Bangalore District Court
State By Malleswaram Police Station vs Alleging That The Accused Has Committed ... on 27 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
Dated this the 27th day of October 2016
Present: Sri. G.V.Chandrashekhar., B.E (Civil), LL.M., P.G.Dip. in
International Law and International Relations, New Delhi.,
VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.:
1. CC NO. : 10274/2004
2. Date of offence : 8.2.2004
3. Complainant : State by Malleswaram Police Station
4. Accused : Sathya Venkatesha
r/at No. 118, 18th cross,
Ranganathapura Main Road,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore-560 003.
5. Offences complained of : 341, 289, 323, 504 IPC
6. Plea : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acting U/s. 255 (1) Accused is acquitted
The complainant police have filed the charge sheet against the
accused alleging that the accused has committed offence punishable under
Sec. 341, 289, 323, 504 IPC.
2
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.2.2004 at 1.45 p.m. when
C.W.2 Sandeep was going in front of house of accused at No. 18, 18th cross,
Ranganathapura, Malleswaram, Bangalore, accused let his dog and
wrongfully restrained him and the dog bite him causing him bleeding
injuries and when C.W.2 questioned the accused, the accused abused him in
filthy language and assaulted him with hands and thereby the accused has
committed the aforesaid offences.
3. After filing the charge sheet, the accused was secured and later
released on bail. Charge framed and read over to him. He pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. After that prosecution examined 7 witnesses
as P.W.1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5. The accused
was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating
circumstances appeared against him. He denied the same and not chosen to
adduce evidence on his behalf.
4. Heard arguments from both sides.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are :
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that
on 8.2.2004 at 1.45 p.m. when C.W.2 Sandeep was going in
front of house of accused at No. 18, 18th cross,
Ranganathapura, Malleswaram, Bangalore, accused let his dog
3
and wrongfully restrained him and the dog bite him causing
him bleeding injuries and when C.W.2 questioned the accused,
the accused abused him in filthy language and assaulted him
with hands and thereby the accused has committed the
aforesaid offences ?
(2) What order ?
6. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on
record, my answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : See final order, for the following :
REASONS
Point No. 1 :
7. The version of the prosecution is that on 9.2.2004 at about 1.45
p.m. when C.W.2 was going on the road in front of the accused house, the
accused let off his dog to attack C.W.2 resulting in the dog biting C.W.2 and
when C.W.2 questioned the accused, he scolded in filthy language, assaulted
him with hands over the body and in order to prove the same, the
prosecution out of 8 witnesses has got examined P.W.1 to 7 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to P.5.
4
8. C.W.1/P.W.1 who is one Sharada has deposed to the effect that the
accused dog biting her on the right leg, taking treatment, gave complaint to
the Police vide Ex.P.1. The Police coming and conducting the mahazar
vide Ex.P.2 and that she had questioned the accused as to why he had left the
dog to which the accused has scolded her in filthy language. If we peruse
the cross-examination, she admits that she had given a complaint against
Sandeep, Karthik and Poornima. She has also admitted in the cross-
examination that there are several stray dogs in the locality and that the stray
dogs attacked the dog taken by Poornima. That the accused had thrown the
bottle towards the stray dog which had fallen on the gate of the accused and
the accused had asked her as to why the said bottle had been thrown and
C.W.2 had scolded her and that the accused had tried to console C.W.2
resulting in the above mentioned complaint. She also admits that CC
15828/2004 is also pending filed by Poornima.
9. P.W.2/C.W.7 is one Doctor S. Nagaraju wherein he has stated that
Sandeep had come to him for treatment regarding biting of a dog and he
admits in the cross-examination that the injured had clearly stated that the
stray dog had bitten him.
5
10. C.W.2/P.W.3 Sandeep deposes to the effect that the accused dog
had bitten him on the right leg and that the accused had scolded C.W.1, his
mother and when he questioned, he scolded in filthy language and that he
had taken treatment at Sharada Nursing Home. In the cross-examination he
denies that the stray dog has bitten him and that he had taken a wound
certificate from Shekhar Hospital and he also admits that in the wound
certificate he mentioned that the stray dog had bitten him. Also admits that
his elder sister Poornima had filed CC 15828/2004 against the accused.
11. P.W.4/C.W.8 is one ASI and he has stated that the accused having
come to the Police Station and given the complaint, registered the case,
submitted F.I.R., identifies his signature in Ex.P.1, F.I.R. marked as Ex.P.5.
He denies that a Police complaint has been registered by him.
12. P.W.5/C.W.5 is one Bhuvaneshwari who states that the Police
enquired and prepared a report and took her signature in Ex.P.2 and that
Gururaj and Raghavendra were present. In the cross-examination admits
that she does not know the contents of the mahazar and admits that she is the
sister-in-law of the complainant.
6
13. P.W.6/C.W.6 is Poornima Devi and she states that on 8.2.2004 at
about 3 p.m. the Police came near the spot and drew mahazar and that she
had affixed her signature in Ex.P.2 marked as Ex.P.2 (C). In the cross-
examination admits that C.W.2 is her relative, C.W.2 is her brother and that
she is also complainant in CC 15828/2004 filed against the accused. She
denies about the compromise regarding that case.
14. P.W.7/C.W.3 is one Gururaj wherein he speaks about a dog
jumping out of the gate of the accused and biting the right leg of C.W.2 and
that the accused came there and took the dog back to the house and when
questioned C.W.2, the accused assaulted him, abused him in filthy language.
That she had taken C.W.2 to the hospital and lodged complaint to the Police
and that the Police recorded his statement. In the cross-examination he
admits that his mother Varada Manjunath is also a witness in another case
filed by C.W.1 and 2 against the accused and he denies that the street dog
had bit C.W.2 and that too ward off the street dog, the accused had thrown
the bottle.
15. From the perusal of the above, it is to be noted that there have
been past litigations between the accused and the witnesses who have
deposed in this case and a Criminal Case is also pending and that another
7
Criminal Case is filed by C.W.2 against the accused. It is also to be noted
that the said witnesses are all interested witnesses and that the only
independent witness the Doctor who has given wound certificate has clearly
stated in his evidence that C.W.2 Sandeep has stated before him when he
gave Ex.P.3 wound certificate that the street dog had bit him. It is to be
noted that analysing the C.w.1 who is R.Sharada wherein she has stated that
she had given another complaint to the Police against C.W.2 and also a
Criminal Case has been filed against her in CC 15828/2004. It has also
come in the cross-examination regarding the past relationship between the
accused and C.W.2 and there have been several transactions and interactions
between the witnesses and the accused. The only independent witness, the
Doctor who has given Wound certificate has clearly stated that as to what
C.W.2 had told before him when he had come to him for treatment regarding
the biting of the stray dog. This goes contrary and against the version of the
prosecution regarding the accused dog having bitten C.w.2. It is to be noted
that C.W.2 in her complaint has clearly stated that the accused dog had bit
C.W.2 and that she had asked the accused as to why his dog had bit C.W.2.
But the evidence given by the Doctor clearly shown that this is not the case
and when there is a material to show that the accused dog had not at all bit
C.W.2 which is based on the statement given by C.W.2 before the Doctor,
8
the other part that the accused having scolded and assaulted C.W.1 and 2
does not arise and cannot be accepted. As such, a serious doubt arises with
regard to the case of the prosecution and the benefit of said doubt shall be
extended to the accused. Hence, I answer this point in the negative.
Point No. 2 :
16. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R:
Acting U/s. 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 289, 323 & 504 of IPC.
Acting under Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that the personal bonds executed by the accused and surety bond executed by the surety for accused shall be in force for a further period of 6 months from this day.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 27th day of October 2016) (G.V.CHANDRASHEKHAR), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
9ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sharada P.W.2 : Dr. S. Nagaraja P.W.3 : Sandeepa P.W.4 : Gangappa P.W.5 : Bhuvaneshwari P.W.6 : Poornima Devi P.W.7 : Gururaj
List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 & 4 : Wound certificates Ex.P.5 : F.I.R.
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Nil For defence: - NIL -
VII ACMM, BENGALURU. 10 11