Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Yelahanka New Town Police ... vs Venkatesh on 21 September, 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
             MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU

             Dated: This the 21st day of SEPTEMBER 2016

                          :Present:
                  Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
                    44th ACMM, Bengaluru

                       C.C.No.5209/2013

Complainant        :    State by Yelahanka New Town Police station

                                   (By Asst.Public Prosecutor)
                              -V/s-
Accused                : Venkatesh,
                         S/o Munikrishnappa,
                         Aged about 25 years,
                         R/at Kogilu Layout,
                         Yelahanka Old Town,
                         Bengaluru.

                            (By Sri. T.P. Mohare, advocate )

                         JUDGMENT

The PSI of Yelahanka New Town Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.506, 354 and 509 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

It is alleged that, C.W. 4 Kumari Deepika a student of 5th semester BBM, at Sheshadripuram college, within the limits of 2 C.C.No.5209/2013 Yelahanka New Town Police Station, accused used to follow her near the college, used to make sign from his eye, used to call her to join him here and there, unnecessarily used to call and message C.W. 4 from his mobile No.9844738292, harassed her, tried to outrage her modesty in the general public, when C.W. 4 after finishing college along with her friends C.W. 5 and 6 was proceeding towards her house, accused followed her, asked the whereabout of her sister, gave threat to her life stating that if she did not tell about her, he will going to kill her family members. Therefore, C.W.1 has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3. The accused is on bail and he is represented through his counsel.

4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance 3 C.C.No.5209/2013 of the offences punishable U/sec. 506, 354 and 509 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.

5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined the C.W. 1 and 4 of this case as P.W. 1 and 2 and got marked four documents at Ex.P1 to P.4. At this stage, it is brought to court notice that the complainant and accused have compromised the matter among themselves, as such, complainant is not intending to prosecute this case against accused. Therefore, in order to promote harmonious relationship among themselves evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required by rejecting the prayer of learned A.P.P. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of accused statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.

7. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.

8. The following points would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, C.W. 4 Kumari Deepika a student of 5th semester BBM, at Sheshadripuram college, within the limits of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, accused used to follow her near the college, used to make sign from his eye, used to call her to join him here and there, unnecessarily he used to call and message C.W. 4 from his mobile No.9844738292, harassed her and tried to outrage her modesty in the general public and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s.354 and 509 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, when C.W. 4 after finishing college was proceeding towards her house along with her friends C.W. 5 and 6, accused followed her, asked the whereabout of her sister, gave threat to her life stating that if she did not tell about her, he will going to kill her family members and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC?

3. What Order?

9.My findings on the above points are as follows:

         Point No.1 :      IN THE NEGATIVE

         Point No.2 :      IN THE NEGATIVE
                                     5                 C.C.No.5209/2013

Point No.3: As per final order for the following REASONS

10.Points No.1 and 2: Both these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.

11. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 07 witnesses and successful in examining only two witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 and 4. This case has been registered on the back ground of threat given to the life of C.W. 4 with dire consequences and accused tried to outrage the modesty of C.W. 4 in the general public. In this connection the complainant Sri. Shivaraju is examined as P.W.1. During the course of trial, P.W.1 has completely turned hostile, has not deposed anything against the accused. So also, P.W. 2, not supported the case of prosecution and nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses. Later, it is brought to the court notice that, C.W. 1 and 4 are the father-in-law and sister-in-law of accused and have compromised the matter among themselves as the wife of accused is the daughter of C.W. 1. Hence, in order to promote harmonious 6 C.C.No.5209/2013 relationship among the complainant and accused, the evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.

12.Point No.3: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 506, 354, 509 of IPC.

The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of September 2016).

(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.

ANNEXURE

1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Shivaraj P.W. 2: Smt. Deepika

2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P. 2 : Statement of P.W. 1 Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W. 2 Ex.P.4 : Statement of P.W.2

3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL

4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.

Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-

ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 506, 354, 509 of IPC.

The bail & bail bond of the accused and surety shall stands cancelled.

(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.