Bangalore District Court
4. Name Of The 1) Devaraj @ Deva vs S/O. Chandraraju on 4 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of March 2016.
Present : Sri.D. Puttaswamy, B.A., LL.B.
VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.12839 of 2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 12839/2014
2. The date of 05/03/2013
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the State by Vyalikaval P.S.
complainant
4. Name of the 1) Devaraj @ Deva,
accused S/o. Chandraraju, 20 years,
No.430, 12th Main, 7th Cross,
RMV Extension, Sadashivanagar,
Bengaluru.
2) Punith(Juvenile)
3) Kisore @ Somu(Juvenile)
4) Somashekar @(Juvenile)
5) Abhijith, S/o. Govind, 19 years,
No.81, 4th Cross, Vivekananda
Block, PG Halli, Bengaluru.
2
5. The offence U/sec.143, 147, 341, 323, 326 r/w
complained of or 149 of IPC.
proved
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his
examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC.,
Accused -1 and 5 are acquitted.
8. Date of such order 04/03/2016
For the following:-
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the PSI of Vyalikaval P.S. against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.143, 147, 341, 323, 326 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
Accused -1 & 5 along with juvenile accused - 2 to 4 in prosecution of common object to commit an offence on 05/03/2013 at about 6 p.m. formed an unlawful assembly infront of Vishnumurthy Condiments Store, bearing No.140, situated at 3 Malleshwaram 8th Cross, Coconut Tree Road, within jurisdiction of Vyalikaval P.S. and committed rioting. Further, accused -1 and 5 along with Juvenile accused-2 to 4 wrongfully restrained CW.1, assaulted with hands on the body of CW.1 thus voluntarily caused hurt and accused-1 assaulted with helmet on the face of CW.1 and broken front two teeth of CW.1 thus voluntarily caused grievous hurt and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused -1 and 5 are on bail. As required u/sec.207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused-1 and 5. The accused-1 and 5 on framing the charges, denied the charges and thereupon the prosecution was directed to lead the evidence on its side to prove the allegations. As such the prosecution examined PW:1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 3. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused-1 and 5, the statement of the accused-1 and 5 u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
4
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides.
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused -1 & 5 along with juvenile accused - 2 to 4 in prosecution of common object to commit an offence on 05/03/2013 at about
6 p.m. infront of Vishnumurthy Condiments Store, bearing No.140, situated at Malleshwaram 8th Cross, Coconut Tree Road, within jurisdiction of Vyalikaval P.S., have committed the offences punishable U/sec.143, 147, 341, 323, 326 r/w 149 of IPC.?
2) What order?
6. My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 In the negative 5 Point No.2 As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:-
In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1. PW.1 has turned hostile in toto to the case of the prosecution. PW.1, who being the complainant in his evidence deposed that, accused-1 and 5 along with juvenile accused-2 to 4 have not formed unlawful assembly, not wrongfully restrained him, not assaulted him with hands and accused-1 not assaulted with helmet on his face and not broken his two front teeth and not caused any grievous hurt. PW.1 further deposed that he has not given complaint before the police as per Ex.P1 and police have not drawn mahazar as per Ex.P2.
8. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination PW.1 has specifically denied for having 6 given complaint and police have drawn mahazar. PW.1 further denied that he has given further statement before the police as per Ex.P3. This being the evidence of PW.1, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
9. Even though learned Sr.APP prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. As PW.1 being the material witness/victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution and hence prayer of learned Sr.APP is rejected.
10. In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
7
ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused-1 and 5 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.143, 147, 341, 323, 326 r/w 149 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused -1 and 5 and their surety bonds stand cancelled.
Seized property being worthless, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by th me in the open court this the 4 day of March 2016.) (D. Puttaswamy) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws:
1. Pavan Kumar .S.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar.
3. Further statement of PW.1.
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
-NIL-
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:- - NIL -
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.
8 9