Bangalore District Court
State By Sub-Inspector Of Police vs No.1 Adarsha Aradhya @ Adarsha on 6 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF JUNE, 2018
C.C. NO. 740/2016
Complainant State by Sub-Inspector of Police
Girinagar Police station
-Vs-
Accused no.1 Adarsha Aradhya @ Adarsha,
S/o.Gopal Aradhya,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at.Prakruthi" Opp.Helipad,
Nagarajpura Extension,
Ashok Nagar, Shimogga,
Accused no.2 Rishwanth A,
S/o. K.S.Ashok Babu,
Aged about 24 years,
No.1, 12th Cross, Nanjangud
Town, Chamrajnagar District.
The date of commission
of the offence : In between 04.1.2015
and 08.01.2015
Name of the informant of
crime Smt.Anusha Bhat
The offences complained U/secs.504, 292(E), 384,
of: 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC
Date of arrest of A1 and A2- 09.01.2015
accused:
2 C.C.NO.740/2016
Date of release on bail: A1 and 2 - 13.01.2015
Commencement of
recording prosecution
Nil
evidence:
Closure of recording
evidence:
Nil
State represented by : Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused represented Sri.B.N.Girish ...Adv.,
by:
Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination :
Final Order : Accused acquitted
JUDGMENT
(U/S 355 Cr.P.C) Sub-Inspector of Police of Girinagar police station filed this charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 , in Crime No.08/2015, for the offences punishable under Section 504, 292(E), 384, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case runs thus;
That the accused no.1 and 2 sent messages over phone to C.W.1-Smt.Anusha Bhat demanding for Rs.5 lakhs cash for not uploading obscene videos of sister 3 C.C.NO.740/2016 of C.W.1 i.e, C.W.5-Anujnya and continued to send messages and on 08.01.2015 the accused no.1 called C.W.1 over phone and demanded to pay Rs.2 lakhs within 5 P.M near Satelite bus stand at Mysore Road and alternatively threatened and criminally intimidated C.W.1 to upload obscene videos of C.W.5 to websites and thereby accused committed the offences punishable U/Sec.384, 506 and 511 r/w Sec.292(E) r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
3. After submitting the charge sheet cognizance of the alleged offences is taken and criminal case against the accused no.1 and 2 came to be registered.
4. The Section 207 of Cr.P.C. complied. The accused appeared and were enlarged on bail. The charge is framed and read over to the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 384, 506 and 511 r/w Sec.292(E) r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded 4 C.C.NO.740/2016 not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution, no oral evidence has been adduced and no documents are got marked.
6. Since no evidence of prosecution against the accused, examination of accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC is dispensed with. The accused did not choose to adduce defense evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments.
8. The following point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the prosecution proves the alleged guilt of the accused no.1to 4 for the offence U/Sec. 448 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?
My finding on the above point No.1 is in the Negative for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Repeatedly 5 C.C.NO.740/2016 NBW was issued against CW.1 to 10. Repeatedly NBW was issued against the said witnesses. NBW to the said witnesses was issued through DCP also. Proclamation U/s.82 of CrP.C was issued to C.W.1 to 5. For one or the other reasons, the witnesses could not be secured.
10. In the decision In the decision reported in ILR 2000 Kar 900 (State of Kar v/s Lakshmappa & Others) Double bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under:-
"Prosecution not producing injured witnesses even though non-bailable warrants had been issued- case ended in acquittal. In appeal by the State the High Court refused to reopen the case observing that opportunity to lead evidence will be given to the prosecution only once".
I perused the said decision, the law laid down in the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
11. In this present case on hand, after giving sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the witnesses. Adjournment would cause prejudice to the rights of the accused. With this view, as per order dated 30.05.2018, prayer of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor to re-issue NBW is rejected and 6 C.C.NO.740/2016 examination of C.W's 1 to 10 is dropped. The prosecution evidence is taken as Nil.
12. After going through the entire material available on the record, this court comes to the clear conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. With this view I answer above said point no.1 in the negative and pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 248 (1) of
Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused
no.1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Section 384, 506 and Sec. 511 r/w Sec.292(E) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Accused no.1 and 2 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bonds of accused and that of surety, stands cancelled.
Item No.1 in P.F.No.04/2015 of Girinagar Police station being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
7 C.C.NO.740/2016
Item No.2 to 4 in P.F.No.04/2015 of Girinagar Police station, are ordered to be returned to the person, from whom it was seized.
(Typed to my online dictation by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 06th day of June 2018.) (Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P. Ws: Nil
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps: Nil
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 (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.