Bangalore District Court
Sukkubai S vs Prabhudev on 4 March, 2024
KABC030346882020
Presented on : 10-08-2020
Registered on : 10-08-2020
Decided on : 04-03-2024
Duration : 3 years, 6 months, 25 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU
PRESENT:
SMT.LATHA .J, B.COM, LL.B.,
XXXII Addl.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 04th day of March 2024
C.C.No.7684/2020
Complainant: The State through
Police Sub Inspector,
R.T.Nagar PS, Bengaluru.
By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused : 1) Prabhudeva,
S/o.Chandrakanth,
Aged about 63 years,
2). Bhagya,
W/o.Prabhudeva,
Aged about 53 years,
3). Manu @ Manoj Kumar,
S/o.Prabhudeva,
Aged about 29 years,
2 C.C.7684/2020
4). Shyam @ Harish Kumar,
S/o.Prabhudeva,
Aged about 27 years,
A1 to 4 are R/a.No.43,
5th cross, Dinnur, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru- 560032.
(By Sri. R.B.Vijayendra.... Adv.,)
Date of commencement of : 24.11.2019
offence
Date of report of offence : 03.12.2019
Arrest of the accused No.1 : ---
to 4
Name of the Informant : Smt.Sakku Bai
Date of commencement of : 06.06.2023
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 20.09.2023
Offences complained of : U/S. 504, 323 and 354
r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 to 4 are
found not guilty.
Date of Judgment : 04/03/2024
XXXII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
3 C.C.7684/2020 The Police Sub Inspector of R.T.Nagar P.S has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 504, 323 and 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
That there is a coconut tree in the compound of house of accused No.1 to 4 and the leaves, coconut and twigs kept falling into the compound of house of C.W.1 who is the neighbor of accused persons and it dirtied the compound of C.W.1. There were frequent quarrels due to this between the C.W.1 and accused persons.
That on 24/11/2019 at about 9-30 am, while accused No.1 to 4 were plucking the coconuts from the coconut tree, the coconut leaves (gari) and twigs fell into the compound of CW1, when C.W.1 questioned the accused and told them to clean her compound, the accused No.1 to 4 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused her in filthy language and knowingly that it would give provocation to C.W.1 to breach public peace and without any provocation, assaulted C.W.1 with hands and used criminal force on her and thereby insulted her. Thereby the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable u/s 504, 323, 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. 4 C.C.7684/2020
3. On the basis of the Statement of CW1, the R.T.Nagar Police have registered a case under Crime No.263/2019 for the offences punishable u/s 504 and 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 4 and submitted the FIR before the court. Thereafter the investigating officer visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses on completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 504, 509, 354 and 506 of IPC. On the receipt of the police report, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences.
4. On the appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, the accused No.1 to 4 was enlarged on bail. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1 to 4 as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 504, 323, 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and read over to them. Accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution has got examined 04 witnesses as PW1 to PW4, out of the 5 C.C.7684/2020 total charge sheet witnesses as CW1 to 9 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 and P2.
C.W.6 is reported to be dead. Learned Sr.APP prayed for issuance of summons to C.W.3, 7, 8 and 9. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities to IO to execute summons, NBW and proclamation to CW 3, 7, 8 and 9, these witnesses have not been secured. Hence the evidence of CW 3, 7, 8 and 9 is dropped. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 4 is examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused No.1 to 4 is separately read over to the accused No.1 to 4. The accused No.1 to 4 denied all such circumstances as false. The accused No.1 to 4 did not choose to adduce defense evidence and no documents are got marked, on their behalf.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused No.1 to 4.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the following points would arise for my consideration:
6 C.C.7684/2020
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 24/11/2019 at about 9-30 am, while accused No.1 to 4 were plucking the coconuts from the coconut tree, the coconut leaves (gari) and twigs fell into the compound of CW1, when C.W.1 questioned the accused No.1 to 4 and told them to clean her compound, the accused No.1 to 4 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused her in filthy language and knowingly that it would give provocation to C.W.1 to breach public peace and thereby the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence of "intentional insult" punishable u/s 504 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 to 4 without any provocation assaulted C.W.1 with hands and caused hurt to her and thereby the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" punishable U/s 323 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 to 4 with an 7 C.C.7684/2020 intention to insult the modesty of C.W1, manhandled C.W.1 and used criminal force on her and thereby the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence of "Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty" punishable u/s 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
4. What Order?
8. My findings to the above Points are as under:
Points No.1 to 3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order,
For the following: -
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 3 :- As these points are interlinked with each other and also similar evidence is led on all these points, I have taken all these points together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion.
