concerned jail authority to release A-2 forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru