Bangalore District Court
State By Hulimavu Ps vs Sunil Kumar @ Sunil on 9 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE
Dated this the 9th day of May , 2019
:PRESENT:
Smt . SHIRIN J ANSARI, B.A.LLB (Hons)., LL.M.
V ACMM Bangalore .
CRIMINAL CASE No.13725/2016
Complainant : State by Hulimavu PS
Bangalore.
(Rep by Sr.A.P.P)
-VS-
Accused : Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
S/of. Ambrose,
aged 32 years
R/at.No 1/29, Akshaya Nagar
Begur Post, Bangalore.
(Rep by RVR., Advocate,)
1. Date of commencement of 14.08.2015
offence
2. Date of report of offence 14.08.2015
3 Arrest of the accused The accused is on on bail
4. Name of the complainant Rajashekar
2
CC.No.13725/2016
5. Date of recording of 18.04.2017
evidence
5.66 Date of closing of evidence 26.03.2019
7. Offences complained of Secs. 341 & 506 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused is not
found guilty
9. Complainant by The Learned Sr.APP
10. Accused defence by Sri.RVR , Advocate,
JUDGMENT
That present chargesheet is filed by PSI Hulimavu police station against the accused person for the offence punishable under section 341 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of a prosecution case are as under:
That on 14.08.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. when CW 1 to 5 were travelling in Bolero car bearing registration number KA 51 NG 8285, the accused person stopped the car and said that he is a Rowdy and forced CW1 to 5 to canvass in favour of Congress political party. If they do not do so, he threatened them with their consequences of life and thereby 3 CC.No.13725/2016 committed an offence punishable under section 341 and 506 of IPC.
3. Based on the materials placed on record, cognizance is taken for the aforesaid offences against the accused and issued process.
4. Copies of the charge sheet as required Under Section-207 of Cr.P.C., are supplied, after hearing the learned Sr.APP and counsel for the accused necessary charge are framed, read over and explained to the accused , he pleaded not guilty, claims to be tried. Plea of accused is recorded and thereafter summons has been issued to the charge sheet witnesses.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW 1 to 8 and got marked exhibit P1 to P7. The incriminating materials available against the accused is brought to his notice of the accused by recording 313 Cr.P.C. Statement. The accused denied the same. But did not choose to lead defence evidence.
4
CC.No.13725/2016 Heard the arguments on both sides, perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
6. Based on the above facts and circumstances on record, the following points arise for my determination:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 14.08.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. when CW 1 to 5 were travelling in Bolero car bearing registration number KA 51 NG 8285, the accused person stopped the car and wrongfully restrained CW1 to 5 and said that he is a Rowdy and forced CW1 to 5 to canvass in favour of Congress political party and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 341 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, time and place, the accused threartened CW 1 to 5 with dire consequence of life if they did not canvass on behalf of the congress party and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?5
CC.No.13725/2016
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 -2 - In the "Negative"
Point No.3 - As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : Pw1 Rajasekhar is the complainant in this case. Though the witness has supported the case of the prosecution in his examination in chief, but during the course of cross-examination he has clearly admitted that he has already filed three cases against the accused person and has voluntary admitted before the court that in the year 2011 the accused had murdered the brother of the complainant. This Aspect of the matter clearly goes to show that there was previous enimity between the complainant and the accused person.
9. It is also admitted by PW1 that his brother Anil was rowdy-sheeter. Though it is alleged in the chargesheet that accused person threatened the complainant to canvas in favour of Congress Party but it is clearly admitted in the 6 CC.No.13725/2016 cross examination that it was BBMP election which was going on at that time. But no any documents pertaining to the said election are produced before this court. Nothing has been produced by the prosecution that at the said time which was the election in process.
10. PW 2,3,4, and 5 the witnesses have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though these witnesses have been subjected to cross- examination, but, nothing fruitful has been extracted from the mouth of these witnesses.
11. PW 6, the major witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Though this witness is subjected to cross examination nothing fruitful has been extracted from the mouth of this witness also.
12. PW 7 and 8 are the official witnesses who have deposed in terms of official duty executed by them . It is clearly admitted by PW 8 that before proceeding for spot panchnama he has not issued any notice to the witnesses. 7
CC.No.13725/2016 This aspect of the matter clearly create a cloud on the very case of the prosecution.
13. On meticulous and careful examination of the prosecution evidence , it is clear that except PW1 no other independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Though PWs 2 to 5 were alleged to have been present at the time of incident but none of these witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Since there is a previous enemity between the complainant and the accused person pertaining to the murder of the brother of the complainant, it seems that the present complaint has been lodged. Even the vehicle has also not been seized in the present case. All these aspects of the matter clearly go to show that prosecution has not placed cogent and convincing materials before the court to proceed towards the conviction of the accused person. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond the reasonable doubt.
8
CC.No.13725/2016
14. Merely on the partial testimony of PW1, criminal liability cannot be fastened on the accused person when any independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore under these background facts and circumstances of the case , the court is of the opnion that that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of accused person. There is no substantial materials produced by the prosecution to convict the accused. Hence in view of this I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
15.POINT No.3:- In view of findings on point No.1 and 2, I find that the accused person is not guilty and in the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting U/Sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sections 341 & 506 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.
9
CC.No.13725/2016
Accused shall execute personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- towards
compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, transcribed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this the 9th day of May , 2019) (SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore ANNEXTURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution .
P.W.1 Rajashekar
P.W.2 Lakshmana
P.W.3 Nagaraj
P.W.4 Manjunath
P.W.5 Dhanraj
P.W6 Murali
P.W.7 Jagadish Patel.
P.W.8 B.K.Nageshaiah
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution .
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.3-5 Statement of the witnesses
10
CC.No.13725/2016
Ex.P.6 Report .
Ex.P.7 FIR .
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence.
-NIL-
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence .
-NIL-
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence.
-NIL-
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore.