Bangalore District Court
Kudur Ps vs A1 H C Balakrishna on 14 November, 2024
KABC030815172021
Presented on : 10-11-2021
Registered on : 10-11-2021
Decided on : 14-11-2024
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADL.CJM, BENGALURU.
Present: Shri.K.N.SHIVAKUMAR, B.Sc.,(Agri), L.L.M.,
Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2024
C.C.No. 30762/2021
COMPLAINANT: State by Kudur Police Station,
Magadi Taluk,
RAMANAGAR District.
(By learned Sr.A.P.P.)
-Vs-
ACCUSED:
1.H.C.Balakrishna,
S/o.H.G.Channappa,
55 Years, R/at: Amma Nilaya,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru.
Also at:Hulikatte Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
2 C.C.No. 30762/2021
02. Ramanna G.V.,
S/o. Late. Venkatappa @
Venkategowda,
60 Years, R/at: Gangonahalli, Thippa
Sandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Rmanagar District. (Dead).
03. G.Srinivasa Murhty,
S/o. Govindaiah, 40 Years,
R/at: Gangonahalli, Thippa
Sandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Rmanagar District.
04. Suresh,
S/o.Hanumanthaiah, 48 Years,
R/at:Maniganahalli Village,
Kuduru Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
05. Dhananjaya M.K.,
S/o.Late.Kempaiah, 55 Years,
R/at:Kalkere, Maliappanapalya,
Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
06. Lokesha Gowda @. Kappe,
S/o.Thimmaraju, 33 Years,
R/at:Janathanagara, Kuduru
Town, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
07. Ramanna @. Police Ramananna,
S/o. Late.Maribasavaiah, 66 Years,
R/at:Chikkabasavegoudarapalya,
Doddasomanahalli Dhakale,
3 C.C.No. 30762/2021
Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
08. Dhananjaya Nayak,
S/o.Somlanayak, 45 Years,
R/at:Thorepalya Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
09. Ramesh M.,
S/o.Munnrasaiah, 50 Years,
R/at:Manniganahalli Village,
Kuduru Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
10. Chandra @. Chandrashekara,
S/o.Late.Chame Gowda, 30 Years,
R/at:Iyyandahalli Village,
Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
11. Shashidhara,
S/o.Gangadharappa, 48 Years,
R/at:Hulikal Grama, Kuduru
Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
12. Shivaraju,
S/o.Honnappa, 45 Years,
R/at:Kodipalya Village,
Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
13. Narasimhamurthy @. Bamul
Narasimhamurthy,
S/o.Late.Kempagoolaiah, 55 Years,
4 C.C.No. 30762/2021
R/at:Poojari Palya, Near Agalakote,
Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
14.Shiva Prasad H.R.,
S/o.Late.Rudramuni L., 46 Years,
R/at:Honnapura Village, Kuduru
Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
15. Lokesh (Absconding).
16. Kumara,
S/o.Doddamuniyappa, 32 Years,
R/at:Maruru Vilalge, Kuduru Hobli,
Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District.
17. Ramachandraiah, @.
Ramachandrappa,
S/o.Late.Kempanna, 58 Years,
R/at:Iyyandanahalli Village,
Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District. (Dead)
(By A.1, 3 to 14 & 16 Sri. M.R.N, Advocate.,)
A2 & 17 abated
A15 Absconding
5 C.C.No. 30762/2021
JUDGMENT
This case arose out of Crime No.19/2017 of Kudur Police Station, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District for the Offences P/U/S. 341, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of IPC. After the investigation the Dy.S.P, Ramanagar Sub- Division, has submitted the Charge-sheet/final report.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; On 18/01/2017 at about 11-00 am the accused No.1 to 17 formed an unlawful assembly in front of the Kudur Police station, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District with the common object of doing galata in the said Police station in connection with non-arresting of accused in the Crime No. 12/2017 of said Police station, which was registered on 15/01/2017. In prosecution of said common object of said assembly, the accused have suddenly entered into said Police station and the chamber of PSI therein, in which the CW1 - the then Circle 6 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Inspector, Magadi circle was sitting and did galata with him raising their voice and asking him as to why they have not arrested the accused in the said Crime No.12/2017. The accused No.1 raising voice against CW1 abused by saying that you and your PSI have no guts, call that PSI - Bolimaga. He also raised his hands towards the face of CW1 as if he is going to assault him. He also threatened that he would lock the station, block the road in front of said Police station. Thereafter, he also gave a provocative statement stating that, you police need not to arrest the accused in the said case and you could not do so as you have no guts and they themselves would go to house of accused - Nama Rangaswamy and assault him. He also abused CW1 saying that you police should work as maids in the house of MP and suitable for barbering work. He also threatened by saying that, at the right time whenever the CM or any other VIP would go through said road they would block the road. Thus, the 7 C.C.No. 30762/2021 accused have made galata the said Police station and abused CW1 & CW4 in filthy languages and also wrongfully restrained CW1 in his chamber and threatened him and thereby obstructed CW1 a public servant from discharging his public function. Accordingly, the accused have committed the offences P/U/Sec.341, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of IPC.
3. As the accused No.2 was died, the IO has submitted an abated charge-sheet against accused No.2 & as the accused No.15 has been absconding, charge- sheet was not filed against accused No.15 and the IO reserved right to file additional charge-sheet against said accused No.15 after tracing him. As such, the IO filed this charge-sheet against accused No.1, 3 to 14, 16 & 17. After taking cognizance of alleged Offences on the basis of Charge-sheet materials summons were issued to the accused No.1, 3 to 14, 16 & 17. On receipt of summons, 8 C.C.No. 30762/2021 the accused No.1, 3 to 14, 16 & 17 have entered appearance before the Court and enlarged on bail. The relevant copies of charge sheet were furnished to them in compliance with Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The plea of the accused for the accusation for the offences P/U/Secs.143, 147, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of IPC. was recorded, wherein, they have pleaded not guilty, but claimed to have defence. Hence the case was posted for recording the prosecution evidence. During the course of trial the accused No.17 was reported dead and as such the case against accused No.17 stood abated.
4. In the instant case, the prosecution side has examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 to 22 and got marked 18 documents at Ex.P1 to 18. The accused were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the incriminating evidences appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution and the accused No.1 has 9 C.C.No. 30762/2021 submitted a written statement. The accused have not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri. MRN learned advocate for the accused and perused the materials available on record. The counsel for the accused has relied on the following decisions in support of his argument;
1. Leshappa Shivappa Alur V/s Ganesh @ Ganappa & Others in Criminal Appeal No.10000062/2016
2. The State of Punjab V/s Avtar Singh in AIR 2008 SC (SUPP) 801
3. Nand Lal & Others V/s The State of Chattisgarh in AIR 2023 SCC 1599
4. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar V/s The State of Maharashtra in (2011) 4 SCC 143
5. Inspector of Police, T.N V/s Palanisamy @ Selvan in AIR 2009 SCC 1012 10 C.C.No. 30762/2021
6. Kirpal Singh V/s The State of U.P in AIR 1965 SCC 712
7. Anvar P.V V/s P.K. Basheer & Others in AIR 2015 SCC 180
8. Shri Vijay Tata V/s The State of Karnataka in 2019 (1) KCCR 798
9. Ahmed Saadi V/s The State of A.P in 2004 (3) Crimes 309
10. Ashok Sangappa Sidareddi V/s The State of Karnataka in 2019 Cri.Lj 4052
11. Mohanlal Shamji Soni V/s Union of India & Another in 1991 Cri.Lj. 1521 (SC)
12. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi V/s. Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi & Others in 2005 Cri.Lj. 2868
13. Yashoda V/s. K. Shobha Rani in (2007) 5 SCC 730
14. Nandram Khemraj V/s. The State of M.P & Another in 1995 Cri.Lj. 1270
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 18/01/2017 at about 11-00 am the accused No.1 to 17 formed an unlawful assembly in front of the Kudur Police station, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District with the common object of doing galata in the said Police station and thereby they have 11 C.C.No. 30762/2021 committed the offence punishable U/sec.143 of Indian Penal Code ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused No.1 to 17 in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly, did rioting in the chamber of CW1 in the said Police station by using force or violence against CW1 and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.147 of Indian Penal Code ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused No.1 to 17 in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly made gesture of assault or use of criminal force against CW1 in order to deter him from discharging his public functions as a public servant and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.353 of Indian Penal Code ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused No.1 to 17 in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly intentionally insulted CW1 and also CW4 by abusing in filthy languages and thereby gave provocation to them or knowing that such insult would be likely provocate them so as to break public peace or commit any other offence and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.504 of Indian Penal Code ?12 C.C.No. 30762/2021
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused No.1 to 17 in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly caused criminal intimidation to CW1 & CW4 by threat of injury or reputation with intend to cause alarm to them or to cause them to do any act which they are not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which they are legally entitled to do and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.506 of Indian Penal Code ?
6. What Order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 to 5: In the Negative Point No.6: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1 to 5 :- It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused with the common object of doing galata in the Kudur Police station against the SHO & CW4 in connection with non-arresting of accused persons in crime No. 12/2017 of said Police station 13 C.C.No. 30762/2021 formed an unlawful assembly and entered into the said Police station and the chamber of CW4 in which CW1 was there and did rioting therein by use of criminal force, abused CW1 and also CW4 in filthy languages and also threatened them with injury in order to cause alarm to them and thereby obstructed CW1 from discharging his public functions as public servant.
9. Prosecution has alleged that the accused have committed the offence P/U/S. 143 of IPC, for which it is necessary to prove that, the accused had a common object and with such common object they have formed an unlawful assembly in front of said Kudur Police station. It is also alleged that, the accused have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 147 of IPC, for which it is necessary to prove that, the accused did rioting in the said Police station i.e., they used force or violence in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful 14 C.C.No. 30762/2021 assembly. It is also alleged that, the accused have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 353 of IPC, for which it is required to prove that, the accused have assaulted or used criminal force against CW1 who is a public servant while discharging his public function with the intention to prevent him or deter him from discharging his duties as public servant. Further it is alleged that, the accused have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of IPC, for which it is necessary to prove that, the accused have intentionally insulted CW1 & CW4 so as to give provocation to them intending or knowing that such provocation would cause them to break public peace or commit any other offence. Further it is also alleged that, the accused have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 506 of IPC, for which it is required to prove that, the accused have threatened CW1 & CW4 with injury to their person or property with the intention to cause alarm to them or cause them to do any 15 C.C.No. 30762/2021 act which they are not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which they are legally entitled to do.
10. In order to prove the above allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses as PW1 to PW22. PW1 & PW21 are the mahazar witnesses to the spot mahazar - Ex.P1 conducted by the IO in the alleged place of incident. PW2 is the then CPI, Magadi Circle and the victim of this case as well as the complainant. PW3 is the police constable of Kudur Police station who is an eye witness to the alleged incident. PW4 is the Head constable of Kudur Police station, who is also an eye witness of the alleged incident and also video recorded said incident on the instructions of CW1 / PW2. PW5 is the police constable, Kudur Police station who was working as a reserved staff in the said Police station on the date of alleged incident and an eye witness to said incident. PW6 is the ASI of 16 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Kudur Police station who stated to have been in SHO duty on 19/01/2017 and registered the FIR in this case upon the complaint or report submitted by CW1 / PW2. He has also done partial investigation i.e., seizure of CD relating to alleged incident from CW1 and conducting the spot mahazar in the alleged place of incident as per Ex.P1. PW7 is the Head constable of Kudur Police station who was working as Investigation assistant and as such, he is also stated to be an eye witness to the alleged incident. PW8 is the Head constable of Kudur Police station who was working as the Writer in the said Police station on the date of alleged incident and as such he is stated to be an eye witness to the alleged incident and also stated to have continued video recording of the incident after CW5. PW9 is the PSI, Tavarekere Police station, who stated to had been to Talekere hand post along with CW1 & 32 for Bandobast duty and at the request of CW1 he also stated to had been to Kudur Police 17 C.C.No. 30762/2021 station on the alleged date of incident and as such he is stated to be an eye witness to the alleged incident. He also stated to have copied the video of alleged incident recorded by CW5 & CW15 into a CD using his laptop and supplied 3 DVRs of said video i.e., Article No.2, 3 & 4 to the I.O. PW10 is the PSI, Magadi Police station who stated to have accompanied CW1 for Bandobast duty at Talekere hand post and stated to have been to Kudur Police station at the time of alleged incident on the request of CW1 and as such he is stated to be an eye witness to the alleged incident. PW11 & 12 are stated to be the mahazar witnesses to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P8 stated to have been done at the time of seizing the DVD at Article No.3 along with 63 photographs from CW26 / PW15. The PW13 & 14 are the mahazar witnesses to the seizure mahazar Ex.P5 stated to have been done at the time of seizure of 3 DVDs at Article No.2, 3 & 4 from CW22 / PW9. The PW15 is stated to be the photographer 18 C.C.No. 30762/2021 from whom the 63 photographs were copied to the DVD at Article No.3 and printed under the mahazar-Ex.P8.
PW16 is the Investigating officer who has been entrusted with the further investigation of this case. He stated to have recorded the statement of witnesses, seized 3 DVDRs at Article No.2, 3 & 4 from CW5 under Ex.P5, collected the documents relating to the police staff working in the said Kudur Police station on the alleged date of incident and also the SHD of said Police station at Ex.P12. He also stated to have sent the DVDs at Article No.1 & 2 to the FSL, got identified the accused in the photographs through CW5 and also stated to have seized the standered DVD stated to be containing voice files of accused No.1 produced by CW29 under Ex.P13 and sent the same to the FSL. The PW17 is the investigating officer who has taken over the investigation from PW16. He stated to have received the FSL reports at Ex.P15 & 16 and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 19 C.C.No. 30762/2021 PW18/Cw29 is stated to be the then reporter of Kasturi News 24 channel from whom the I.O of this case stated to have collected the DVD alleged to be containing the videos of accused No.1 recorded in some programs that were telecasted in the said news channel. PW19 is the Dy. Director, FSL Madiwala, who stated to have examined and analyzed the video files contained in the 2 DVDs at D1 & D2 and gave the report at Ex.P16. PW20 is the Senior Scientific officer, FSL, Madiwala, who stated to have examined and analyzed the sample DVD containing the video and audio recording of the voice of accused No.1 with the 2 DVDs containing the video recording of alleged incident and gave report as per Ex.P15. PW22 is the then PSI of Kudur Police station, who stated to have been present at the time of conducting spot mahazar by the I.O - CW13 in the alleged place of incident. 20 C.C.No. 30762/2021
11. As stated herein above, the CW1 / PW2 is the victim and the complainant of this case. He is the then CPI, Magadi Circle. He has stated in his evidence in support of his complaint - Ex.P2 as well as the case of the prosecution. But, unfortunately this witness was died prior to his cross-examination. As such, what is stated in his examination in chief has not been subjected to test of cross-examination. Hence, said evidence cannot be treated as a complete and substantive evidence on behalf of the prosecution. What is stated by him in his examination in chief, may at the most be treated as mere statement of a dead person, which may have some relevance with respect to the facts enumerated under sub Section 1 to 8 of Sec.32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, on careful consideration of the 8 facts for which such statement of dead person may be relevant as contemplated U/Sec. 32 of Indian Evidence Act, it appears very clear that, non of the facts and 21 C.C.No. 30762/2021 circumstance stated by this witness in his examination in chief would attract any one or the other facts or circumstances mentioned in sub Section 1 to 8 of Sec.32 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, what is stated by this witness in his examination in chief may not have any relevance and cannot be relied on for proving the case of the prosecution in this case. However, in criminal justice administration even though the evidence of victim or the injured or the dead person is not available, the offences alleged by such victim or injured or the dead person through the prosecution may be proved with the help of other material witnesses and substantive evidences. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, though PW2 was died, the prosecution has examined about 8 eye witnesses in this case as stated herein above and as such the prosecution can prove its case through the testimony of said eye witnesses.
22 C.C.No. 30762/2021
12. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of all the said eye witnesses such as PW3 to PW10, it appears that all the said eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and deposed in corroboration with the complaint - Ex.P2 as well as in corroboration with the testimony of each other. Among these 8 eye witnesses, the PW6 who is stated to be the then ASI of said Kudur Police station has not given evidence completely in support of the case of the prosecution. In his examination in chief, he has stated about working as the SHO of said Police station on 19/01/2017 and receiving the complaint Ex.P2 from PW2 and registering of the FIR on the basis of said complaint as per Ex.P4. He also deposed about receiving a CD produced by PW2 stated to be containing the vediograph of alleged incident under the seizure mahazar Ex.P3. He also deposed about conducting the spot mahazar in the alleged place of incident on the same day as per Ex.P1. But, he has not stated anything about 23 C.C.No. 30762/2021 the alleged incident of accused rushing into the chamber of CW4, making galata with CW1 and abusing & threatening CW1 & the CW4. Rather, in his examination in chief he has deposed that, at the time of alleged incident as he was on SHO duty in his chamber, he did not see the alleged incident. He also stated that, he has not given statement before the I.O about seeing alleged incident. However, in the course of his cross-examination by Lrd.APP by treating him as partly hostile witness, he has categorically admitted all the suggestions made by Lrd.Sr. APP as to the occurrence of alleged incident and his presence in the alleged place of incident and witnessing the said incident. Except eliciting some technical defects in registering the FIR and sending the same to the Magistrate or court, the defence counsel has not elicited anything material to discredit or disbelieve the testimony of this official witness as to occurrence of alleged incident.
24 C.C.No. 30762/2021
13. In the course of cross-examination of other eye witnesses like, PW3 to 5 & PW7 to 10, though the defence counsel has succeeded to elicit some discrepancies as to the exact time of alleged incident and the number of persons gathered in the alleged unlawful assembly, such discrepancies in the testimony of said eye witnesses under the facts and circumstances of this case appear to be quite natural and minor discrepancies and as such they cannot be considered as material discrepancies to disbelieve the testimony of all said eye witnesses and the case of the prosecution. Because, it is quite natural that, when more than one persons are asked about an incident seen or witnessed by them about 4 to 5 years back, all such persons may not state the exact incident in detail. There would be more chances of variation in the description of such incident by each of such persons. More over, though the defence counsel has succeeded in 25 C.C.No. 30762/2021 eliciting all such minor discrepancies, nothing was elicited either to deny or dispute their presence in the alleged place of incident at the time of alleged incident, which was supported by the materials collected by the I.O at Ex.P12 i.e., the information as to the staffs who have been working in the station duty on the alleged date of incident i.e18/01/2017, the SHO of said station on said date, the reserved police staff working in the said station on the said date, the staff who was working as the writer in the said station on the said date and the documents like copies of station house diary relating to said date, the duty roster register as on 18/01/2017 and the patrolling duty register as on 18/01/2017.
14. The major defence put-forth by the accused in the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is that, the accused No.1 was the then MLA of Magadi constituency and belonged to JDS political party. The 26 C.C.No. 30762/2021 accused No.1 being the MLA of said constituency had been to said Kudur Police station on the said date 18/01/2017 long with other accused only for the purpose of enquiring the I.O or SHO of said Police station about non-arresting of the accused in Crime No.12/2015 which was registered in the said Police station on 15/01/2017. At that point of time, the congress party was ruling the state Government. As the accused No.1 is from the opposition JDS party, in order to ruin his political life and also to voice out the opposition, the police under the political influence falsely implicated the accused by creating false story by misusing the accused going to said Police station for enquring about said Crime No. 12/2015. On that day, the accused No.1 or any other accused who have accompanied him to the said Police station have neither abused nor caused any threat or obstruction to the duty of CW1 and / or CW4. 27 C.C.No. 30762/2021
15. In the light of the aforesaid major defence and contentions taken by the accused, it requires that the evidence of all the aforesaid eye-witnesses has to be meticulously examined. No doubt, as already stated herein above, all the said witnesses have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. But, all the said eye witnesses are the police witnesses and except PW9 & 10, all other witnesses were working in the said Kudur Police station and under the said circle inspector - PW2 & the PSI - CW4 of said Police station. As such, it appears proper to make a careful scrutiny of evidence of said witnesses to discover the falsehood if any, embellishment or exaggeration, which must be eschewed.
16. In view of the above, on considering the testimony of all the said eye witnesses, it appears that there are some differences as to the nature of filthy language or words alleged to have been used by the 28 C.C.No. 30762/2021 accused at the time of alleged incident against CW1 & CW4. For example PW3 says " 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತ ಚಾಸಾ-1 ರವರನ್ನು ಉದ್ದೆ ೕಶಿಸಿ ಕರಿ ಬೋಳಿಮಗ ಸಬ್ ಇನ್ಸ್ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ಎಂಪಿ ರವರ ಸಾರೋಟ್ ಮಾಡಲಿಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾ ನಾ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ". PW4 says " ನೀವುಗಳು ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆ ೕಸ್ ಆಫೀಸ್ ನ ಕಸ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಲಾಯಕ್ಕು , ನೀವು ಅರೆಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಮೀಸೆ ಬೋಳಿಸುತ್ತೆ ನೆಂದು ಏರು ಧ್ವ ನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ". PW5 in his evidence not stated anything about the accused No.1 abusing CW1 with such abusive words, rather he simply says that accused No.1 was talking in singular language. Similarly, PW6 also in his evidence not stated anything about the accused No.1 using any such abusive words, rather he simply admits the suggestions made by the Public prosecutor. Similarly, the PW8 also not stated anything about the accused No.1 abusing CW1. Rather, he simply admits the suggestions made by Lrd.PP in his cross-examination. PW9 says " ನಿನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನ ಸಬ್ಇನ್ಸ್ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ಹರೀಶನಿಗೆ ಬೀಜ ಇಲ್ಲ ವಾ, ಕರೀ ಆ ಬೋಳಿಮಗನನ್ನು 29 C.C.No. 30762/2021 ಎಂದು ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದ ಗಳಿಂದ ನಿಂದಿಸುತ್ತಾ " . He also says "
ನೀವು ಅಜಾಮ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋಗಿ " . That apart, it is pertinent to note that, to attract an offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of IPC, one must intentionally insult the other and thereby give provocation to the other intending or knowing that such provocation would cause such other person against whom such insult was made to break public peace or to commit any other offence. But, in the case of the prosecution there is no such specific allegation as to the intention of the accused to provocate either CW1 or CW4. It is also not stated by any of the eye witnesses in their testimony as to whether the accused have abused said CW1 & CW4 with any such intention of provocating them to cause breach of public peace. There is no allegation as to any such act of breach of public peace or commission of an offence by CW1 after such abuse by the accused. Similarly, to constitute of an offence punishable U/Sec. 506 of IPC there must be a 30 C.C.No. 30762/2021 criminal intimidation against a person. To constitute the offence of criminal intimidation it is necessary to prove that, a person must threaten any other person with any injury to his person or reputation or property or to the person, reputation or property of any one in whom that person is interested with the intention of causing an alarm to such person. In this regard, on perusal of prosecution paper and the testimony of all the above said eye-witnesses, except mere saying that the accused put forward his hand over the face of CW1 and abused him, nothing was stated as to whether the accused No.1 has caused any such threat of injury to CW1 or to his reputation or to his property. That apart, it is alleged in the complaint as well as the testimony of said eye witnesses that, the accused after the incident came out side the Police station and proclaimed in front of the media persons that they do not know as to whom they are going to assault, either PSI or the CPI. But, except 31 C.C.No. 30762/2021 the said eye witnesses who are all the police witnesses, none of said media persons before whom the accused made such statement were enquired by the I.O or examined by the prosecution before this court. Except said police witnesses no independent witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet by the I.O. Though there may not be any such independent witnesses as to the incident that took place inside the chamber of CW4, there are chances of public / independent witnesses who had witnessed the alleged statement made by the accused out side the said Police station. That being the case, the I.O could have enquired and cited any such independent witnesses along with the official witnesses stated herein above. As already discussed herein above, as all the said eye witnesses are the police witnesses working under CW1 & CW4 in the same Police station, they may be treated as interested witnesses in the facts and circumstances of this case. As such, their testimony 32 C.C.No. 30762/2021 needs to be corroborated by any independent witnesses or independent evidences. If at all, there could not be any such independent witnesses, the conduct of I.O citing only the official witnesses in the charge-sheet would not have created any doubt. But, the circumstances show that there are chances of public / independent witnesses witnessing the alleged incident out side the Police station. That being the case, the act of the I.O in neither enquiring nor citing any such independent witnesses with regard to said fact creates doubt in the investigation.
17. With regard to the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC, it is necessary to prove that, a person assaults or uses criminal force to any public servant while discharging his public duties and so assaults or uses criminal force with intent to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his public duties. In this 33 C.C.No. 30762/2021 regard, there is no specific allegation as to any assault or use of criminal force by the accused against CW1 at the time of alleged incident. Except, the allegation that the accused No.1 put forward his hand over the face of CW1 and abused him, there is no specific allegation that, the accused No.1 had any such intention to prevent or deter CW1 from discharging his public functions. No doubt, putting forward his hand over the face of CW1 may be a gesture, that cannot be considered as a gesture or preparation intending or likely to cause such public servant get apprehended that criminal force would be used against him. In this case, it is pertinent to note that, the place in which CW1 was sitting is the chamber of PSI - CW4, but not the office of CW1. That being the case, at that particular point of time, the CW1 might not have been doing any such public functions or duties in the said chamber of CW4. Neither CW1 who is examined as PW2 nor any other eye witnesses stated herein above 34 C.C.No. 30762/2021 have specifically stated as to why CW1 was sitting in the said chamber of CW4 or what public duty or function he was doing in the said chamber at the time of alleged incident. That being the case even if it is considered that the accused No.1 made any such gesture while abusing CW1, that may not be considered as a gesture that constitutes assault or criminal force as provided U/Sec.351 of IPC. More so, when CW1 was not performing any such public duty or function in the said chamber, the act of the accused cannot be considered as an assault or criminal force used with an intent to prevent or deter CW1 from discharging his public duty or function.
18. Apart from the evidence of eye-witnesses as discussed herein above, the prosecution also relied on the documentary evidences including the Electronic evidences like, the CDs, DVD-Rs alleged to be containing 35 C.C.No. 30762/2021 the video-audio recording of alleged incident. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, at the time of alleged incident in the chamber of CW4 in the said Police station, the PW4 & PW8 have video recorded the same in the station handy-cam. The PW4 & PW8 have also deposed in support of the same. The PW4 stated that, at the time of incident he was instructed by CW1 to record the same with the station handy-cam and accordingly he was recording the same in the station handy-cam. After some time as he was required to go out, he had handed over said camera to PW8, who stated to had continued the video recording thereafter. The PW8 also corroborated the same in his testimony. It is stated by PW4 that, the said video recording done in the camera was copied to the Laptop of PW9 who was there at the time of alleged incident in the said Police station & which was copied to a CD at Ex.P3 and handed over to CW1. The PW9 also corroborated the same.
36 C.C.No. 30762/2021
19. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, said video recording was sent to FSL, Madiwala for voice analysis and identification. In this regard, the investigating officer - PW6 in his evidence deposed that, at the time of lodging the complaint, the CW1 had furnished said CD - Ex.P3. Though the said CD was marked as Ex.P3 through CW1 who was examined as PW2, the same was marked subject to objection by the defence counsel as to the correctness or validity of the Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian evidence Act produced by PW9 in support of said CD. In the light of the objection of defence counsel, which was also contended in the course of his arguments, on perusal of said 65B certificate which was marked as Ex.P7, it appears very clear that, the same is not in consonance with the provision of Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and also the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of 37 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Anwar P.V V/s P.K Basir & Others, reported in AIR 2015 SC 180. As such, the evidence through said CD cannot be admissible as an Electronic evidence in support of the case of the prosecution.
20. Further, the investigation of this case was taken over by PW16 as per the orders of the Superintend of police, Tumkur District, Tumakur as per at Ex.P10. This I.O in his evidence deposes that, on 01/02/2017 he has received 3 DVD-Rs relating to the video recording of alleged incident from PW4 / CW5 under the mahazar Ex.P5, which were marked as Article No.2, 3 & 4. But, said PW4 / CW5 in his testimony not stated anything about furnishing any such DVD-Rs to the I.O. Rather, the PW9 / CW22 in his evidence categorically deposed that, pursuant to notice issued by the I.O - PW16, he had been to said Police station on 01/02/2017 and given said 3 DVD-Rs by copying from his Laptop, which were 38 C.C.No. 30762/2021 seized by PW16 under the mahazar Ex.P5, which were marked as Article No.2, 3 & 4. Therefore, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW4, PW9 & the I.O - PW16 as to from whom said 3 DVD-Rs were seized by the I.O. Even the panch witnesses to said seizure mahazar-Ex.P5 i.e., CW24 & CW25 who were examined as PW13 & PW14 also not supported said mahazar and seizure of said 3 DVD-Rs. More over, even though based on the documentary evidence at Ex.P5 and the testimony of PW9, it can be considered that said 3 DVD-Rs were produced by PW9 himself, he appears to have not furnished any Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian evidence Act in respect of said 3 DVD-Rs. As such, though the I.O has secured and produced said 3 DVD-Rs with the charge-sheet as the charge-sheet materials, as already discussed herein above in the absence of a certificate U/Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, the contents of said 39 C.C.No. 30762/2021 DVD-Rs cannot be admissible in evidence as the Electronic evidences.
21. Further, the I.O - PW16 in his evidence deposed that, out of said 3 DVD-Rs marked as Article No.2, 3 & 4, he has taken the Article No.3 DVD-R to the photo studio of CW26 at Solur out-post and took still photographs of the video scenes of the persons in the video recording contained in the said DVD-R through the system of said CW26 and got printed 63 of such photographs which were copied to 2 CDs by CW26 in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Said 63 photographs are together marked as Ex.P6 & the corresponding Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian evidence Act stated to have been issued by said CW26 is marked as Ex.P9. But, said CW26 who was examined as PW15 not supported the testimony of I.O - PW16. Rather, he has deposed that, said studio belongs to his father- in- law and he was working part-time in the 40 C.C.No. 30762/2021 said studio after his studies in college. He also stated that, on that day when he had been to the studio, the police have already taken the print out of photographs and the CDs from somebody in the said studio and asked him to sign a document at Ex.P8 and the Certificate at Ex.P9 in support of the same. He has categorically deposed that, the police have not shown him any CDs or photographs. He also deposed that, he do not know what is written in the said mahazar-Ex.P8 and the said certificate-Ex.P9. When this witness was treated as hostile and subjected to cross-examination by Lrd.Sr.APP, he has denied that the I.O-PW16 brought said Article No.3 to his studio and took the still photographs at Ex.P6 from his studio along with the 2 CDs from the video recording therein in the said Article No.3 DVD-R. The Lrd.Sr. APP could not elicit anything to support the case of the prosecution or the testimony of I.O - PW16 with regard to said photographs & CDs at Ex.P6. As such, 41 C.C.No. 30762/2021 the very fact of taking out said 63 photographs & 2 CDs from the video recording contained in the said Article No.3 DVD-R is not proved by the prosecution. More so, the corresponding issuance of Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian evidence Act at Ex.P9 by said CW26 is also not proved by the prosecution. Though, as the said CW26 was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the Lrd.APP, it could be accepted that said photographs and CDs were copied in his studio from the said Article No.3 DVD-R and he himself issued said 65B certificate - Ex.P9, the very same 65-B certificate is not in accordance with the provision of Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Anwar's case stated supra. As such, though said photographs and the CDs were treated to have been procured and produced by the I.O, the contents of the same cannot be admissible in evidence as an Electronic evidence.
42 C.C.No. 30762/2021
22. Further, the I.O - PW16 has stated that, he has issued notice to CW29 / PW18 to furnish voice files of accused No.1 recorded in any speech made by him in different places or programs that were recorded and telecasted in their Kasturi News 24 Channel and secured such voice files in a DVD along with corresponding Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian evidence Act, which is marked as Ex.P13 & 16 respectively. The CW29 / PW18 who is stated to be the then reporter of said Kasturi News 24 Channel, though admitted that he was working so in the said channel he has denied that he had not furnished any such DVD and the 65B certificate at Ex.P13 & 16. Rather, though he has identified his signature on Ex.P16 he has deposed that during February 2018 he has telecasted the incident between CW1 & the accused No.1 occurred in the said Kudur Police station and in connection with the same the Kudur 43 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Police called him to the Police station and took his signature on said document. Though this witness was treated as hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the Lrd.Sr. APP, nothing was elicited to support the case of the prosecution as well as the version of PW16 as to securing said Ex.P13 & 16 from CW29. Thus, the very fact of obtaining such standard voice sample at Ex.P13 by the I.O is not proved by the prosecution. However, as the said 65B certificate is signed by said CW29 and admitted his signature, though this witness had turned hostile, the said Ex.P13 DVD could be accepted to have been secured by PW16 from said CW29. Even though said DVD cannot be admitted in evidence as an Electronic evidence, because the corresponding 65 B certificate at Ex.P16 is not in accordance with law as provided U/Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act. 44 C.C.No. 30762/2021
23. Apart from the above, in the course of cross- examination of the I.O-PW16, the defence counsel has elicited several material facts and circumstances leading to defective investigation or lapses in the investigation which could ruin the case of the prosecution. For example, he says that except the CW1 stating in his complaint about the delay, he has not made any enquiry about the reason for such delay. Further, when it was suggested that, the accused No.1 being the Elected MLA of said constituency, he has right to question the police officer in a station within the limits of law about any such incidents of none arresting of the accused in a serious offence, he simply says that he can discuss about the same with the higher officers. But, he himself admits that CW1 being the CPI was the higher officer of said Kudur Police station. More so, he says that at the time of alleged incident CCTV cameras were not installed in the chamber of PSI of Kudur Police station. Further, he 45 C.C.No. 30762/2021 himself admits that in the spot mahazar - Ex.P1 it is mentioned that such CCTV Cameras are installed in the said chamber. Similarly, he says that he has enquired and recorded the statement of witnesses in his office, but the same is not recorded in the case diary of this case. He also admits that it is required to record any investigation done in any case in the case diary of said case. More so, he says that in the course of investigation he has not made enquiry as to who are all the public were there at the time of alleged incident, except the accused. More so, he also admits that though CW29 had recorded the said incident, he has not cited him as an eye witness. Further, he has admitted that at the time of seizure of DVDs under PF No. 41/2018 he has not done any mahazar and also said original PF is not there in the charge-sheet. Similarly he has stated that, except the CW29 saying that the voice sample in the DVD produced by him is that of accused No.1, he has not made any 46 C.C.No. 30762/2021 enquiry about the same. He further admits that for any Electronic record, the hard-disc is the basic document and also admits that he has not seized any such hard disc in respect of the CDs/ DVDs seized in this case.
24. This witness PW16 also deposed that, he had sent Ex.P3-CD (Article No.1) and one of the 3 DVD-Rs seized under Ex.P5 i.e., Article No.2 to FSL for scientific examination and analysis. He also stated to have sent the standard voice sample at Ex.P13 DVD also to the FSL for comparison and analysis of voice samples of accused No.1. Further, the investigation was taken over by PW17 from PW16. The PW17 after taking charge of the investigation stated to have received the FSL reports as per Ex.P15 & 16. The prosecution also examined the FSL experts CW30 & 31 as PW19 & 20, who deposed to have examined, analyzed and compared the voice samples contained in the said Ex.P3 - CD, the DVD-R - 47 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Article No.2 and the DVD-R - Ex.P13 and gave said reports at Ex.P15 & 16. The PW19 deposed that, on receipt of Ex.P3 and the Ex.P6 - DVDs he has marked them as D1 & D2 respectively and subjected to scientific examination and analysis, wherein it was found that, both said DVD-Rs contained the same video files and said video files are genuine. Similarly, the PW20 has deposed that, he has received the DVD-R - Ex.P13 which was marked as Article 1(a) from the Kudur Police station and the DVD-Rs marked as D1 & D2 (Article No.1 & 2) from the Cyber Section of said FSL office, Madiwala. He also deposed that, he has subjected said 3 Articles for scientific examination, analysis & comparison through auditory analysis and feature extraction methods. He has given the opinion that, the voice conversation contained in the standard voice sample Article 1(a) of accused No.1 was tallying with the voice conversations contained in the Article No. 1 & 2 and all the said voice 48 C.C.No. 30762/2021 conversations belong to a single person. In the course of cross-examination of these two expert witnesses, the defence counsel has elicited several facts which reveal that the examination, analysis or the comparison made by them on the said Articles was not in accordance with the scientific procedures prescribed. The PW20 has deposed that, he done the comparison of said voice samples by using auditory analysis and features extraction method. In his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that, for examining any voice sample, tone, pitch, speech rate, emotional cues, individual traits have to be examined. Though he has barely denied that apart from the 2 methods used by him, unless the remaining 5 examinations were done it would not be possible to give clear opinion about any voice sample, in his further cross-examination he has categorically admitted that, in order to examine any persons individual voice sample it is necessary to do the 49 C.C.No. 30762/2021 pitch, frequency, sound waves and time analysis. He also deposed that, due to non-availability of requisite software he could not do those tests. Thus, it is very clear from the testimony of this witness that, said analysis and comparison was not complete and in accordance with the scientific procedure as contemplated. On this ground itself, the said expert opinion reports may not be relied on for adjudication of the issue in this case. Even though it could be considered that, what is done by these scientific experts for analysis of said voice samples with available resources in the said lab has to be accepted, the report of opinion given by them on the said Article 1(a), Article 1 & Article 2 cannot be accepted or considered as substantive evidence for this case. Because, as already discussed and held herein above, the very procuring of said Electronic evidences from their original/ primary sources was not in accordance with law. That apart, it is 50 C.C.No. 30762/2021 pertinent to note that said DVD-R at Article 1(a) was stated to have been secured by the I.O from CW29/ Pw18 who is stated to be the then reporter of Kasturi New24 Channel. But after securing the same, the I.O-Pw16 appears to have not verified the same with the accused No.1 so that the same could be taken as an admitted voice sample for sending for analysis/ comparison with the disputed voice samples at Article 1 & 2. More so, the I.O ought to have collected the voice sample of accused No.1 during investigation & send for such analysis & comparison. But he has not done so. Further as the fact of securing said voice sample/file at Article 1 (a) from CW29/Pw18 is not proved in accordance with law as discussed herein above, the same cannot even be treated as the standard voice sample of accused No.1. Therefore, as the I.O has not sent either the admitted voice sample or the standard voice sample to FSL for scientific analysis & comparison with the disputed voice sample at Article 1 51 C.C.No. 30762/2021 & 2, the report & opinion given by PW19 & 20 cannot be treated as the report & opinion in accordance with law to consider as evidence in this case.
25. Apart from all the above, the defence counsel has raised some contentions as to legal & technical defects in the process of investigation of this case, which may have serious bearing on the case of the prosecution. It is contended that, there is a day's delay in lodging the complaint and registration of FIR and also there is a delay in dispatching the FIR to the court. Said delay is not properly explained by the complainant or the IO. Any such delay in lodging the complaint / FIR and dispatching such FIR to the court would create serious doubt in the case of prosecution. In support of his contention, the defence counsel has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of Punjab V/s Avtar Singh, reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 801 and 52 C.C.No. 30762/2021 also Nandalal & Others V/s State of Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2023 SC 1599.
26. In the light of the aforesaid contention and the ratio laid down in the said decision on perusal of the records in this case, it is evident that, alleged incident in this case was stated to had occurred on 18/01/2017. The complaint - Ex.P2 in respect of said incident was lodged by CW1 before the SHO - PW6 / CW13 of said Kudur Police station on 19/01/2017 at 5-00 p.m. As per the allegation of complaint, said incident had occurred at 11-00 a.m on 18/01/2017. As such, there is a delay of about a day and 6 hours in lodging the complaint. Further, though the CW1 in his complaint has given an explanation that, as he had been to a bandobast duty on 19/01/2017 in connection with the counting of votes relating to APMC Elections at Magadi, after completing the said duty he had come the Kudur Police station and 53 C.C.No. 30762/2021 lodged the complaint, said explanation cannot be accepted for condoning the said delay. Because, at the time of alleged incident CW1 was there in the said Police station and also there are more than 8 to 10 police officials of said Police station including the in-charge SHO
- PW6. That being the case, since 11 to 12 am on 18/01/2017 there was sufficient time for CW1 or any other 8 to 10 police officials to lodge the complaint or first information to the SHO of said Police station. But, including CW1 none of the police officials of said Police station have done so. They have also not given any explanation as to what prevented them to lodge complaint in that regard immediately after the accused went out of the said Police station. Therefore, as rightly argued by the defence counsel, there may be chances of CW1 discussing with his higher officers or any other interested person and thereafter as an after thought lodged such a complaint on the next day evening. In the light of the 54 C.C.No. 30762/2021 defence of the accused that, he was implicated in the case due to political rivalry, said contention would inspire the confidence of this court. Similarly, as per Ex.P4 the said FIR was registered on 19/01/2017 at about 5-00 pm and in column No.14 the same was stated to had been dispatched to the court at 5-45 pm on the same day through PC364 of said Police station. But, the endorsement made by the then Presiding officer, I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi shows that, said FIR was received at 11-00 am on 20/01/2017. In the course of cross-examination the SHO - PW6 has stated that, said Magadi court is about 20 KM from their station. He also admitted that, even if one goes by a two wheeler it would take hardly 45 Minutes to reach said court from their station. But, he has neither explained as to why said FIR was given to said court on the next day at 11-00 am nor the I.O examined said PC 364 through whom said FIR was stated to had been dispatched to court. 55 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Therefore, there is an unexplained delay in sending the said FIR to concerned court or Magistrate. Though, said delay is of one and half a day in lodging the complaint, registering FIR and sending the same to court, as such delay is not explained or not properly explained with cogent reasons, definitely such delay would create doubt in the case of the prosecution as held by Hon'ble Apex court in the decisions of State of Punjab V/s Avtar Singh & Nandlal & Others V/s State of Chattisgarh stated supra. Similarly, it is also contended that there is no fair investigation in this case. It is specifically argued that, the IO - PW6 has seized the CD from CW1 along with the complaint, but he has not done any mahazar while seizing said CD. More so, though said CD was seized on 19/01/2017 itself, he has produced the PF in respect of said CD to the court on 24/01/2017. As such there is a delay of 5 days in reporting the seizure of said CD to the court. As per the provisions of Sec.102 (3) of 56 C.C.No. 30762/2021 Cr.PC any seizure of property by the I.O shall be forthwith reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Therefore, this contention of the defence counsel as to the delay in reporting the seizure of property in this case would also have some effect on the merits of the case of the prosecution. That apart, it is also argued by the Lrd.Defence counsel that, the investigating officer in this case has neither examined nor seized the CC TV footages from the CCTV cameras installed in the said Police station. Rather, the CW1 stated to had got video recorded said incident through PW4 & PW8. The I.O has produced only those alleged video recording DVDs / CDs. If at all any such incident had happened and the accused have committed any such offences, the I.O should have collected and produced the CCTV footages from the said Police station. As no such offences were committed by the accused, the I.O in ordered to avoid revealing of said truth, intentionally avoided to collect such CCTV 57 C.C.No. 30762/2021 footages. In this regard, though some of the eye witnesses who are stated to be the police officials of said Police station have not admitted that such CCTV cameras were installed in the said Police station, the PW16 who is also the I.O of this case has categorically admitted that, in the mahazar - Ex.P1 it is mentioned that CCTV cameras were installed in the chamber of PSI in the said Police station. It is also elicited that, as per the guidelines of the Home department such CCTV cameras shall be installed in all Police stations. Therefore, it appears that, there are no materials to show that, no such CCTV cameras were installed in the said Police station as on the date of alleged incident. As such, it can be held that, the I.O has for the reasons best known to him not made any attempt to seize any such CCTV footage from the said Police station. As the allegations in this case are in respect of the offences committed by the accused against the CPI of said Police station and the complaint is also lodged by said 58 C.C.No. 30762/2021 CPI, the investigating officers of this case, like the PW6, 16 & 17 might not have seized any such CCTV footage in ordered to support the complaint of said CPI who was their higher officer. This would also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution.
27. From all the above discussed facts, circumstances, evidences and the lapses / defects in the investigation and the investigating officers and also in the light of the specific defence of the accused that, due to political vendetta and motive, a false complaint was filed implicating this accused who is a leader of opposition JDS party, a doubt arises as to the case of the prosecution and the allegations made against the accused. As per the cardinal principles of criminal justice administration, the benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution shall go in favour of the accused. Hence, by giving the benefit of such doubt in the case of 59 C.C.No. 30762/2021 prosecution to the accused, this court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences P/U/Secs.143, 147, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of IPC. of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Point No.1 to 5 are answered in the Negative.
28. Point No.6- In view of the above findings on point No.1 to 5, the following order is passed;
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1, 3 to 14 & 16 are hereby acquitted for the offences P/U/Secs.143, 147, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 14th day of November, 2024).
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 60 C.C.No. 30762/2021 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW.1 - K.R. Purushotam PW.2 - H.L. Nandish PW.3 - Ningappa Chowan PW.4 - Suryakumar PW.5 - Veerabhadrappa. E PW.6 - Narayanappa PW.7 - Singe Gowda PW.8 - Srinivasreddy PW.9 - B. Ravi PW.10 - Manjunath D.R PW.11 - Raju. S PW.12 - Jagadeesh. R PW.13 - Shashikumar. S PW.14 - Manjunath PW.15 - Lokesh PW.16 - M.K. Tammaiah PW.17 - Purushotam PW.18 - Kirankumar G.K PW.19 - Dr. Kumudarani PW.20 - Venkatesh . G.N PW.21 - Sadiq PW.22 - B.C. Harish Witnesses examined for the Defence:
- Nil -
Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 - Mahazar
Ex.P2 - Complaint
Ex.P3 - C.D / DVD
61 C.C.No. 30762/2021
Ex.P4 - FIR
Ex.P5 - Mahazar
Ex.P6 - Photographs & CD
Ex.P7 - 65-B Certificate
Ex.P8 - Mahazar
Ex.P9 - Certificate
Ex.P10 - Reminder
Ex.P11 - Police Notice
Ex.P12 - About submitting the document Ex.P13 - DVD Ex.P14 - Covering letter Ex.P15 & 16 - FLS reports Ex.P17 - Sample Seal Ex.P18 - FSL CD Documents exhibited for the defence:
- Nil -
Material objections:
- Nil -
-
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 62 C.C.No. 30762/2021 (Order pronounced in open court Vide Separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1, 3 to 14 & 16 are hereby acquitted for the offences P/U/Secs.143, 147, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.
( K.N. SHIVAKUMAR ) XLII Addl. CMM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka)