Bangalore District Court
Yelahanka New Town Ps vs Shabarish @ Appi @ Appu on 11 February, 2025
KABC010111482021
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.57)
:PRESENT :
Sri.Jaishankar, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 7th Day of February, 2025.
S.C No.565/2021
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka,
By Yalahanka New Town
Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED 1. Shabarish @ Appi @ Appu
S/o Mohan @ Mohan Raj
Aged about 27 years
R/at No.2, 1st Cross,
Ranganath Colony,
Jagajeevanram Nagar Colony,
Bengaluru
2 S.C No.565/2021
permanent R/at
Yartaganahalli Village
Kannamangala Gate
Devanahalli Taluk
Bengaluru
(By Sri.J.R.S, advocate)
Date of offence 11.02.2021
Date of report of offence 11.02.2021
Name of the complainant M.B.Ramakrishna Reddy
Date of commencement of 06.01.2023
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 09.11.2023
Offences complained of U/s 353, 332, 307 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is convicted for the
offence punishable under Sec.
353, 332 and 324 of IPC
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri.J.R.S. Advocate
********
3 S.C No.565/2021
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Yalahanka New Town Police Station has presented this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 353, 332 and 307 of IPC
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 11.02.2021 at about 4.20 a.m. C.W.1 received a credible information that the accused traveling in the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AJ-9805 near Kogilu Cross. Then, he went there along with C.W.2 to 7. The accused and 2 other were traveling in the said car towards Doddaballapura road and they followed them. After that, the said car went near Brahmana Samaj Trust road situated at Yelahanka New Town and stopped near a heap of garbage. Then, C.W.1 to 7 surrounded the vehicle to apprehend the accused and at that time the accused assaulted C.W.7 with a long and caused bleeding injury. 4 S.C No.565/2021 Though, C.W.1 cautioned him and asked him to surrender, the accused tried to assault him with the long. The accused has deterred C.W.1 to 7 from discharging their official duty, attempted to commit the murder of C.W.1 and 7 and caused bleeding injury to C.W.7 and as such he has committed the offences punishable under Sec.353, 332 and 307 of IPC.
3. After receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above said offences and secured the presence of the accused. After his appearance, the learned Magistrate has furnished the copies of charge sheet as provided under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and then committed the case. After that, the accused was produced before this court. The Accused is in judicial custody. After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the accused and read over and explained to him in the language known to him. He 5 S.C No.565/2021 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the case was posted for Prosecution side evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all has examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked 38 documents as Ex.P.1 to 38 and 10 material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 10. After that, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence against him. He has denied the same and submitted that he has no defense evidence. Then, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are as follows :-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11.02.2021 at about 4.20 a.m. the accused assaulted C.W.7 with a long near Brahmana Samaj Trust road 6 S.C No.565/2021 situated at Yelahanka New Town and deterred C.W.1 to 7 who are public servants from discharging their official duty and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 353 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11.02.2021 at about 4.20 a.m. the accused assaulted C.W.7 who is a public servant with a long near Brahmana Samaj Trust road situated at Yelahanka New Town and caused injury to him to deter him from discharging his lawful duty and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Sec.332 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to commit murder of C.W.1 and 7 by assaulting C.W.7 with a long and by trying to assault C.W.1 with the said long and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Sec.307 of IPC?
4. What order?
6. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials on record, I answer the above points as hereunder:-
7 S.C No.565/2021
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:-
:REASONS:
7. Point Nos.1 to 3 :- Since these points are
interconnected they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2021 at about 4.20 a.m. C.W.1 received a credible information that the accused is traveling in the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AJ-9805 near Kogilu Cross. Then, he went there along with C.W.2 to 7. The accused and 2 other were traveling in the said car towards Doddaballapura road and they followed them. After that, the said car went near Brahmana Samaj Trust road situated at Yelahanka New Town and stopped near a heap of garbage. Then, C.W.1 to 7 surrounded the vehicle to apprehend the accused and at that time the accused 8 S.C No.565/2021 assaulted C.W.7 with a long and caused bleeding injury. Though, C.W.1 cautioned him and asked him to surrender, the accused tried to assault him with the long. As such, the accused has deterred C.W.1 to 7 from discharging their official duty, attempted to commit the murder of C.W.1 and 7 and caused bleeding injury to C.W.7 and hence he has committed the offences punishable under Sec.353, 332 and 307 of IPC.
8. The case of the prosecution is that the car bearing No.KA-05-AJ-9805 in which the accused and other two persons were traveling was belonged to P.W.12 Ravalappa and it was robbed from the possession of C.W.18 who is the driver of the said car on 11.02.2021 at 1.30 a.m. C.W.18 is not examined in this case. P.W.12 Ravalappa Devanna Birje has stated in his evidence that he is the owner of the said car seen in Ex.P.1 photographs and he had given it to Uber. C.W.18 Nagaraj was the driver of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was 9 S.C No.565/2021 robbed along with a mobile and cash by four persons. With regard to the same, C.W.18 had lodged complaint to Yelahanka new town police station. After one week, he was informed by the police that his vehicle is traced and seized from the accused.
9. P.W.15 Arun Kumar G.V. who is the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that he has collected the FIR and complaint in Cr.No.33/2020. The same have been marked through him as Ex.P.18 and 19. Ex.P.19 complaint has been lodged by C.W.18. He has stated in the said complaint that he is the driver of Celerio car bearing No.KA-05-AJ-9805 and on 09.02.2021 at about 12.30 a.m. when he came near Synergy one building, Kogilu Cross to drop a customer, one person came there and asked him to come out of the car. When he refused, he assaulted on his arm and hand with a machete. Thereafter, three persons who were sitting in an auto 10 S.C No.565/2021 rickshaw nearby came to him and snatched his Samsung mobile phone, cash of Rs.700/-, ATM card and car key and ran away in his car and auto rickshaw. The said complaint has been lodged on 10.02.2021 and FIR has been registered at about 1.30 a.m. As such, the evidence of P.W.12 and 15 is corroborated by documentary evidence which are marked as Ex.P.18 and P.19 which show that the car belonged to P.W.12 was robbed on 10.02.2021 at about 12.30 a.m.
10. Further, P.W.1, 2 and 5 have also stated in their evidence that the accused came in the said car on 11.02.2021 at 4.20 a.m. near Kogilu cross and they followed the car and it was stopped near the place of incident. They have also identified the photograph of the car. Even P.W.3 and 6 have stated that they saw the said car at the place of incident and they have also identified the car in the photographs marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.5 who 11 S.C No.565/2021 is the ACP of control room has also stated in his evidence that on 11.03.2020 at about 4.30 a.m. he received information through wireless from P.W.5 the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AJ-9805 passed in front of Yelahanka police station. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15 and also the documents marked as Ex.P.18 and P.19 clearly prove that the accused and other persons had committed robbery of the car belonged to P.W.12 and he was traveling in the said car at the time of incident. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence with regard to the said fact.
11. Further, as for as the offences alleged against the accused under Sec.353, 332 and 307 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and P.W.5. P.W.2 M.B.Ramakrishna Reddy who is the PSI has stated in his evidence that he received credible information at about 4.20 a.m., on 12 S.C No.565/2021 11.02.2021 that the accused and others are traveling in KA-05-AJ-9805 car and then he went there along with P.W.1, P.W.5, C.W.2 to 4 and 6. It was confirmed that the accused was in the said car and when they went near them, they drove the car towards Doddaballapura road through BDK Circle. They followed them the car went to the back side of Ganesh Theater of Yelahanka new town and it was stopped near the heap of garbage. Then, they surrounded the car and at that time 2 persons who were sitting in the car escaped. The accused assaulted P.W.5 Shivakumar with a long on his left hand. He also tried to assault him and he fired a gun shot in the air and cautioned him. In spite of that, the accused tried to assault him and then in self defence he fired a bullet below the knee of the left leg of the accused. He fell down and then they caught hold of him. After that, he gave information to control room and then shifted the injured accused and P.W.5 to Government hospital, Yelahanka 13 S.C No.565/2021 New Town and after that he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.2. he has identified the photographs of the car marked as Ex.P.1 and the long alleged to be used for the assault as M.O.1. P.W.1 Harish who is the PSI has also deposed in line with the evidence of P.W.2 in his evidence. P.W.5 Shivakumar who is the police constable and the injured has also clearly stated in his evidence that the accused assaulted him with M.O.1 long and caused injury to his left hand and he also tried to assault P.W.2. Both these witnesses have also identified the car in Ex.P.1 photographs and M.O.1 long.
12. Further, P.W.1, 2 and P.W.5 have also stated in their evidence that when they tried to apprehend the accused he deterred them from discharging their official duty and he did not surrender inspite of caution from P.W.1. They have stated that though P.W.2 fired a bullet in the air the accused again tried to assault P.W.2 with 14 S.C No.565/2021 the long and then in self defence a bullet was fired below the knee of the accused and then he was apprehended. The evidence of these three witness with regard to the same is corroborating to each other. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. Though, it is suggested in the cross examination of P.W.1 that the accused was in his home and they came to his house and fired gun shot and then a false case has been registered, the same is denied by P.W.1. P.W.3 has clearly stated in his evidence that the accused was found injured at the spot and then he was shifted in Hoysala vehicle to the hospital.
13. Further, P.W.3 Vijayakumar Pujar who is the police head constable has stated in his evidence that on 11.02.2021 he was deputed to visit the place of incident and when he went to the spot found that the car bearing No.KA-05-AJ-9805 was there and there were blood stains 15 S.C No.565/2021 at the spot. A long and 2 empty cartridges were lying in the spot. The accused and P.W.5 were found injured. Then, he shifted them to the hospital for treatment. He has also identified the photograph of the car and the long. P.W.6 Muniraju C. who is the police head constable has also spoken in line with the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.10 Ramasanjeevaiah is the Assistant Executive Engineer and he has stated in his evidence that he draw rough sketch of the spot. Then he draw the sketch of the place of incident as per Ex.P.9. P.W.15 who is the I.O. has stated in his evidence that he sent letter to AEE, BBMP as per Ex.P.7 and then the rough sketch as per Ex.P.9 was prepared and sent to him along with letter marked as Ex.P.8. The evidence of P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.15 clearly prove that the alleged incident has taken place at the spot show in the rough sketch Ex.P.9 prepared by P.W.10. There is only denial during the cross 16 S.C No.565/2021 examination of these witnesses. There is nothing on record to disbelieve their evidence.
14. Further, P.W.8 Dr.Manjula is the Doctor and she has stated in her evidence that on 11.02.2021 at about 5.00 a.m the accused was brought to the hospital with the history of gun shot injury and she examined him. She found that the accused had suffered a circular wound over the anterior aspect of (L) knee and a Horizontal wound over the (L) popliteal tissue and they were fresh bleeding injuries and she referred him to the Ortho surgeon. She has also identified the wound certificate issued by her as Ex.P.5. P.W.11 Dr.Madhusudan R has stated that on 11.02.2021 the accused was brought to Victoria hospital then he gave referral feed back as per Ex.P.10. P.W.7 Hanumanth Uppar has sated that he was deputed to guard the accused and the accused was admitted in Victoria hospital on 12.02.2021.
17 S.C No.565/2021
15. Further, P.W.4 Narayana Swmay K who is the PSI has stated in is evidence that on 11.02.2021 he visited the Government hospital and collected two pieces of blood stained jeans pant of the accused and produced the same before the I.O. and they were seized by drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P.4. Later, he handed over the same to FSL. P.W.13 Madesh M is the PSI has also stated in his evidence that he seized blood stained pant marked as M.O.2 by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.4. P.W.9 Dr.Srinivas M who is the Scientific Officer of FSL has stated in his evidence that on 11.02.2021 as per the requisition of Yelahanka New Town police, he visited the spot and collected two empty cartridges, sample mud, blood stained mud, 8 live cartridges, 1 pistol and lock and handed over the same to the I.O.. He has further stated that later they were sent to him for chemical examination. On examination, he found that the pistol seized was in working condition and it had the signs of 18 S.C No.565/2021 discharge. Two cartridge which have been fired were fired from the pistol seized in this case. He has further stated that the holes marked as H1 and H2 on the left leg portion of jeans pant sent for examination have been caused due to the impact and passage of copper jacketed bullet. He has identified the photographs taken at the spot marked as Ex.P.1 and also his report as Ex.P.6. He has also identified the M.O.3 and 4 which are blood stained mud and sample mud.
16. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 to 5, P.W. P.W.7 to 9, P.W.11, 12 and P.W.15 and also the documents marked as Ex.P.4 to 6 , Ex.P.10 and M.O.s 2 to 8 clearly show that the accused had suffered gun shot injury at the time of the alleged incident and later he was provided treatment. These facts further strengthen the case of the prosecution that when P.W.1, 2 and 5 along with C.W.2 to 4 and 6 tried to apprehend the accused he deterred 19 S.C No.565/2021 them from discharging their official duty and caused injury to P.W.5 by assaulting him with M.O.1 long.
17. Further, P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that the accused and P.W.5 were admitted to the hospital, he went to police station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.2. P.W.13 has also stated in his evidence that on 11.02.2021 P.W.1 lodged complaint as per Ex.P.2 and then he lodged FIR as per Ex.P.11 and after that seized M.O.5 to 10 at the spot by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.12. On perusing Ex.P.2 complaint it can be seen that it has been lodged at 7.00 a.m on 11.02.2021 immediately after the incident. Ex.P.12 spot mahazar is also drawn on the same day between 11.15 a.m to 12.45 p.m. The I.O. who is examined as P.W.15 has also got marked call log report with regard to the incident as Ex.P.34. These fact also further strengthen the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged incident. 20 S.C No.565/2021
18. As such, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 clearly show that the accused has deterred them and C.W.2 to 4 and 6 from discharging their official duty. Their evidence also clearly show that the accused has assaulted P.W.5 with a long and caused injury to him. The I.O. who is examined as P.W.5 got got the wound certificate with regard to the treatment taken by P.W.5 as Ex.P.36 which reveal that he has sustained injury in the alleged incident. As such, the prosecution has placed sufficient materials and has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Secs.353 and 332 of IPC.
19. As for as the offence under Sec.307 of IPC is concerned, P.W.1, 2 and P.W.5 have only stated in their evidence that when they tried to apprehend the accused, he assaulted P.W.5 with a long and caused injury and he also tried to assault P.W.2. It is not their evidence that the accused assaulted P.W.5 with an intention to commit 21 S.C No.565/2021 his murder nor it is their evidence that the accused tried to assault P.W.2 with an intention to commit his murder. The assault made on P.W.5 is also not on the vital part of his body. The injury sustained by P.W.5 are also not so serious. In Ex.P.36 wound certificate it is mentioned that P.W.5 has suffered 2 simple injuries which are abrasive wounds. It is well settled to prove that a person is guilty of the offence of an attempt to commit murder, the prosecution must establish that the actual act which the assailant is shown to have committed was such that as would in the ordinary course of nature have resulted in death. In this case, the injuries caused are simple in nature and the assault was not such as was in the ordinary course of nature is likely to result in death. As such, the allegations does not attract the offence under Sec.307 of IPC, but under Sec.324 of IPC.
20. As such, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed 22 S.C No.565/2021 offences punishable under Sec.353, 332 and 324 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer Point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Point No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
21. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on points No1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 324 of IPC.
The accused shall be heard regarding sentence.
(Jaishankar) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused is produced through VC.
23 S.C No.565/2021The learned Public Prosecutor and Counsel for accused who is the Legal Aid Counsel are present. Heard both sides and also the accused on sentence.
The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that several cases have been registered against the accused and he has bad criminal antecedents. The FIRs pertaining to those cases are already produced and got marked in this case. Hence, prayed to impose maximum sentence.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is not convicted in any other case and false cases have been registered against him. The accused submitted that he is an auto driver and his parents are doing coolie work. He further submits that his wife is pregnant. Hence, prayed to take a lenient view.
24 S.C No.565/2021
Considering the fact that the accused has deterred the public servants who are the police officials from discharging their official duty and since he has assaulted P.W.5 with a long, it is not just and proper to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, he is not entitled for benefit under the said Act.
Further, considering the nature of the offences and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to impose maximum sentences prescribed for the offences punishable under Sec.353, 332 and 324 of IPC. Hence, the following is made:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.25 S.C No.565/2021
The accused is further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.332 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused is further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention undergone by the accused shall be given set off as provided under sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, corrected, and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11 th Day of February, 2025) (Jaishankar) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.26 S.C No.565/2021
: ANNEXURE :
5. List of witnesses examined by prosecution:
P.W.1 Harish N.E P.W.2 M.B.Ramakrishna Reddy P.W.3 Vijayakumar Pujar P.W.4 Narayanaswamy K P.W.5 Shivakumar P.W.6 Muniraju C P.W.7 Hanumanth Uppar P.W.8 Dr.Manjula P.W.9 Dr.Srinivas M P.W.10 Ramasanjeevaiah P.W.11 Dr.Madhusudhan R P.W.12 Ravalappa Demanna Birje P.W.13 Madesh M P.W.14 K.Ajayakumar P.W.15 Arun Kumar G.V
6. List of witnesses examined by defence:
- Nil -
[
7. List of documents marked by prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Photo Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.3 Photo Ex.P.4 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.4 27 S.C No.565/2021 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.5 Wound certificate Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.6 Report Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.7 Requisition Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.8 Covering letter Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.9 Sketch Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.10 Feedback letter Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.11 FIR Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.12 Mahazar Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.p.13 Report Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.p.14 Endorsement Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.15 Requisition Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.16 Letter Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.17 Register extract Ex.P.18 FIR Ex.P.19 Complaint Ex.P.20 Police dairy Ex.P.21 to 31 FIR Ex.P.32 Proceedings of ACP South Zone Ex.p.33 Copy of order Ex.P.34 Call log record Ex.P.35 Requisition letter 28 S.C No.565/2021 Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.36 Wound certificate Ex.P.36(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.37 Acknowledgment Ex.P.37(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.38 Acknowledgment Ex.P.38(a) Signature of P.W.15 8. List of documents by defence: - Nil -
9. List of material objects marked by prosecution:
M.O.1 Long M.O.2 Jeans pant M.O.3 Blood stained mud M.O.4 Sample mud M.O.5 Empty bullet M.O.6 Empty bullet M.O.7 8 live bullets M.O.8 Auto pistol M.O.9 Dragger M.O.10 Machete
M.O.1(a) to 10(a) Signature of P.W.13 LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.29 S.C No.565/2021
Order on sentence pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.
The accused is further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.332 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused is further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 30 S.C No.565/2021 simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention undergone by the accused shall be given set off as provided under sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Office to issue conviction warrant accordingly.
The accused shall be furnished free copy of judgment.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
31 S.C No.565/2021