Bangalore District Court
Ramesh M vs R Nagaraj on 24 September, 2024
KABC030300632018
Presented on : 27-04-2018
Registered on : 27-04-2018
Decided on : 24-09-2024
Duration : 6 years, 4 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 24th Day of September, 2024
C.C. No.10342/2018
State by Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru. .. Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath Senior APP)
Versus
Sri R.Nagaraj
Aged about 53 years,
S/o Late Sri Rangaiah,
R/at No.278, 2nd Stage,
3rd Block, Nagarabhavi,
Near BDA Complex,
Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri. Ashok Kumar Advocate)
KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018
1. Date of commission of 26-08-2017
offence
2. Name of Complainant Sri Ramsh.M. HC 5367
of Byatarayanapura
Traffic Police Station
3. Offences complained Under Section 353,332,
of 504 of IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused is not found
guilty
6. Date of order 24-09-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Chandra Layout Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 353, 332, 504 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: On 26-08-2017 at about 8.00 p.m. at Nagarabhavi Circle, within the limits of Chandra Layout Police Station, the CW1 Sri Ramesha. M., being police personnel was on duty and 2 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 stopped the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 02 HR 8900 which was ridden by the accused who violated the traffic rules. CW7 Sri Puttaswamy, PSI-8 of Byatarayanapura Traffic Police Station, has tested accused with alcohol meter and confirmed that the accused had drunken and ridden the two-wheeler. At that time, the accused abused CW1 and CW2 in filthiest language, beaten CW1 with helmet on his head, shoulder and torn the uniform of CW2 by holding his collar, pulled him along with uniform torn and removed the lanyard from police uniform and caused injuries to his left middle finger and torn the uniform of CW2 in the public and obstructed to their public duties.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1 Sri Ramesha. M., CW8 Sri R.Shankar, ASI Chandra Layout PS registered a Crime No.422/2017 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 353, 332, 504 of IPC, prepared FIR, sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers and handed over the case papers to CW9 Sri A. S. R. Veerendraprasad.
4. Investigation: On the receipt of case papers, CW9/PW3 conducted spot mahazar on 27-8-2017 in the presence of CW2 to CW4 as per Ex.P2, recorded the statement of witnesses and secured the wound 3 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 certificate of CW1 and CW2. After completion of investigation, CW9/PW3 submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 353, 332, 504 of IPC.
5. On pre-summon stage, the accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 28-08-2017.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, the charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 323, 504 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses, however examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents and MO1 and MO2. The learned counsel for defence got marked the document at Ex.D1 during the cross-
4KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 examination of Despite due execution of PW2.
proclamation, the presence of CW3 to CW5, CW6 to CW8 could not be secured and hence they were dropped from examination by order dated 09-11-2023 and 30-01-024 respectively.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 26-08-2017 at about 8.00 p.m. at Nagarabhavi Circle, within the limits of Chandra Layout PS, CW1 Sri Ramesha.M., being police personnel was on duty and 5 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 stopped the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 02 HR 8900 which was ridden by the accused who has violated the traffic rules, CW7 Sri Puttaswamy, PSI-8 of Byatarayanapura Traffic Police Station, has tested the accused with a alcohol meter and confirmed that the accused had drunken and filed a case against him, at that time accused abused CW1 and CW2 with filthiest language, knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 504 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, place and time, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to public servant CW1 and CW2, had beaten him with helmet on CW1's head and bitten middle finger of CW2 to deter from their duty thereby committed 6 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 the offence punishable U/Sec.332 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused used criminal force to deter the public servant i.e., CW1 and CW2 from discharging their duty thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC?
4. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution 7 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 Sri Ramesh.M., being Informant examined as PW1 deposed that, from 2013 he was working as Head Constable in Byatarayanapura Traffic Police Station. On 26-8-2017, he and CW2 were deputed to register the case on drunk and drive, when they discharging their duty at 8.30 p.m., the accused ridden his vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA 02 HR 8900, they stopped him and found that accused had consumed alcohol when he was tested through the alcohol meter. When a case was registered against him, he abused them and hit CW1 on the head and arm with the helmet, grabbed the collar of CW2's uniform and dragged him and bitten his left hand finger and injured him and obstructed his duty. Later, the accused was taken to the police station and CW1 lodged complaint with Chandra Layout Police Station as per Ex.P1. The police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. The helmet and torn uniform were seized through seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3. He identified his signatures thereon as Ex.P1(a), 2(a) and 3(a), MO1 and 2.
ii. CW2 Sri S.K.Suresh, the then HC of Byatarayanapura Traffic Police Station examined as 8 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 PW2 deposed that on 26-8-2017, he deputed from the control room to register the case on drunk and drive rider at Nagarbavi Circle from 2 PM to 10 PM. At 8 p.m., he received the information from the control room to register the case on drunk and drive rider. CW7 called him with him. Further deposed that on 26-8-2017, when he was on duty with CW1 near Nagarbavi circle, the accused came in the vehicle No. KA 02 HR 8900 and tested with alcohol meter that he had consumed alcohol and informed accused to get the vehicle on next day by producing documents. At that time, the accused started abusing and hit CW1 with Helmet and torn his uniform by holding his collar and bitten his left hand middle finger. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the police station and complained, on the next day the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. He identified the wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and his signatures as per Ex. P2(b), MO1 and MO2.
iii. CW9 Sri S.R.Ravindra Prasad, examined as PW3 deposed that on 27-08-2017, he received case papers from CW8 and on the same day conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW2 to CW4 and seized the white uniform, Red color core and recorded the statements of CW2 to CW4 and CW7. He secured the documents wound certificate and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences.
9KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018
15. It is the case of prosecution that the PW1 and PW2 has been prevented /obstructed by the accused persons from discharging their duties and hence the accused persons committed the offence under section 353 of IPC. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it is appropriate to reiterate the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC of IPC which reads as under:-
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Thus, the above Section makes it very clear that in order to attract the offence it is the duty of the 10 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use of criminal force restraining public servant from performing his official duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty. In order to make out a case under section 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities or with the goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties.
16. To establish as to whether the PW1 has assaulted the complainant or used any criminal force upon him, it is necessary to examine the definition of 'force', 'criminal force' and 'assault', which are defined in Sections 349, 350 and 351 of IPC which are as under:-
Section 349: Force-- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so 11 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described: First.--By his own bodily power. Secondly.--By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly.--By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
A reading of above Section makes it clear that a person is said to use force in any of the three methods mentioned above. The exertion of energy or power that causes a movement or change in the external environment is known as force. The term "force" as defined in this Section refers to force exerted by a person on another human.12
KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 Section 350: Criminal force-- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
From perusal of the above section, it is clear that the force that has been specified in Section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essential of Section 350 are satisfied. The essentials of Section 350 are intentional/deliberate use of force against any one; without consent, when the claimed assault involves illegal conduct and the force has to be utilized in order to conduct an offence or to cause hurt or fear to another person.
Section 351: Assault-- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who 13 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
Section 332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. - Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 14 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC-
(i) Intentionally insulting a person and thereby giving provocation to him;
(ii) The person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
With this background, this court has gone through the record wherein the accused has ridden the two-wheeler bearing KA 02-HR8900 wherein he was detected on 26/08/2017 AT 8.09 PM for drunk and drive and without DL two wheeler and reckless driving of two wheeler however the prosecution has not chosen to mark the said receipt in evidence.
17. The persecution has relied upon Ex.D.1 i.e., station daily diary of Bytaranayapura Traffic Police Station wherein it appears that 15 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 ಈ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಬಿ-ಪಾಳಿ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯವರ ಹಾಜರಾತಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತೆ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪಿಸಿ. 14604 ಪಿಸಿ 14605 ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 8423 7127 ಹೊ ಗುಡ್ಡದಹಳ್ಳಿ, ಕೆ ಎಸ್ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಸಿ, ಬಾ.ನ. ಜಂಕ್ಷನ್, ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 4280, ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 5149, ಪಿಸಿ 14606, ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 5367 ಮೆ.ರ. ರಸ್ತೆ, ದೇವೇಗೌಡ, ಪಿ ಪಾಳ್ಯ ನಾಗಾರಬಾವಿ, ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 7098, ಪಿಸಿ 11224 ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 7407 ಹೆಚ್ 5221 ಆರ್ ಆರ್ ಆರ್ಚ್, ನಾಗರಬಾವಿ-1, ಪಿ ಸಿ 15791, ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 5604, ಪಿ ಸಿ 6797 ಗಾಳಿ ಆಂಚನೇಯ, ಬಾಗರಬಾವಿ-11, ವಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಮಂಜುನಾಥ್-II 31ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ಸುಬ್ಬಣ್ಣ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್ ವಿಜಯನಗರ ರವರು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರಿನ ಸಾರಾಂಶ ವೇನೆಂದರೆ ದಿನಕ್ಕೆ 25-8-17 ರಂದು 8.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಬಸ್ ನಿಲ್ದಾಣದ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಒಬ್ಬ ಬೈಕ್ ಸವಾರ ಕೆ.ಎ 53 ಇ ಎಸ್ 1202 ಅಪಘಾತ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಮಂಜುನಾಥ ಎಂಬುವರಿಗೆ ಪೆಟ್ಟಾಗಿದ್ದು ಅವರು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿ ಹೊಳ ರೋಗಿಯಾಗಿ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸ್ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದು ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆಯ ವೆಚ್ಚವನ್ನು ಬೈಕ್ ಸವಾರರೆ ಭರಿಸಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಪರಸ್ಪರ ರಾಜಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಬರೆದ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರಿಂದ 8 ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿ In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW2 which has been extracted as follows;
ಈಗ ನೋಡಿದ ದಾಖೆಲೆ ಬ್ಯಾಟರಾಯನಪುರ ಸಂಚಾರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಠಾಣೆ ದಿನಚರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ1 ಎಂದು 16 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತ್ತು. ಸದರಿ ಠಾಣೆ ದಿನಚರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಆ ದಿನ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ1 ರವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
and PW1 deposed that
ಠಾಣಾ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ
ಅಹಿತಕರ ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದಾಗ ನಾವು
ಕರ್ತವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿರುವಾಗ ಅದನ್ನು ಠಾಣಾ
ದಿನಚರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಈ ಪ್ರಕಟಣದ ಘಟನೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮ್ಮ
ಠಾಣೆಯ ದಿನಚರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು
ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು
ಚಂದ್ರಲೇಔಟ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ.
Thus, it is clear that there is no mention about the alleged incident dated 26/08/2017 at 08.30 pm in the station house diary that the accused has beaten the PW1 and PW2 and caused obstruction to the public duties and hence the PW1 lodged a complaint. There is no single material placed on record that the PW1 and PW2 were discharging the duties on 26/08/2017 at 8.30 pm to corroborate the version that they were discharging their duties at the time of alleged incident as the Ex.D.1 lacs the substance of duty timings. When there is no material placed on record that PW1 and PW2 were discharging his public/official duty and this court cannot come to a conclusion that they were discharging the public 17 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 duties and due to the acts of accused, they were deterred to perform their official duties as a public/government servant and the said principle is appreciated in the case of HARENDRAJEET SINGH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH POLICE STATION AJAAK, DISTRICT JABALPUR reported ON THE 11TH OF APRIL, 2023 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5697 OF 2019.
18. There is no single whisper in the prosecution case about the timings of PW1 and PW2 for having deputed for registration of case with regard to drunk and drive case.
19. In addition to which, it is the case of prosecution that the accused had hit the PW1 and PW2 after they raised the receipt for payment of fine for drunken and driven case and negligent driving of two wheeler however the PW3 deposed that ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 5-10 ನಿಮಿಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರಬಹುದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಚಾಸಾ8 ರವರಿಂದ ಕಡತ ಪಡೆದು ನಂತರ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮದ್ಯಪಾನ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವ್ಯದ್ಯರ ಬಳಿ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has not produced any medical records or reading of alcohol test that the accused was drunken to corroborate the version of prosecution case that he was drunken and 18 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 was in a state of mind to beat the PW1 and PW2. The percentage of alcohol was much necessary to come to a conclusion whether he could have beaten the PW1 and PW2 when they asked him to pay the penalty.
20. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW1 and PW2 about the presence of public at the time of incident which has been reiterated as under
ಸದರಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು 150 ಜನ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರು ಇದ್ದರು.ಆ ದಿನ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಬೈಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದೆವು.
ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳದಿಂದ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು 5 ರಿಂದ 10 ನಿಮಿಷ ಸಾಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
PW2 deposed that ಆರೋಪಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ 5 - 6 ಜನ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರು ಸೇರಿದ್ದರು. ನಾವು ಅಥವಾ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, there is a total contradiction as to the number of presence of the public at the time of incident as PW1 deposes that there were 150 people and PW2 deposes that there were 5 to 6 people. When the public were surrounded how the public could 19 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 have remain in silent in watching the PW1 and PW2 being beaten by the accused.
21. Added to which, PW2 deposed that ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಂದ್ರಲೇಔಟ್ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆವು. ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ1, ಚಾಲಕ ಹಾಗೂ ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ ವಾಹನದ ಹೆಚ್ಸಿ ಇದ್ದೆವು. xxxxx ಚಾಸಾ1 ರವರು ನನ್ನ ಒಟ್ಟೆಗೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರಿಗೆ ಬಂದಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. however PW1 deposed in his cross examination ಆ ದಿನ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಬೈಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದೆವು. ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳಿಂದ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು 5 ರಿಂದ 10 ನಿಮಿಷ ಸಾಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದೂರು ನೀಡುವ ಪೂರ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ಎಳ್ಳು ಹೋಗಿಲ್ಲ.
and PW2 deposed that ನಾನು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಪಡೆಯುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ನಾಗರಾಜು ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವೈದ್ಯರ ಮುಂದೆ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
This aspect raises the doubt in the mind of this court about the incident had taken place. If the PW1 did not go along with the PW2 to the hospital then, 20 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 how the treatment could have rendered to them on 26/08/2017 at the same time at 9 pm by Dr. Shreedhar KC, Gurushree Hi-tech Multiplicity Hospital, Chandralayout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore -
40. Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 5 wound certificate of PW1 and PW2 depicts that they have taken treatment with the history of assault but the name of accused were not informed/ mentioned in the Ex. P. 4 and 5 which is mandatory as per police manual.
22. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that:
ಆರೋಪಿ ಎಂ. ಓ 1 ಹೆಲ್ಮಟ್ ನಿಂದ ನಮಗೆ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ಹೆಲ್ಮಟ್ ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಾನಿಯಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಇರುವ ಹೆಲ್ಮಟ್ ಗೆ ಮುಂಭಾಗದ ಗಾಜು ಒಡೆದು ಹೋಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಹೆಲ್ಮೆಟ್ ಹೊಸ ಹೆಲ್ಮೆಟ್ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, it is clear that MO1 is not one used for using such beating the PW1 and PW2 as the MO1 's glass produced before this court was broken and hence PW3 did not give any clarification/explanation as to the change of production of MO1 before this court. This aspect too raises the doubt in the mind of this court.
23. MO2, uniform was produced in this court however the PW3 did not obtain the permission from 21 KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 his Superior officer for seizure of MO2 and there is bereft of information to come to a conclusion that the new uniform was replaced with.
24. The best evidence to this case was CCTV. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the PW2 and PW3 wherein they deposed as under
ನಾಗರಭಾವಿ ವೃತ್ತದಲ್ಲಿ ಶಾಪಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ದೊಡ್ಡ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳು ಇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ವೃತ್ತದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವು ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ರಸ್ತೆಗಳು ಇರುವ ಕಾರಣ ವಾಹನಗಳ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ದಟ್ಟಣೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ವೃತ್ತದಲ್ಲಿ ಎರಡು ಹೈ ಮಾಸ್ಟ್ ಹಾಗೂ ೪ ಸಿ ಸಿ ಟಿ ವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾಗಳನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸ್ಸಿದ್ದರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ಸಿ ಸಿ ಟಿ ವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಪೋಲನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಒಂದು ಕಿ. ಮೀ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಕವರ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹಲವು ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳು ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ 100-150 ಅಡಿ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಕವರ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡುಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಕಟ್ಟಡ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ ಒಂದು ಕಿ. ಮೀ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯ ತನಕ ಸದರಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಕವರ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.22
KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 PW3 deposed that ನಾಗರಭಾವಿ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ೪- ೫ ಮಾರ್ಗಗಳಿಂದ ಬಂದು ಸೇರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ವೃತ್ತದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಸಿ ಸಿ ಟಿ ವಿ ಮಾಸ್ಕ್ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ ಪೋಲ್ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಉತರಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. xxxxx ಸದರಿ ಹೋಟೆಲ್, ಅಂಗಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಲುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದ್ದ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಪೂಟೇಜನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Though there were CCTV cameras at the spot could have made use of for proving the alleged incident if such incident was taken place rather PW3 did not even ascertain whether there was a cctv at the spot despite there was availability of CCTV footage at the spot as per his own version rather given vague reply was not available at that time when PW2 deposed it was very much available. These aspects raises the doubt in the mind of this court.
25. PW3 deposed that "xxxx ಸದರಿ ಹೋಟೆಲ್, ಅಂಗಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಲುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಚಾಸಾ 3 ರಿಂದ 6 ರವರು ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ನಿವಾಸಿಗಳಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ".
23KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 The best witnesses would be immediate neighbours to depose about the incident however the PW3 did not make any attempt to examine about the presence of shopkeepers at the alleged incident of place, no credibility, can be given to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as there is a total contradiction as to the alleged offences and after the commission of offences. Thus, the benefit of which has to go to the accused.
26. In view of the above discussion, the court of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had committed alleged offences and hence, the charges against the accused has not been proved thereby this court answer the above point No.1 to 3 in the negative.
27. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 3 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.332, 353, 504 of IPC.24
KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 and 2 are ordered to be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of September, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Ramesh
PW2 : Sri S.K.Suresh
PW3 : Sri S.R.Ravindra Prasad
25
KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1: Helmet
MO2: Uniform
Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : ಬ್ಯಾಟರಾಯನಪುರ ಸಂಚಾರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಠಾಣಾ ದಿನಚರಿ VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.26
KABC030300632018 CC No.10342/2018 24-9-2024 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.332, 353, 504 of IPC.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 and 2 are ordered to be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
27