Bangalore District Court
State By Gangammagudi Police vs For The Offences Punishable Under ... on 12 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th day of April 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.931/2015
Date of Offence : 3-4-2014
Name of complainant : State by Gangammagudi Police
Station, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : Kundan Singh s/o Y.P.Singh,
aged 28 years,
r/o No.2, 2nd cross,
Akkamma Block, Dinnur road,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru 32.
Offences complained off: U/s.171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P.
Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 12-4-2018.
2 C.C.No.931/2015
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gangammagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, C.Ws.1, 4 to 6 were deputed for election duty in Bengaluru North Lok Sabha election, at that time on 3-4-2014 at about 1-30 p.m. the accused took Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-AA-1155 without any permission engaged in campaign on behalf of AAP party in front of Infant Foot ware of Kammagondanahalli, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru by violating conduct rules. Under such circumstances, a case has been registered by the Gangammagudi Police against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act in Crime No.75/2014. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3 C.C.No.931/2015
3. After appearance of the accused, necessary documents as relied by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 7 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, C.Ws.6, 1, 4, 5 and 7 have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of summons and warrants. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused.
4 C.C.No.931/2015
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act?
2. What order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that C.Ws.1, 4 to 6 were deputed for election duty in Bengaluru North Lok Sabha election, at that time on 3-4-2014 at about 1-30 p.m. the accused took Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-AA-1155 without any permission engaged in campaign on behalf of AAP party in front of Infant Foot ware of Kammagondanahalli, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru by violating conduct rules and thereby the 5 C.C.No.931/2015 accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act, C.W.6 is examined as P.W.1 who has deposed that he was appointed as a member of MCC Squad along with C.Ws.1 to 5 for the Lok Sabha election of 2004 in Dasarahalli Legislative Assembly. It is further deposed that on 3-4-2014 at about 1 p.m. the accused was canvassing on behalf of Aam Admi Party by using Tata Sumo vehicle without any permission. Therefore, they have seized the same along with driver. Though P.W.1 was not cross-examined, his evidence is only pertains to seizure of vehicle. Hence, his evidence is not much important to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, P.W.1 has not whispered anything about identification of the accused whether who was the driver of the said vehicle. Therefore, his evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 6 C.C.No.931/2015
10. C.W.1 is examined as P.W.2 who has deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.1 with regard to raid as well as seizure of vehicle and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, entire burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed the alleged offences.
11. To test the veracity of P.W.2, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in brief, in which P.W.2 has deposed in page No.2 to the following effect:
I have not seized any documents or banners displayed on the alleged vehicle to the effect that it was used for canvassing in the election. In the said vehicle the driver alone was present.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above is not at all sufficient to prove that the accused has violated the election rules and used the said vehicle illegally. Hence, his evidence is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.7 C.C.No.931/2015
12. C.W.4 is examined as P.W.3 who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.1 In cross-examination P.W.3 has deposed to the following effect:
I have not seized any banners or election materials along with vehicle. Witness voluntaries that they have seized vehicle and handed over to police.
The evidence of P.W.3 as above is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences.
13. C.W.5 is examined as P.W.4 who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.3. In cross-examination P.W.4 has deposed to the following effect:
It is true to suggest that, my name is not shown in Ex.P3 i.e., official memorandum, but, I was in video surveillance. We might out given video recording CD to the police.
The categorical admission of P.W.4 is that they have not found any such materials in the possession of the 8 C.C.No.931/2015 accused at the time of raid, is not sufficient to prove the alleged offences.
14. C.W.7 is examined as P.W.5 who is an Investigating Officer who has deposed according to the official duty discharged by him. In order to disprove the case of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the accused has cross- examined P.W.5 in brief, in which P.W.5 has deposed to the following effect:
I have not seized the articles which were alleged to the be used for election campaign. I have not seized any identity card from the possession of the accused issued by AAP.
15. The unequivocal admission of P.W.5 is not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused for violation of election conduct rules as well as offences alleged against him. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act. Hence, it is held that the accused 9 C.C.No.931/2015 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged offences. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
16. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused and his surety stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of April 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Doddaiah,
P.W.2, Ramachandramurthy S.N,
P.W.3, Ravi N.K,
w
10 C.C.No.931/2015
P.W.4, Nagabhushan,
P.W.5, Janardhan Rao;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Report, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P2, Spot mahazar, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P2(b), Signature of P.W.5, Ex.P3, Official memorandum, Ex.P4, FIR, Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.5, Material Objects Produced:- NIL
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL.
List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:-NIL (V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.11 C.C.No.931/2015
12/4/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) of IPC and 133 of R.P. Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused and his surety stand cancelled.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Bengaluru.12 C.C.No.931/2015 13 C.C.No.931/2015