Bangalore District Court
State By Mahadevapura P.S vs Vikash Kumar S/O. Jitendra Singh on 3 August, 2022
KABC0C0121422022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated: The 03rd August 2022
PRESENT: Sri. SANDEEP PATIL,
B.A., LL.M.,
XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.53388/2022
COMPLAINANT :- State by Mahadevapura P.S
(By Sr.APP)
ACCUSED :- 1. Vikash Kumar s/o. Jitendra Singh,
Aged 22 years,
2. Vikram Kumar s/o. Jitendra Singh,
Aged 21 years,
3. Vishal Kumar s/o. Jitendra Singh,
Aged 19 years,
All are R/at.No.120,
Ground Floor, 2nd Cross,
near Maramma Temple,
Hoodi, Bengaluru.
Permanent R/at. Harbans Bigha,
Athma post, Islampur Tana,
Nalanda Dist, Bihar State - 801303.
(By Sri.N.V.Reddy., Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT 05.07.2022
2 C.C.No.53388/2022
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF 05.07.2022
EVIDENCE
DATE OF JUDGMENT 03.08.2022
JUDGMENT
This final report filed by the PSI of Mahadevapura P.S against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.324 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
2. BRIEF FACTS:-
The case of prosecution is that on 02.04.2022 at about 11.30 P.M at Srirajanarayana Reddy's house, near Maramma Temple, 2 nd Cross, Hoodi village within the jurisdictional limits of Mahadevapura Police Station you accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have assaulted CW.1, CW.4 to CW.6 with club and cricket bat causing injuries.
3. Based on the first information of CW.1, the police have registered the case, investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation final report is filed against the accused stating that they have committed the offence P/U/Sec.324 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
4. The accused have entered appearance in response to the summons and have been enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers have been supplied to the accused No.1 to 3. After hearing, the charge against the accused was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3 C.C.No.53388/20225. The prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are exhibited. There are no incriminatory statements are available against the accused and accordingly the statement of the accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.
6. Heard arguments on both sides, perused materials placed on record.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 02.04.2022 at about 11.30 P.M at Srirajanarayana Reddy's house, near Maramma Temple, 2nd Cross, Hoodi village within the jurisdictional limits of Mahadevapura Police Station you accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention have assaulted CW.1, CW.4 to CW.6 with club and cricket bat causing injuries thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.324 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the aforesaid points is as under:-
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : In the instant case PW.1 to PW.4 are the injured who have testified that the accused No.1 to 3 have neither assaulted CW.1, CW.4 to CW.6 with club and cricket bat. PW.1 has stated that he has not given the complaint as per Ex.P1 in this regard. Although PW.1 subscribes to his signature appearing in the complaint at Ex.P1 and spot mahazar at Ex.P2, he pleads ignorance to the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW.1 to PW.4 are treated hostile and cross-examined by the Ld.Sr.APP wherein nothing substantial is elicited in order to 4 C.C.No.53388/2022 support the case of prosecution. PW.2 to PW.4 have stated that they have not given any statements as per Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 in this regard. PW.1 to PW.4 admit to have compromised with the accused.
10. This Court was of the opinion that PW.1 to PW.4 are the only material witnesses who have turned hostile and therefore the remaining witnesses were dropped by rejecting the prayer of Ld.Sr.APP.
11. On considering the evidence of PW.1 the complaint at Ex.P1 his evidence appears to be contradictory. The evidence of PW.1 is inconsistent with Ex.P1. The statements of PW.2 to PW.4 are in contradiction with Ex.P3 to Ex.P5. PW.1 to PW.4 admitted to have compromised with the accused. The prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused No.1 to 3 deserve to be acquitted. Therefore I answer point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
12. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3 is hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable u/s.324 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 to 3 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
(Dictated by me on computer, typed by the steno, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 03rd August 2022) (Sandeep Patil) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 5 C.C.No.53388/2022 ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION [ PW.1 Goutam Kumar PW.2 Bablukumar PW.3 Poonam Devi PW.4 Abhishek Kumar LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 Statements of PW.2 to PW.4 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
NIL Digitally signed by SANDEEPPATIL SANDEEPPATIL Date: 2022.08.06 13:12:56 +0530 (Sandeep Patil) XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU 6 C.C.No.53388/2022 03.08.2022 State by APP Accused For Judgment (Judgment passed separately in the Open Court) ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3 is hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable u/s.324 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled. The cash security offered by accused No.1 to 3 for their release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
XXIX ACMM