Bangalore District Court
State By vs H.S.Ganesh S/O.Late Patel Shamanna on 4 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 4th day of March 2016
PRESENT: Sri.ARJUN.S.MALLUR,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.22204/2011
Complainant - State by, Police Sub Inspector
R.M.Nagar Police Station
/vs/
Accused 1. H.S.Ganesh S/o.late Patel Shamanna,
60 yrs.
2. Srinivas S/o.H.S.Ganesh, 28 yrs.
Both r/o.No.123, near Water Tank,
Horamavu village, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The PSI of R.M.Nagar police station have filed this chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/S.448, 427 r/w.34 of IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention on 14/11/2010 around 8.00 AM wrongfully trespassed to the property of CW.1 in Horamavu village house list No.159/1, Site No.6 and demolished the compound wall constructed 2 CC No.22204/2011 in the property causing wrongful loss to the complainant to an extent of Rs.2 Lakhs and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by complainant, a case was registered in R.M.Nagar P.S., Cr.No.328/2010 and FIR was submitted to the court. Panchanama of scene of offence was conducted in presence of panchas. Statement of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offences was taken and summons was issued to the accused persons. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their counsel and have been released on bail. Copies of chargesheet were furnished to accused u/S.207 of Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation was readover to the accused for the alleged offences and accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Statements of accused u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused have denied the circumstances incriminating them in the evidence.
3 CC No.22204/2011
6. Heard the arguments of Sr.APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
7. The points for consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 having common intention on 14/11/2010 around 8.00 AM wrongfully trespassed to the property of CW.1 in Horamavu village house list No.159/1, Site No.6 and demolished the compound wall constructed in the property causing wrongful loss to the complainant to an extent of Rs.2 Lakhs and thereby committed the alleged offences?
2. What order?
8. My answer on the above points:
Point No.1 - Negative, Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:
The prosecution in support of its case has examined two witnesses. PW.1 Smt.Tulasi is examined as eye witness to the prosecution who has turned hostile to the prosecution denying having witnessed any incident and denied having made statement before the police under Ex.P1.4 CC No.22204/2011
10. PW.2 Manjunath is the I.O. who has deposed that on 12/12/2010 he received the complaint, registered the case and sent FIR to the court and thereafter went to the scene of offence, conducted mahazar of the spot, collected the photograph of the scene of offence, recorded the statement of witnesses and on completion of the investigation he has submitted chargesheet to the court.
11. In the case on hand apart from PWs.1 and 2 the prosecution has not examined any other witness. The material witness the complainant at CW.1 was not secured and examined before the court inspite of providing sufficient opportunity. In fact complainant failed to turn up before the court and give evidence even after issue of process repeatedly. PW.1 is examined as eye witness who has turned hostile to the prosecution denying the prosecution case entirely. PW.2 is the I.O. who has registered the complaint, conducted mahazar and has filed the chargesheet on completion of the investigation. There is no corroboration to the evidence of the I.O with regard to the offences alleged against the accused as the material witness is not examined before the court. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the alleged offences 5 CC No.22204/2011 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. POINT NO.2:
For the afore said reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of the alleged offences punishable u/s.448, 427 r/w.34 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
(Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 4th day of March 2016).
(ARJUN.S.MALLUR) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU 6 CC No.22204/2011 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution Defence PW.1 Smt.Tulasi Nil PW.2 Manjunath.
Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 Statement of PW.1 Ex.P2 Complaint.
Ex.P2(a)Signature of PW.2.
Ex.P3 FIR.
Ex.P3(a)Signature of PW.2.
Ex.P4 Mahazar.
Ex.P4(a)Signature of PW.2.
Ex.P5 Photo.
Ex.P6 Photo.
Material Objects got marked
-Nil-
X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
7 CC No.22204/2011