Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Avinash Gowda on 14 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 14 th day of February, 2020
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No. 515/2017
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Banasawadi Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. Avinash Gowda,
S/o Gavirangappa,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o No.46, Kanakadas Road,
Kacharakanahalli,
Bengaluru-84.
2. S.Dyanial,
S/o Sagai Raj,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o No.243, Muddanna Layout,
Hennur Cross,
Bengaluru-43.
(By M.N.N., Adv.)
1.Date of commission of offence: 21.04.2016 2 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
2. Date of report of occurrence : 22-04-2016
3. Date of commencement of : 01-09-2018 recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 03-10-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : R. Kiran Kumar
6. Offences Complained of : Secs.143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) of S.C./S.T. (PoA.) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are Acquitted.
J UD GM E N T The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banasawadi Sub- Division, Bengaluru City has filed the charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by C.W.1 R. Kiran Kumar, Banaswadi Police registered the case in Crime No.209/2016 and sent FIR to the court. The Investigation Officer after completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 and others for 3 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 the aforesaid offences and mentioned in the charge sheet that he will file additional charge sheet if the remaining accused are traced out.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:
That on 21.4.2016 at about 8.15 PM the Accused No.1 and 2 were quarrelled with CW.1 to CW.3 in Shiva Parvathi Kalyana Mantapa situated at OMBR Layout, Bengaluru while CW.1 to CW.3 were taking food. Thereafter at about 10.15 PM when CW.1 to CW.3 were returning to their house and came near Government Lake 9th 'A' Main, 1st Block, HRBR Layout, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 along with their supporters wrongfully restrained CW.1 to CW.3 and abused CW.1 in the name of caste as "ಮದಗರರ ನಮಗ ಎಷರ ಷ ಗಗಚಲಯ ನನನ ಮಕಕಳ ನಮಮ ನರ ನ ಇಲಯಯ ಸಯಸದರರ ಕಯಳರವವರರ ಯರರ ಇಲಲ" and accused No.1 gave fist blow on the face of CW.1 and caused him injuries. The accused No.2 assaulted CW.1 with hands and caused him simple injuries. Based on the first information lodged by CW.1 on 22.4.2016 at 5.30 PM, the Banasawadi police registered the case in Crime No. 209/2016 and sent FIR to the court. The Investigation Officer visited to the place of incident 4 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 and conducted the mahazar. The I.O., recorded the statement of the witnesses. The I.O., after collecting the wound certificate, report of Tahasildar regarding the caste of complainant and accused, on completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. The accused No.1 and 2 who obtained anticipatory bail released on regular bail on 28.12.2017. The charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. is duly complied with.
5. After hearing on both sides on 6.3.2018, charges framed against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sec. 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, on the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked.
5 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
7. On 21.11.2019 the statement of the accused No.1 and 2 as required u/s 313 Cr.P.C., is recorded by putting all incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution evidence to them. The accused have denied all such circumstances and did not lead in defence evidence on their behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused. I have also perused the entire case papers.
9. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my consideration:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and 2 who are not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on 21.4.2016 at about
10.15 PM wrongfully restrained CW.1 to CW.3 from further movement near Government Lake, 9th 'A' Main, 1st Block, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable u/s 341 r/w 34 of IPC?
6 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons with common intention picked up quarrel with CW.1 and accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 with hands on the face and caused him simple injuries and thereby the accused have committed the offences punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons with common intention picked up quarrel with CW.1 to 3 and accused No.2 assaulted CW.1 with hands and with wooden club and voluntarily caused him simple injuries and thereby the accused have committed the offences punishable u/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused on the above said, date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common object criminally intimidated CW.1 by giving life threat to him and 7 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 thereby the accused have committed the offences punishable u/s 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt the accused not being the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and insulted CW.1 who belongs to Scheduled Caste by abusing him in the name of caste and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6) What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the negative Point No.2:- In the negative Point No.3:- In the negative Point No.4:- In the negative Point No.5:- In the negative Point No.6:- As per final order for the following 8 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 REASONS
11. POINT No.1 to 5:- Since these points are interlinked with each other, to avoid repetition and for the sake convenience, they are taken up together common discussion.
P.W.1 R. Kiran Kumar is the complainant and injured. P.W.2 Vimal, PW.3 B. Kiran Kumar are the eye witnesses. PW.4 Kishore is the eye witness. PW.5 Dhanaraj is the mahazar witness. PW.6 Basavalingappa, PSI who registered the case. PW.7 ACP who conducted part of investigation. In this case despite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined the Dr. Sathyara, Smt. Manjula, Tahasildar and Sri. K.P. Ravi Kumar, ACP. NBW issued against Dr. Sathyaraj returned with shara he is dead. In this case, PW.4 Kishore turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 another mahazar witness partly supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 to PW.3 have supported the case of the prosecution.
12. P.W.1 R. Kiran Kumar has deposed that he belongs to Adi Karnataka Caste. Accused No.1 belongs to Vokkaliga Caste and accused No.2 belongs to Christian Community. He states 9 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 that the accused persons who belongs to same area knows about his caste. CW.2/PW.2 Vimal is his relative. He has deposed that on 21-04-2016 at about 9.30 p.m. he along with PW.2 and PW.3 Kiran Kumar after having dinner at marriage hall, returning towards their house and when they came near Fire Station, the accused persons came there and picked up quarrel with them and abused him in the name caste as "ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ ಜತನಯನಕಯಯ, ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ ಕಕಯಯ". The accused persons assaulted him with hands. Accused No.1 Avinash gave him fist blow on his mouth and left eye and caused him bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 assaulted him with hands on his back and also assaulted PW.2 with hands. He has deposed that he and PW.2 Vimal have taken treatment in Dr.Ambedkar Hospital and thereafter they went to Hennur Police Station. As the Hennur Police told him to lodge complaint in Banasawadi Police Station, hence, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 to the Banasawadi Police. After lodging complaint, the Banasawadi Police visited to the place of incident and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2. He has deposed that on 21-04-2016 when he along with PW.2 and 3 taking food at 10 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 Choultry, the accused No.1 and 2 sprinkled water on him, on questioning the same, the accused persons picked up quarrel him and threatened that they will see him after coming out from the Choultry and saying so went away. Thereafter when he along with PW.2 and 3 on the way to their house near Fire Station the accused persons committed offence. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.1 has deposed that he was studied upto SSLC. He knows to read and write Kannada. Ex.P.1 was written by his friend Upendra Kumar. He has denied the suggestion that he had not been to the marriage function. He states that the marriage hall is situated at the distance of ½ k.m. from Fire Station. They were proceeding towards their house in a motor cycle. He do not know the name of the public who gathered in the place of incident. He has admitted the suggestion that the members of DSS Sangha have lodged complaint against him to the Banasawadi Police. He has not given bloodstained kerchief to the police. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
13. PW.2 Vimal has deposed that PW.1 is his distant relative. He knows PW.3 and accused. He belongs to Scheduled 11 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 Caste. PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accused No.1 belongs to Vokkaliga Caste. He has deposed that on 21-04-2016 there was marriage reception of his sister at Kalyana Mantap. For marriage reception he along with PW.1 and 2 were attended. At about 9.00 p.m. when they were taking food, the accused No.2 who was sitting in front of them sprinkled water. At that time he and PW.1 questioned accused No.2. Then the accused persons by giving threat to them went away. Thereafter when he along with PW.1, PW.3 were returning towards their house and came near Banasawadi Fire Station at that time the accused persons restrained them. Accused persons abused PW.1 as "ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ, ಮದಗರರ, ನಮಗಷರ ಷ ದರರಹಗಕರ". Accused No.2 assaulted him with hand on his face. Accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 with hand on his mouth and eye. As the accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 on his mouth, PW.1 has sustained bleeding injuries and also sustained contusion on his eye. People who gathered in that place pacified the quarrel. Thereafter they went Dr.Ambedkar Hospital and PW.1 taken treatment. Thereafter they went to Hennur Police Station and police told them lodge complaint in Banasawadi Police Station. Thereafter 12 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 they went to Banasawadi Police Station and lodged the complaint. During the course of his cross-examination by the Learned Counsel for the accused, PW.2 has deposed that he has working as sales boy in Mayyas Company. He was not gave marriage invitation card to the police. He states that they had taken food in marriage reception hall between 9.00 p.m. and 9.15 p.m. They left the marriage reception hall at 9.45 p.m. Fire Station is situated at the distance of ½ k.m. from marriage reception hall. They have reached near the Fire Station at 9.45 p.m. 3-4 people were gathered at the time of incident. He do not know the name of the persons who gathered in the place of incident. He has denied the suggestion that no such marriage reception was taken place on 21-01- 2016. He has deposed that he has not sustained any injuries. They had been to Ambedkar Hospital at 10.30 p.m. He had denied all other suggestions made to him.
14. PW-3 Kiran B has deposed that PW.1 and 2 are belongs to Scheduled Caste. He do not know the caste of the accused. He do not know whether accused knows about the caste of PW.1 and 2. He states that in the month of February 13 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 2016 he had been to marriage reception. On that day he along with PW.1 and 2 were taking food at that time the accused who were sitting in front of them sprinkled water. Then they questioned accused No.2, at that time the accused No.2 threatened them that he will see them when they came out from the marriage reception hall. Thereafter after completion of marriage reception, when he along with PW.1 and 2 proceeding towards their house and came near Banasawadi Fire Station, the accused persons quarrelled with them. Accused No.1 gave fist blow to PW.1 on his face and mouth, accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with hands. Due to assault made by accused No.1 PW.1 has sustained bleeding injuries to his mouth. The accused persons abused PWs.1 and 2 in the name of caste. They took PW.1 to the hospital. Thereafter when they went to Hennur police station the police asked them to lodge complaint in Banasawadi Police Station. PW.1 has lodged the complaint to Banasawadi Police. During the course of his cross- examination by Learned Counsel for the accused PW.3 has deposed that in order to show that he has attended the marriage reception function, he has not produced invitation 14 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 card before the police. He states that he went to the marriage reception hall at 7.30 p.m. and had food between 7.45 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. He has deposed that the incident occurred at 8.40 p.m. At the time of the incident the public were not gathered. He contends that in order to show that the accused persons assaulted them, they have produced the wound certificate before the court. He has denied the suggestion that in order to help PW.1 he has given false evidence. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
15. PW.4 Kishore is the eye witness has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He states that PW.1 is his friend. He do not know the accused persons. He do not know the caste of PW.1 and accused. He do not know anything about this case. In his presence the accused persons have not quarrelled with PW.1 to 3. He has not pacified any quarrel. He has not given any statement before the police. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.4 in detail. During the course of his cross-examination PW.4 has denied of giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P.3. 15 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 He has denied all the suggestions made to him. Nothing is elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
16. PW.5 Dhanaraj is the mahazar witness partly supported the case of the prosecution. PW.5 has deposed that on 23-04-2016, he along with his friend Ravi Kumar went near the Fire Station in order to see the site. At that time, the police enquiring with Kiran. The police asked him to sign on Ex.P.2 mahazar. Hence, he put his signature on Ex.P.2. He do not remember to say the contents of Ex.P.2. He do not know about the incident. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.5 in detail. During the course of cross-examination of PW.5 he has admitted the suggestion that ACP conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in his presence between 9.30 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. During the course of his cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused, PW.5 has deposed that the police have not issued him notice for mahazar. He was not went to the place of the incident. He do not know about the incident. He has denied all other suggestions made to him. 16 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
17. PW.6 Basavalingappa, PSI has deposed that on 22- 04-2016 at about 5.30 p.m. he registered the case in Crime No. 209/2016 based on Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by PW.1. He sent Ex.P.4 FIR to the court. He has handed over the case file to ACP, K.R.Pura Sub Division for further investigation. During the course of his cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused PW.6 has deposed that the complainant has not stated regarding the Car number which was chased by the accused to him. He states that along with Ex.P.1 complaint, the complainant has not produced wound certificate. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
18. PW.7 S.Bhadrinath, ACP has deposed that on 22-04- 2016 he took up the case file from PSI for further investigation. He has received Ex.P.5 D.C.P. order. That on 23-04-2016 he visited to the place of incident and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of panchas as the place of the incident was shown by the complainant. He has recorded the statements of CW.2 to CW.5. He states that on 23-04-2016 he sent Ex.P.6 requisition to Tahasildar seeking caste certificate of the complainant and accused. On 20-06-2016 he arrested the 17 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 accused and released them on bail in terms of Anticipatory bail order. He states that on 11-02-2016 as he was transferred, he handed over the case file to ACP K.P. Ravi Kumar. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has deposed that he has not seen the invitation card to say whether the marriage reception was taken place at Shiva Parvathi Kalyana Mantapa. He was not issued any notice to the panchas. He has not submitted any document to the court to show the reason for delay in concluding the investigation. He has admitted the suggestion that in Ex.P.2 mahazar two lines were added, but he contend that the said two lines were added at the time of drawing the mahazar itself. He has admitted the suggestion that in this case he has not seized any material objects. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
19. Based upon the above evidence, it is to be considered if the prosecution has established the charges framed against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case despite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined the Tahsildar. The oral evidence of PW.1 and 18 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 2 who have deposed regarding their caste and caste of the accused is not seriously disputed by the accused. Their oral evidence that they belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused No.1 belongs to Vokkaliga caste is not seriously disputed by the accused. PW.3 in his examination-in-chief also deposed that PW.1 and 2 are belongs to Scheduled Caste. This version of PW.3 is also not tested in his cross-examination. PW.1 has deposed that accused No.2 belongs to Christian community. This version of PW.1 is not tested in his cross-examination. Thus, unchallenged oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 regarding the caste of PW.1 and 2 and caste of the accused is sufficient to hold that PW.1 and 2 are belongs to Scheduled Caste and the accused No.1 and 2 do not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere proof of the caste PW.1 and 2 is not sufficient to hold that the accused persons have committed offences. It is the burden upon to prosecution to show that the accused persons have committed and the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under 3(1)(r) 3(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
19 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
20. No doubt, PW.1 to 3 have supported the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 with regarding to the alleged abuse and derogatory words used by the accused are not consistent and not corroborating with each other. PW.1 has deposed that the accused persons abused him as " ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ ಜತನಯನಕಯಯ, ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ ಕಕಯಯ" PW.2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused persons abused PW.1 as "ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ, ಷ ದರರಹಗಕರ". PW.3 in his examination-in-chief ಮದಗರರ, ನಮಗಷರ has simply deposed that the accused persons abused PW.1 and 2 in filthy language about their caste. PW.3 has not deposed anything about alleged abusive language used by the accused. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1 to 3, there is no cogent and consistent evidence regarding the alleged derogatory words allegedly used by the accused. They have each stated about the the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused in a totally different manner and the same is also in variance with the case put forth by the prosecution. On perusal of the document Ex.P.1 complaint, it is mentioned that when they reached near Fire Station, at that time the accused persons who followed them in Varna White Colour Car wrongfully 20 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 restrained him and asked him about the area in which he belongs. At that time he told the accused that they belongs to A.K. Colony. At that time the accused abused him as " ಮದಗರರ ನಮಗ ಎಷರ ಷ ಗಗಚಲಯ ನನನ ಮಕಕಳ ನಮಮ ನರ ನ ಇಲಯಯ ಸಯಸದರರ ಕಯಳರವವರರ ಯರರ ಇಲಲ". In Ex.P.1 complaint it is mentioned that the accused after asking about the residential address of the complainant and coming to know that they belongs to A.K. Colony, then abused the complainant as "ಮದಗರರ". The oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 is quite contrary to the document Ex.P.1 complaint. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that as the accused persons are residing in same area where he resides, he knows about the accused. PW.2 has deposed that he do not know the caste of accused No.2. PW.3 has deposed that he do not know whether the accused persons knows about the caste of PW.1 and 2. There is no cogent and consistent evidence that accused No.1 and 2 had any knowledge or knew about PW.1 and 2 belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The uncorroborated oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 which is quite contrary to the document Ex.P.1 complaint, is not sufficient to hold that the accused persons have abused PW.1 and 2 in the name of caste. There is 21 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 no cogent material to indicate that the accused No.1 and 2 had abused PW.1 and 2 by naming their caste with a intention to humiliate them in public view when the evidence on record is appreciated as a whole.
21. In Ex.P.1 complaint it is mentioned that accused Da`yanial and other 7 to 8 persons who were armed with deadly weapons surrounded the complainant. At that time accused No.1 Avinash Gowda assaulted the complainant with hand on his face and remaining accused by twisting his hand assaulted him and caused him injuries. It is also mentioned in Ex.P.1 is that the accused persons dragged the complainant towards their car forcibly, at that time the complainant by pushing them escaped from that place. It is mentioned in Ex.P.1 is that the complainant by pressing his bleeding injuries with kerchief escaped from that place. It is pertinent to note that in the chief examination of PW.1 to 3 they have not deposed anything about the presence or non presence of any other persons except accused No.1 and 2 in the alleged place of incident. PW.1 to 3 have not deposed anything about how whether the accused persons came to the place of incident by 22 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 walk or in a vehicle. In this case the prosecution has not examined the Doctor. The prosecution has not produced any material objects such as deadly weapons or bloodstained clothes. The wound certificate is also not marked on the side of the prosecution. No doubt the summons issued to the Doctor returned with shara that he is dead. But despite of sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined CW.12 K.P. Ravi Kumar, ACP. The wound certificate which is produced along with the charge sheet remained unmarked. Even if we perused the wound certificate, in wound certificate the alleged date of incident mentioned as 22-04- 2016 at 1.00 a.m. There is no such document such as wound certificate on the side of the prosecution to show that on 21- 04-2016 in the night itself PW.1 and 2 have taken treatment in Dr.Ambedkar Hospital. In the wound certificate the time of examination of the injured is mentioned as 1.00 A.M., on 22.4.2016. PW.1 to PW.3 have deposed that immediately after the incident, they went to Dr. Ambedkar's Hospital. PW.2 has deposed that they went to the Dr. Ambedkar's Hospital at 10.30 PM. There is absolutely no document on the side of the 23 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 prosecution to show that PW.1 has sustained injuries on his eye. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 regarding the alleged incident of assault is not corroborated with each other. PW.1 has deposed that the accused No.1 assault with hands on his left eye and accused No.1 assaulted him with hand on his back and also assaulted him with hands on his face, but PW.2 has not sustained any injuries. PW.2 states that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 with hands on his mouth and eye. PW.3 has deposed that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 fist blow on the mouth of PW.1 and caused him bleeding injuries and accused No.2 assaulted PW.2 with hands. PW.2 has deposed that he has not sustained any injuries. PW.3 has not deposed anything about the accused assaulted PW.1 with hands on his eye. In Ex.P.1 complaint is it mentioned that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons attacked on the complainant. In this case, the Investigation Officer has not seized any material objects. In Ex.P.2 mahazar, it is mentioned that no material objects were seized in the place of incident. There is interpolation in Ex.P.2. Two lines were added in Ex.P2 with different ink. If at all the accused persons along with 24 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 other 7 to 8 persons attacked on the complainant with deadly weapons, the Investigation Officer should have seized the material objects allegedly used for commission of the offence. In this case the Investigation Officer neither seized the weapons nor seized bloodstained clothes. The oral evidence of PW.7 is formal in nature. CW.10 K.P. Ravi Kumar, ACP who has filed the charge sheet has not been examined on the side of the prosecution despite of giving sufficient opportunity.
22. The alleged incident was occurred on 21.4.2016 at 8.15 PM in Shiva Parvathi Kalyana Mantapa and according to the case of the prosecution the incident of assault was occurred at about 10.55 PM. In Ex.P1 it is mentioned that the first incident in the marriage reception hall taken place at 10.15 PM and 2nd incident near the Banaswadi Fire Station occurred at about 10.55 PM. The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 regarding the alleged time of incident in the Kalyana Mantapa as well as near the Fire Station is quite contrary to the document Ex.P1 complaint. PW.1 has deposed that they have taken food in the Kalyana Mantapa at 9.30 PM on 21.4.2016 and thereafter they wre proceeding towards their 25 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 house. PW.3 has deposed that they were taken the food in marriage reception at 7.30 PM and thereafter the incident near Fire Station occurred at about 8.40 PM. PW.2 has deposed that they were taking food at Marriage Receiption Hall at 9 PM and the incident near Fire Station was occurred at 9.45 PM. There is no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 regarding the time of the alleged incident. According to the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred in night on 21.4.2016 but Ex.P1 complaint lodged on 22.4.2016 at 5.30 PM there is almost 19 hours delay in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained by the prosecution. PW.1 to PW.3 have deposed that they firstly went to Hennur Police Station. There is absolutely no documents on the side of the prosecution to show that PW.1 to PW.3 have went to Hennur Police Station. There is no mention in Ex.P1 that complainant visited to the Hennur Police Station prior to lodging Ex.P1 to Banasawadi police. The delay in lodging the complaint is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
23. In this case, PW.5 is the mahazar witness partly supported the case of the prosecution. The alleged mahazar 26 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 Ex.P2 was drawn on 23.4.2016 there is delay in drawing the mahazar which is also remained unexplained. The uncorroborated oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 which is quite contrary to the document Ex.P1 complaint creates doubt about their version. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and U/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered point no.1 to 5 in the negative.
24. Point No.6:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to point no.5, and for the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 Avinash Gowda, Accused No.2 S. Dyanial are hereby acquitted of the offences 27 Spl.C.No. 515/2017 punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC., and u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Bail bond of the accused No.1 and 2 and their surety stand cancelled. However, the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force still statutory period.
(Dictated to the Judgement Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of January, 2020.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A N NE X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : R.Kiran Kumar
P.W.2 : Vimal
P.W.3 : B.Kiran
P.W.4 : Kishor
P.W.5 : Dhanaraj
P.W.6 : Basava Lingappa
P.W.7 : S.Bhadrinath
28 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW.4
Ex.P.4 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P5 : Order of DCP
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.6 : Requisition letter
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.7
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
29 Spl.C.No. 515/2017
Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate judgment.
O R DE R
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 Avinash
Gowda, Accused No.2 S. Dyanial are
hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323,
324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC., and u/s 3(1)
(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
Bail bond of the accused No.1
and 2 and their surety stand cancelled.
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C.,
shall be in force still statutory period.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.