Bangalore District Court
Girinagara P.S vs Anil Kumar Anil on 6 April, 2024
1
S.C.NO.109/2016
KABC010021502016
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56)
: Present :
SRI. SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE,
B.A, LL.M.
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
S.C.No.109/ 2016
DATED: THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2024
COMPLAINANT THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
GIRINAGARA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
(BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
Versus
ACCUSED ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 295, 1ST 'B' CROSS,
3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BENGALURU.
(Party-in-person)
2
S.C.NO.109/2016
1. Date of commission of 27.09.2015
Offence
2. Date of report of 27.09.2015
Occurrence
3. Date of commencement 25.10.2017
of evidence
4. Date of closing of 07.03.2023
Evidence
5. Name of the complainant Sri.H.N.Raghavendra
6. Offence complained of U/Ss.341, 504, 353, 333 of IPC
7. Date of arrest 27.09.2015
8. Date of release 05.10.2015
9. Opinion of the Judge Offences are not proved
10. Duration: (from date of Years months days
commission of offence) 08 06 09
11. Order of sentence Accused is acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of police, Girinagar Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Ss.504, 341, 353, 333 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 27.09.2015 between 10-20 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Girinagar Police Station, at Banashankari III Stage, II Phase, in the junction of 1 st 'E' Cross and Vidyanagar Main Road, when CW 1 Raghavendra H.N. - PC-11673 was going on his two 3 S.C.NO.109/2016 wheeler suddenly one child came across the road. CW 1 stopped his motor-cycle. During that time, the father of the child who is accused picked up a quarrel with CW 1 and abused him in a filthy language and assaulted him on his nose with his hands and caused grievous injuries and also restrained CW 1 from doing his official duty and thereby committed the offence. Immediately Cw 1 was admitted to Pulse Hospital. On the information of the doctor the Station House Officer went to the hospital and recorded the statement of complainant and came to the police station and registered a case in Cr.No.280/2015 and sent the FIR to the court and then recorded the statement of eye witnesses and went to the spot, drew spot mahazar and appointed his staff to search the accused and then handed over the case file to police Inspector for investigation. Then the Police Inspector completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. After receipt of the charge sheet, the learned 24th ACMM, Bengaluru took cognizance of the offence and 4 S.C.NO.109/2016 registered a case in C.C.No.30223/2015 and secured the presence of the accused. Then all the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as required u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence punishable u/S. 333 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned 24th ACMM, Bengaluru by an order dated 19.01.2016 has committed this case to Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Then this case was registered in S.C.No.109/2016 and made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
4. After receipt of the entire records, the accused was secured and arguments were heard before framing charge and charge were framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Then the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PW 1 to 11 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to P6 and 1 material object as MO 1. Then the statement of the accused was recorded u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable him 5 S.C.NO.109/2016 to answer the incriminating materials available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials and submitted his written statement.
6. In his written statement, the accused has stated that on 27.09.2015 i.e. Sunday, he along with his son Amogh who was aged about 5 years were returning from the park and waiting to cross the road at Vidyanagar Main Road and 'E' cross junction, at about 10-00 a.m. and suddenly CW 1 came from north side of the road towards junction and lost control over his bike and while trying to negotiate the left turn he hit the front wheel to the bicycle of his son. Due to this accident, his son fell down along with his bicycle and the complainant has also fell down nearby Autorikshaw stand. When the complainant was questioned about his reckless driving CW 1 got agitated and man-handled this accused along with nearby auto drivers. The general public noticed commotion and rescued this accused and his son from the auto drivers and CW 1. Then he went to the police station to file the complaint. But the police have not 6 S.C.NO.109/2016 taken his complaint and illegally detained him in the police station till 5-30 p.m. Then he was arrested and was taken to Victoria Hospital and then produced him before the court. He never used foul language against CW 1. He never assaulted CW1 on his nose or any part of the body. He has not seen any identity card with PW1. CW 2 was not with CW 1. CW 4, 5 and 7 were also not in the spot. He did not commit any offence. Then he choose to lead defence evidence. Then the case was posted for defence evidence.
7. In order to prove his defence accused himself is examined as PW 1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.D1 to D9. His wife is also examined as DW 2. Then the case was posted for arguments.
8. Heard arguments, perused the records.
9. Now the points for determination are as follows.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 27.09.2015 between 10-20 and 10-30 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Girinagar Police Station at Banashankari III Stage, II Phase, in the junction of 1st 'E' cross and Vidyanagar Main road, when CW 1 and CW 2 were going on their motorcycle a child came across the road and relating to this matter the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant and picked up quarrel with him and thereby 7 S.C.NO.109/2016 committed an offence punishable u/S. 341 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, this accused picked up quarrel with CW 1 and abused him in a filthy language and provoked him to commit breach of public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S. 504 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, this accused picked up quarrel with CW 1 and assaulted on his head, nose and neck by his hands and caused bodily pain and obstructed for his official duty and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S. 353 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, this accused picked up quarrel with CW 1 and assaulted on his nose by his fist and caused grievous injuries and thereby obstructed for his public duty and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S. 333 of IPC?
5. What order?
10. On the basis of the materials available on record, 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 : As per final order, for the following.
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1 to 4: To avoid repetition in the
8
S.C.NO.109/2016
discussion all these points are taken together, at a time.
12. I have gone through the entire materials available on record. Teh case of the prosecution is that this accused wrongfully restrained the complainant and abused him in a filthy language and assaulted on his head neck and neck by his hands and obstructed for his official duty and thereby committed the offence.
13. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is that on 27.09.2015 at about 10-00 a.m. himself and his son were waiting by the side of the road to cross the same and during that time, the complainant came on his motor-cycle and lost control over it and hit the front wheel to the bicycle of his son. When CW 1 was questioned about his reckless riding, the complainant and autorikshaw driver assaulted him and by sensing that he will file a complaint before the police, the complainant filed a false case by creating the evidence.
14. It is well established principle of law that the 9 S.C.NO.109/2016 prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is relying upon the oral evidence of PW 1 to 11 and the documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to P6 and material object which is marked as MO 1.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION.
15. PW 1 H.N. Raghavendra, the complainant and the injured deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015 at about 10-20 to 10-30 a.m. himself and CW2 were going in their motor cycle to search the accused in Cr.No.272/2015. When they were going near the junction of Vidyanagar Main road, and 1 st 'E' cross, one child came on the middle of the road by riding the bicycle. He suddenly applied the brake and stopped the motorcycle. During that time this accused who is the father of the child abused him in a filthy language slapped on his cheek by his hands and when the Identity card is shown to him he again continued his abuse and assaulted on his nose by his fist and caused bleeding injury. Immediately he was shifted to Pulse Hospital and after scanning it is 10 S.C.NO.109/2016 found that nasal bone is fractured. Then he took treatment in the private hospitals. He filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. On the next day he was present at the time of spot mahazar. He identified his shirt which is marked as MO 1.
16. In his cross examination, this witness has stated that he is working in the computer section of the police station. He has stated that on the date of incident up to 1-00 'O' clock he was in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that he was riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and fell down near Autorikshaw stand. He has stated that on the date of incident, he had not applied for leave. According to him he has taken treatment in 3 - 4 hospitals. He has admitted that he had not been to the Government hospital.
17. PW 2 Madhusudhan, police constable who accompanied the complainant deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015 himself and CW 1 were going in their motor-cycle to search the accused in Cr.No.272/2015. 11
S.C.NO.109/2016 When they were going in front of Nanjundeshwara stores, a child came on the middle of the road by riding cycle. The complainant stopped his bike. During that time, father of the child picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused him in a filthy language and assaulted on his nose by his hands and caused bleeding injuries and then water was given to the injured and then the injured was admitted to Pulse Hospital for treatment. He has stated that there were blood stains in the shirt of the complainant. In his cross examination, he has admitted that there are no blood stains in MO 1 shirt.
18. PW 3 - Adinarayana, an eye witness to the incident, has deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015 at about 10-30 a.m. he was standing near the shop by the side of the Autorikshaw stand. During that time, there was a quarrel between 3 persons. Among them, one person was in the police uniform. The accused before the court assaulted the person who was not on uniform and due to this assault that person fell down on the ground. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he is an 12 S.C.NO.109/2016 accused in Cr.No.194/2015 of Girinagara Police Statio , which is filed for the offences punishable u/Ss. 366A, 3 3 of IPC. According to him the child came across the mo or cycle was a girl child.
19. PW 4 - Ranjit S/o Lavakumar is another eye witness to the incident. He deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015, in Hosakerehalli cross near Autostand, he had parked his auto. At about 10-30 a.m. CW 1 and 2 were going on a motorcycle and at that time, one child came across the road. Then CW 1 and 2 stopped their bike. During that time, this accused abused CW 1 in a filthy language and assaulted on his nose by his fist. Then CW 1 fell down on the ground. Water was given to him and then CW 1 was admitted to the hospital. In his cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that he is an accused in Cr.No.135/2014 of Girinagara Police Station. According to him CW 1 and 2 were going in one motorcycle. CW 1 was riding the bike and CW 2 was a pillion rider.
13
S.C.NO.109/2016
20. PW 5 - Prakash c. is an another eyewitness of this incident. He deposed before this court that about 3 years back near Hosakerehalli cross he had parked his auto in an auto-stand at about 10-30 a.m. CW 1 and 2 came on a motor cycle. During that time one child came across the bike. The acused before the court picked up quarrel with CW 1 and abused him in a filthy language and assaulted on his nose by his hands and caused bleeding injury. Due to this assault CW 1 fell down on the ground. In his cross examination he has stated that the police in uniform was a pillion rider and CW 1 was riding the motorcycle.
21. PW 6 - Dr. Suresh, who treated the injured deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015 when he was in the hospital at about 10-50 a.m. injured by name Raghavendra was brought to the hospital by PC-12869 of Girinagar Police Station on the history of assault by anil Kumar at about 10-30 a.m. and on clinical examination of the injured, he found tender swelling on the nose with active bleeding. After X-ray it showed fracture of nasal 14 S.C.NO.109/2016 bose. He has stated that he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. In the cross examination he has stated that the injured was not admitted to the hospital and he was given treatment as an outpatient and he was discharged after 15 minutes. He has stated that he do not remember whether fracture was horizontal or vertical. He has admitted that the the injury mentioned in Ex.P4 may cause if a person met with an accident.
22. PW 7 - Rajendra, a witness for Ex.P2 spot mahazar has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. According to him he do not know anything about this mahazar.
23. PW8 - Dr.Guruprasad deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015 CW 1 Raghavendra had come to the hospital for treatment. He wrote Ex.P1 complaint in his presence. PW 9 - Subramani K. PSI deposed before this court that on 27.09.2015 CW 1 and 2 were appointed to search the accused. At about 11 ot 11-30 a.m. he received a message that CW 1 is admitted in the hospital. Hence, he went to the hospital and received 15 S.C.NO.109/2016 the Ex.P1 complaint and came to the police station and registered a case and sent the FIR to the court. On the next day morning he went to the spot and drew the spot mahazar and then obtained wound certificate from the doctor. Then he handed over the case filed to CW 18 for further investigation. In his cross examination he has stated that at about 11-30 a.m. Ex.P1 complaint is written by CW 1. Further he has stated that in the spot, there were no blood stains.
24. PW 10 - Anekantha M. Bilagi, Police Constable deposed that on 27.09.2015 he was appointed to search this accused. According to him, he went to the house of the accused and brought him to the police station and produced him before the Investigating Officer and gave report as per Ex.P15. PW 11- Shivashankar H.J. the then Police Inspector deposed that on 03.10.2015 he received the case file and after completing his investigation he submitted a charge sheet before the court. This is the evidence given by the prosecution.
16
S.C.NO.109/2016
25. On the other hand, in his oral evidence, before the court, the accused has stated that on 27.09.2015 himself and his son had been to a nearby park and when they were returning to their house they were waiting to cross the road. At that time, CW 1 came on his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his bike to the cycle of his son. When CW 1 was questioned about his rash and negligent driving himself and Auto drivers manhandled him. Then the neighbours came and pacified the quarrel. Then he left the child with his wife and went to the police station. In the police station, the police have not received his complaint. His mobile was snatched by the police and he was asked to sit in a corner of a room. Then his wife and child came to the police station. Even then the police have not taken his complaint. Instead the police have registered a false complaint. Then his child was treated in a Bowring hospital. He has produced wound certificate at Ex.D1 and OPD chit at Ex.D2. He has produced weather report, newspaper article, Google map, photographs to proof that on the at of incident, there was heavy rain in the 17 S.C.NO.109/2016 night and there is no chance of blood stains on the spot during the time of spot mahazar. In his cross examination he has denied the suggestion put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor.
26. DW 2 - Smt.Babitha, the wife of the accused has supported his evidence by stating that she had been to the police station to file complaint relating to accident, but the police had not taken their complaint and instead false case is registered against her husband. In her cross examination she has stated that herself and her husband are running Software company. Further she has denied the suggestions put to her by the learned Public Prosecutor.
27. In this case, even though the complaint is registered at 12-00 noon the FIR reached the Magistrate at about 8-15 p.m. in the night. This much of delay in submitting the FIR to the Magistrate is not explained by the prosecution. According to the complainant, Ex.P1 complaint is not written by him. He has stated that, it is 18 S.C.NO.109/2016 written by his colleague. But the investigation officer and the doctor who is examined as PW 8 is stating that the complainant himself has written the complaint. According to Dr.Suresh, who is examined as PW 6, the complainant was discharged from the hospital within 15 minutes. He was treated as outpatient. But, according to the complainant he was in the hospital till 1-00 p.m. Under such circumstances, a doubt arises relating to registration of the complainant at 12-00 noon. This complaint might have been registered after 5 - 6 p.m. Because it reached the Magistrate at about 8-15 p.m.. Reasons for this much of delay in registration of the case and submission of FIR to the court is not explained by the prosecution.
28. According to the complainant, there was no accident. He stopped his motorcycle before it touches the cycle of the child of the accused. But according to the accused, there was an accident. As per Ex.D1 wound certificate, the child of the accused sustained injuries. This itself creates doubt relating to the injuries sustained 19 S.C.NO.109/2016 by the complainant. The complainant has stated that he had sustained fracture injury. According to him when scanning was done in the Pulse Hospital, he came to know that there was a fracture in his nose. That scanning report is not produced before the court. Dr. Suresh is stating that from X-ray report it was found that nasal bone of the complainant was fractured. That X-ray report is not produced before the court. PW 1 is not an illiterate rustic villager. He has stated that he took further treatment in a private hospital. Which is that hospital is not stated by him. In his cross examination he has stated that he took treatment in 3 - 4 hospitals. Suppression of those hospitals itself creates doubt relating to injury sustained by the complainant. According to the complainant Dr.Suresh and Dr. Guruprasad both treated him. But, according to Dr.Guruprasad he has not given any treatment. He was just present at the time of writing a complaint. According to the prosecution there was a blood stains in the spot itself. The accused has produced sufficient materials before the court to show that on the date of incident, 20 S.C.NO.109/2016 during night hours there was a heavy rain in Bengaluru and there is no chance of blood stains in the spot. Apart from that even though in the spot mahazar it is mentioned that there was a blood stains, the Investigating Officer who is examined as PW 9 stated before the court that there was no blood stains in the spot. Hence, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries sustained by PW 1.
29. PW 2 is an eye witness to the incident. According to him he followed PW 1 in his motorcycle from behind. He has stated that since the accused assaulted the complainant, the complainant sustained bleeding injury and sat on the ground. He was given water. His shirt was blood stained. But this statement is not supported by the evidence of the complainant. The complainant no where stated that due to assault he fell down on the ground and then he was given water. Apart from that in his cross examination PW 2 has admitted that there is no blood stains on the shirt of the complainant which is marked as MO 1. Such being the case, the presence of 21 S.C.NO.109/2016 PW 2 in the spot itself doubtful.
30. Admittedly, PW 3 - Adinarayana, is an accused in kidnapping case. He has also stated that when the complainant was assaulted by the accused the complainant fell on the ground. He has stated that the child of the accused is a girl child. Since he is an accused in a criminal case and his evidence is contrary to the evidence of the complainant, his evidence is also not reliable. He has supported the case of prosecution for the reasons best known to him.
31. PW 4 - Ranjith S/o Lavakumar is an accused in S.C.No.88/2015, which is registered relating to in Cr.No.135/2014. In that case this witness is convicted by the court. But, before this court, this witness is stating that he is not that Ranjith s/o Lavakumar. Hence, his evidence is also not reliable.
32. PW 5 - Prakash C. deposed before this court that CW 1 and 2 came on a motorcycle and the complainant 22 S.C.NO.109/2016 was riding the bike and CW 2 was a pillion rider. But, the case of the prosecution is totally different. According to the prosecution, both of them were going in different motorcycle. Under such circumstance, the evidence of this PW 5 is also not reliable. The evidence of doctor is not sufficient to prove the injury. Under such circumstances, the defence of the accused is also probable. The accused had submitted his detailed arguments in writing. He has stated as follows.
"It is improbable to assume that PW-01 had no reaction to the initial abuse and slapping and allowed himself to be punched right in the face.
It's also noteworthy that the other policeman accompanying PW-01 remained a mute spectator......."
33. Hence, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, a doubt arises relating to the guilt of the accused. As per our criminology, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Hence, by giving benefit of doubt the aforesaid points are answered in the NEGATIVE.
34. POINT NO.5: For the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, I have come to the conclusion that 23 S.C.NO.109/2016 the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is already stated that theres is a doubt about the injury on the body of the complainant. Such being the case, there is no question of passing any order relating to victim's compensation. Since the allegations are not proved, this accused is entitle for an order of acquittal. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER Acting under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Ss.341, 504, 353, 333 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety bond will be in force for a period of 6 months.
MO 1 being worthless, be destroyed after appeal period is over.
[Dictated to the SG-I, transcribed by him, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this the 6th day of APRIL 2024] (SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE) LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-56), BANGALORE.
24
S.C.NO.109/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW1 Raghavendra PW2 Madhusudan PW3 Adhinarayana PW4 Ranjit PW5 Prakash PW6 Dr.suresh v. PW7 Rajendra PW8 Dr. Guruprasad PW9 Subramani K. PW10 Anekantha M. Bilagi PW11 Shivashankar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2&3 Spot Mahazar and Seizure Mahazar Ex.P4 Wound Certificate Ex.P5 Report of CW 5 Ex.P6 Station diary
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
MO 1 Shirt LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
DW1 Anil Kumar
DW2 Babitha
25
S.C.NO.109/2016
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 Wound Certificate
Ex.D2&3 OPD Slip and Weather Rreport
Ex.D4 RTI Report
Ex.D5 Newspaper article
Ex.D6 Google Map
Ex.D7 8 Photographs
Ex.D8 C.D.
Ex.D9 65-B Certificate
(SHRIRAM NARAYAN HEGDE)
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-56), BANGALORE.
SHRIRAM Digitally
SHRIRAM
signed by
NARAYAN NARAYAN HEGDE
Date: 2024.04.08
HEGDE 12:38:01 +0530