Bangalore District Court
And Accused Are Carrying On The Same ... vs Is Entitled For Acquittal For The ... on 27 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 27th day of June 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.24899/2015
Date of Offence : 13-4-2015
Name of complainant : State by Gangammagudi Police
Station, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : Smt.Jalaja w/o Mohan,
aged 45 years,
Prop. Ganga Book Stores,
Githappa Building, Gangamma
Circle, Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru.
Offences complained off: U/s.323, 503, 504, 506 and 477
of IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 27-6-2018.
2 C.C.No.24899/2015
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Gangammagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 13-4-2015 at about 11-40 a.m. when C.W.1 was in his shop, the accused trespassed into the shop of C.W.1 and abused him in filthy language and picked up quarrel with C.W.3 and assaulted him with hands and voluntarily caused hurt to him and also threatened C.W.1 with dire consequences of life. Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed a private complaint against the accused an same was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Gangammagudi Police have registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC in Crime No.99/2015. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has 3 C.C.No.24899/2015 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
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 6 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, C.Ws.1, 6, 3, 4 and 5 have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and identified M.O.1. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of 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 4 C.C.No.24899/2015 on her behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused.
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 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC ?
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 on 13-4-2015 at about 11-40 a.m. when C.W.1 was in his shop, the accused trespassed into the shop of C.W.1 and abused him in filthy language and picked up quarrel with C.W.3 and assaulted him with hands and voluntarily caused hurt to him and also threatened C.W.1 with dire 5 C.C.No.24899/2015 consequences of life and thereby the accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC, C.W.1 is examined as P.W.1. In the course of chief-examination P.W.1 has reiterated the allegations made in the course of complaint. In chief-examination itself P.W.1 has deposed in page No.2 to the following effect:
£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¤«ÄvÀÛ ºÉÆgÀUq À É ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀzjÀ vÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ ¹§âA¢ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzjÀ ¨ÉÄÁÃqÀð£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ QvÀÄÛºÁQgÀÄvÉÃÛªÉ ºÁUÀÆCªÀgÀ ªÁå¥ÁgÀz° À è £ÁªÀÅ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛªÉAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÉÇgÀPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-3 EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ EnÖzÀÝ J¯Áè ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ §PÉÃlÄ ºÁUÀÆ UÁè¸ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MqÉzÀÄ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.6 C.C.No.24899/2015
The evidence of P.W.1 as above further clarifies that at the time of alleged incident P.W.1 was not present at the spot. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the alleged incident. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that in the said incident the accused abused him in filthy language and assaulted C.W.3 with broom stick and destroyed the items like bucket and broken glasses. The evidence of P.W.1 establishes that his brother C.W.4 has informed him about the incident. Therefore, he has filed the complaint before the police which was not registered by the police. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that his contentions are only a hear say and he has filed the private complaint only on the instruction given by his brother. Moreover P.W.1 has not whispered anything with regard to the difficulty faced by his brother to lodge the complaint. Therefore the private complaint filed by P.W.1 is not by proper person.7 C.C.No.24899/2015
10. It is further deposed by P.W.1 with regard to the mahazar in page No.3 to the following effect:
¸ÀܼÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß FUÀ ¤¦-6 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤¦-6J JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¤¦-6 PÉÌ ¸ÀzjÀ ¥ÉÇðøï oÀÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÉÃÛ£É.
Since P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination he has admitted all the suggestions with regard to the mahazar. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.1 is not consistent in his version.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.1 in detail, in which in para No.2, page No.4, P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect: 8 C.C.No.24899/2015
¸ÀzÀj WÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11.00 jAzÀ ªÀÄzÀsåÁºÀß 12.00 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀªÀgÉUÀÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀz Û É.
WÀl£É £Àqz É ÀÄ 2 ªÀµðÀ PÀ¼É¢zÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj WÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¤RgÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àðs zÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ WÀl£ÀÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ºÁdjgÀ°®è. WÀl£É £Àqz É À ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß CAUÀrAiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¤«ÄvÀå ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝDzÀg,É J°è JAzÀÄ FUÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above is not sufficient to prove the alleged incident, because he was not present at the spot. Therefore, the evidence adduced by P.W.1 with regard to the incident cannot be believed to be true.
12. In further cross-examination P.W.1 has categorically admitted that the accused was also carring on book selling business for several years and subsequently the complainant started the same business. Therefore, it is clear that both complainant and accused are carrying on the same business adjacent to each other.9 C.C.No.24899/2015
In further cross-examination P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect in page No.6:
¢B13-4-2015gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ DzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅÀzÀÄ ¸Àj.
¸ÀzjÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.
The categorical admission of P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the alleged incident. It is also admitted by P.W.1 in further cross-examination that other persons are also filed similar criminal cases against him.
13. C.W.6 is examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 is a Police Inspector who has registered the complaint and conducted the mahazar and investigation as directed by court on the basis of private complaint filed by the complainant and he has got marked certain documents as per Exs.P4 to P9.10 C.C.No.24899/2015
The learned counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.2 in brief, in which P.W.2 has deposed to the following in page No.4.
¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀPÁÌV DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 13.04.2015 gÀAzÉà £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀzÀj oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ²æêÀÄw ªÉÄÃj ±ÉÊ®eÁ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¦L DV PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¦L EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
¸ÁQëÉUÀÉ FUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀgÝ À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzjÀ ¦L ªÉÄÃj ±ÉʯdÁ EªÀgÀÄ gÁfà ¸ÀAzsÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQë EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The categorical admission of P.W.2 as above clearly shows that the accused herein also filed complaint against the complainant herein in respect of very same incident 11 C.C.No.24899/2015 which was ended in compromise by the intervention of Police Inspector by name Mery Shylaja.
15. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that P.W.2 further deposed in cross-examination in page No.5 to the following effect:
¸ÁQëÉUÉÀ FUÀ ¸ÀzjÀ zÀÆj£ÀéAiÀÄ AiÀƪÀ PÁgÀtPÁÌV DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ PÉýzÀPÝ ÉÌ ¸ÁQë gÁfà ¸ÀAzsÁ£À ªÀiÁr¹zÀÝjAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The categorical admission of P.W.2 as above clearly shows that since the alleged incident was ended in compromise between the parties, the police have not registered the case against the accused herein. When that being the case where was the necessity for the complainant to file a private complaint again the accused herein before this court. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is 12 C.C.No.24899/2015 making attempt to take revenge against the accused by filing private complaint.
16. In order to prove the alleged incident, P.W.2 has further admitted in cross-examination in page No.6 to the following effect:
¸ÀzÀj ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ UÀÄ£ÉßUÀ¼À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄ §gÀÄwÛ®ª è ÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The categorical admission of P.W.2 as above clearly shows that the alleged incident was not at all occurred.
17. C.W.3 is examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.1 with regard to the alleged indent and further deposed that accused has assaulted him with broom stick.
The learned counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.3 in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.3 has deposed to the following effect:
I can not say the date of the incident. At the time of incident I was 13 C.C.No.24899/2015 inside the shop. The incident was taken place in front of our shop. It is true to suggest that, I have shifted name board of the accused shop.
It is true to suggest that, our shop is situated just 8 feet away from the road. It is true to suggest that, accused has not entered our shop on that day. Nobody has broken the glasses inside our shop.
The categorical admission of P.W.3 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the alleged incident.
18. In further cross-examination P.W.3 has deposed that at the time of incident C.W.1 was inside the shop. This evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, because P.W.1 has deposed that at the time of incident he was not present and he has gone out side. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 discloses that he is deposing false. Hence, false evidence of P.W.3 cannot be considered to prove the guilt of the accused.
14 C.C.No.24899/2015
19. C.W.4 is examined as P.W.4 who has also deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W1 and 3.
In the course of cross-examination P.W.4 has deposed to the following effect:
on the date of alleged incident my brother has gone to Market in Bangalore.
My brother has not sustained any injury because he was not present at the time of incident.
My brother filed a complaint on the same day. I do not know what action the police have taken on the complaint. I do not know in what words accused scolded. I do not remember whether police have not conducted the mahazar at the spot.
The evidence of P.W.4 as above is not at all sufficient tot prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences.
20. C.W.5 is examined as P.W.5. P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged incident. Hence, he was treated as hostile witness and 15 C.C.No.24899/2015 cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasonigns, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal for the alleged offences. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
21. 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 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC. Therefore, she is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled.16 C.C.No.24899/2015
M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(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 27th day of June 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Kishore K Bangera, P.W.2, Janardhan Rao, P.W.3, Suresh, P.W.4, Dilip, P.W.5, Shaik Nayaz;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Private complaint,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P1(b), Order copy of Court,
Ex.P1(c) Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P2, Endorsement given by police,
Ex.P3, Photographs,
Ex.P4, VAT certificate,
Ex.P5, Tax paid receipt,
Ex.P6, Spot mahazar,
Ex.P6(a), Signature of P.W.1,
17 C.C.No.24899/2015
Ex.P6(b), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P7, Photographs,
Ex.P8, FIR,
Ex.P8(a), Signature,
Ex.P9, Surety bond,
Ex.P9(a), Signature of P.W.2;
List of Material object:
M.O.1, One CD;
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.18 C.C.No.24899/2015
27/6/2018 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 323, 503, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC. Therefore, she is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Bengaluru.19 C.C.No.24899/2015 20 C.C.No.24899/2015