10. It is the allegation that the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable u/s 504, 323 and 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined CW.1/informant of crime - Smt.Sakku Bai as PW.1, 8 C.C.7684/2020 C.W.2/Priyadarshini as P.W.2, C.W.4/Prakash- husband of C.W.1 is examined as P.W.3 and C.W.5/ Prithvi Raj- son of C.W.1 is examined as P.W.4.
Out of the documents marked for the prosecution Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Mahazar.
12. C.W.1/P.W.1-Smt.Sakku Bai in her evidence deposed that the accused persons are her neighbors and that there is a coconut tree next to the house of the accused persons and the branches, leaves and coconut keep falling into the compound of the house of C.W.1 and on 24.11.2019 at about 9.30A.M, while the accused persons were plucking coconuts from the tree some leaves and twigs fell into the compound of the C.W.1 and when C.W.1 told accused No.3 to clean the same, the accused No.3 abused her in filthy language and accused No.1, 2 and 4 came down and the accused No.1 assaulted her with a broom, accused No.2 assaulted her with hands on her shoulder and the accused No.3 and 4 caught hold of her and kicked her and her clothes were torn in the galata. Further P.W.1 deposed that she lodged complaint against accused No.1 to 4 as per Ex.P.1 and police drew spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 at the place of incident. 9 C.C.7684/2020
13. During cross examination made by the Learned Counsel for the accused No.1 to 4, P.W.1 deposed that she was working at Indian Institute of Science and retired from service in the year 2017 and she is staying at her house since 33 years and since she is residing at the said house the coconut tree was there and she has lodged several complaints against the accused persons regarding the coconut tree since 2007. The police filed NCR and said complaints are closed. No FIR's are registered. There is a gap of 2.5 of 3 feet between her house and house of accused persons. She admitted that coconuts and leaves fall down from the tree. She deposed that she does not know the name of the person who was plucking coconut and said person did not abuse her. She denied the suggestion that she quarrelled with the said person and abused him in filthy language. She deposed that mahazar was drawn in her house in between 11.00A.M and 2.00P.M and she does not remember how many people signed on the mahazar and deposed that one Priyadarshini, herself and her son PrithviRaj signed on the mahazar. She deposed that she knows to read and write Kannada and does not remember the contents of Ex.P.2 and she signed on it when she went to the police station. She denied the suggestion that she has not taken any treatment and she obtained false medical certificate from the doctor known to her to strengthen 10 C.C.7684/2020 this case. She admitted that the accused persons are her neighbors and since 2007 they are not in talking terms and whenever the accused persons gets plucked the coconuts from the tree a galata takes place. She denied the suggestion that she has given statement that if the accused persons cuts the coconut tree she will not lodge a complaint. She denied the suggestion that she filed this false case due to animosity against the accused persons.
14. C.W.2/P.W.2-Priyadarshini, identified the spot mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.2 and she deposed that on 04.12.2019 police came to the house of C.W.1 and drew spot mahazar and she deposed that the accused persons abused C.W.1 in filthy language and assaulted her when she told them/accused persons about the twigs and debris of the coconut tree fallen.
15. During cross examination of this witness by the counsel for accused No.1 to 4 she deposed that she was not present at the time of incident. She deposed that she went to the place of incident after the incident took place. She further deposed that there were four peole other than the C.W.1 at the place of incident and she does not remember their names. She further deposed that the mahazar was drawn at the spot in between 11.00 A.M and 12 P.M and herself and C.W.1 signed on the 11 C.C.7684/2020 mahazar. She admitted that she has not witnessed the incident personally and C.W.1 told her about the incident. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false evidence against the accused persons to help the C.W.1.
16. C.W.4/P.W.3- Prakash in his evidence deposed that C.W.1 is his wife and the accused persons are his neighbors and on 24.11.2019 when he came back from the morning walk at about 10A.M, he saw his wife(C.W.1) crying with pain and when he enquired her she told him that the accused persons picked up quarrel with her, abused her and assaulted her when she told the accused persons to clean the debris fallen from the coconut tree.
17. The counsel for accused No.1 to 4 cross examined P.W.3 and during cross examination he deposed that the accused are his neighbors since 1988 and since then the coconut tree is in the compound of the house of accused persons. He admitted that since 1988 there is no cordial relationship amongst them and the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that himself and his wife frequently quarrel with the accused persons with respect to the coconut tree and he denied the suggestion that they quarrel with the 12 C.C.7684/2020 accused persons so as to make the accused persons to vacate their house. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence to help the C.W.1.
18. C.W.5/P.W.4- PrithviRaj in his evidence deposed that C.W.1 is his mother and the accused persons are his neighbors and on 24.11.2019 when he had gone out of the house and returned at about 10.30A.M, he saw his mother (C.W.1) crying with pain and when he enquired her she told him that accused persons picked up quarrel with her, abused her and assaulted her when she told them/ accused persons to clean the debris fallen from the coconut tree and he further deposed that his father (P.W.3) gave her first aid treatment and took her to V-care hospital for treatment.
19. The counsel for accused No.1 to 4 cross examined P.W.4 and during cross examination he deposed that the alleged incident took place on 24.11.2019 and he denied the suggestion that no incident took place as alleged. He denied the suggestion that himself and his parents frequently quarrel with the accused persons with respect to the coconut tree and he denied the suggestion that they quarrel with the accused persons so as to make the accused persons to vacate 13 C.C.7684/2020 thier house. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence to help the C.W.1.
20. During the course of trial, the accused No.1 to 4 took up defence that no incident took place as alleged and the complainant has filed this false case to harass the accused No.1 to 4 .
21. On careful perusal of the evidence placed on record, it is evident to note that the CW.1 admitted that she has lodged several complaints/NCR against the accused persons with respect to quarreling due to the coconut tree since 2007 and no FIR's were registered except the present case. The P.W.1 and P.W.3 deposed that they are not in cordial terms with the accused persons and there is frequent quarrel taking place due to the coconut tree. P.W1 and 3 admit that they are neighbors to the accused persons since 1988 and since that time they had conflicts due to the coconut tree. Furthermore the decision reported in (2017)11 SCC 195- Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh and others.. At para 16 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"16. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the 14 C.C.7684/2020 evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
22. Now on overall perusal of the evidence and prosecution witnesses it is evident that the P.W.1, 3 and 4 in their evidence deposed that the accused No.1 to 4 are their neighbors and they are not in cordial terms with the accused persons, as such false implication cannot be ruled out.
23. Further more the prosecution has only examined interested witnesses (P.W1 to 4), no public or other independent witnesses have examined before the court, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to secure the presence of other witnesses and examine them before court to support the case of prosecution.
24. Further relying on the decision reported in 1999 Crl.L.J 19 (SC) (Sanspal Singh Vs State of Delhi)
-It is evident that public witnesses were available and could have been associated to witness the recovery. It would have been a different matter 15 C.C.7684/2020 altogether, had there been No public witness available or none was willing to associate here as stated above, public witnesses were available but No explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus it would be unsafe to maintain conviction of the appellant for the offences charged"
The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
25. Now the question which arises before court is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. PW1 to 4 are interested witnesses and their evidence is to be scrutinized carefully. Evidence of PW 1 to 4 indicate that they are interested witnesses. Further this court observed that the PW.1 to 4 are interested witnesses. Under these circumstances, in the reported decisions it is held as under:
" Where the witnesses are interested, their evidence should be scrutinized with great caution"
The law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
26. Further more on the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses, Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 16 C.C.7684/2020 364 -1954 SCR 145, is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as follows:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
27. During course of trial, the accused No.1 to 4 took up defence that no incident took place as alleged and the complainant has filed this false case to harass them. It is worth to note that the learned counsel for accused No.1 to 4 got elicited in the cross examination of PW.1, 3 and 4 that they are not in cordial terms with the accused persons, as such chances of false implication of the accused No.1 to 4 cannot be ruled out.
28. After appreciating the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the evidence of PW.1 to 4 is not inspiring confidence to act upon and to hold that the accused No.1 to 4 committed the alleged offences. 17 C.C.7684/2020 Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts.
29. For the reasons stated above, it is clear that number of serious doubts arises in the mind of the court as to the evidence and circumstances of the case on hand. Under these circumstances, no doubt the accused No.1 to 4 is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence this court held that the evidence placed on record is not pointing out towards guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 only and accused No.1 to 4 as a matter of right is entitled for benefit of doubt and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the above Points No.1 to 3 is answered in the 'NEGATIVE'.
30. Point No.4: - In view of the findings of Point Nos.1 to 3, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 4 is acquitted of the offences punishable U/S. 504, 323 and 354 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.18 C.C.7684/2020
Bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stand canceled.
The bail bond executed Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be continued.
(Judgment typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer, typed copy corrected and signed by me, then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 04th day of March 2024).
(Latha J) XXXII A.C.M.M, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the Witnesses examined by the Prosecution:
PW-1 Sakku Bai C.W.1 06-06-2023 PW-2 Smt.Priyadarshini C.W.2 17-08-2023 PW-3 Prakash C.W.4 20-09-2023 PW-4 Prithviraj C.W.5 20-09-2023
List of the Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW2
List of the MOs marked on behalf of the Prosecution
--- Nil---
19 C.C.7684/2020List of the Witnesses examined for defence:
-- Nil--
List of the Documents exhibited for defence:
--Nil--
List of the MOs marked on behalf of Defence:
--Nil--
Digitally signed by LATHA LATHA J Date:
J 2024.03.06
12:03:05
+0530
XXXII A.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.