Bangalore District Court
State By K.S. Layout Police Station vs No. : 2. Venkatesh on 20 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 20th day of July 2018
:Present:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.25291/2016
Complainant : State by K.S. Layout Police station
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 2. Venkatesh,
S/o Chinnadore,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at 2nd Cross,
Behind Bandemaramma Temple,
Vasanthapura, Bengaluru.
3. Raghu (DEAD)
(Represented by Sri. N. Sampath, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The PSI of K.S. Layout Police Station has filed split up charge sheet against accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 325, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.25291/2016
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 30/12/2012 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night, accused persons due to old enmity, wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 Sri. T.K. Ramesh in front of Haandi Hotel, situated at Vasanthpura Main Road, Prashanthi Nagar, within the limits of K.S. Layout Police Station, picked up quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language, accused No.2 strongly fisted on the right portion of C.W. 1's forehead, accused No.1 and 3 also fisted on C.W. 1's nose, caused grievous hurt and thereby committed aforesaid offences.
Therefore, C.W. 1 Sri. T.K. Ramesh lodged complaint against accused persons before jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against accused persons. During the course of investigation I.O visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, seized the articles and subjected the same under P.F. No.262/2012, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained wound certificate from the concerned medical authority and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences.3 C.C.No.25291/2016
3. The accused No.2 is on bail and he is represented through his counsel. Death of accused No.3 is brought to the court notice. Hence, case against accused No.3 is abated.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused No.2 as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 341, 325, 504 r/w 34 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The Charge is recorded, contents of Charge has been read over and explained to the accused No.2 in the language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. Though, the prosecution in order to prove its case has cited as many as 10 witnesses, except C.W. 5, none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 to 4, 6 to 10 have turned up before the court inspite of taking coercive steps like issuance of summons, warrants and even proclamation. It is to be observed that, the charge is framed in the year 2017 and till now C.W. 1 to 4, 6 to 10 have been secured and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Therefore, they have been discharged from deposing evidence. As there is no incriminating 4 C.C.No.25291/2016 evidence against accused No.2, recording of accused statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C has been dispensed with. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
8. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 30/12/2012 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night, accused persons in furtherance of common intention, due to old enmity, wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 Sri. T.K. Ramesh in front of Haandi Hotel, situated at Vananthpura Main Road, Prashanthi Nagar, within the limits of K.S. Layout Police Station and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, in furtherance of their common intention, accused persons picked up quarrel with C.W. 1, abused him in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.2 5 C.C.No.25291/2016 strongly fisted on the right portion of C.W. 1's forehead, accused No.1 and 3 also fisted on C.W. 1's nose, caused grievous hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 3: All these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
11. The prosecution in order to establish its case has cited as many as 10 witnesses. This case has been registered on the back ground of an assault said to have been caused on the complainant by the accused persons.
12. To establish the said allegation, though the prosecution has cited as many as 10 witnesses in charge sheet, except C.W. 5, 6 C.C.No.25291/2016 none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 1 to 4, 6 to 10 have turned up before the court inspite of coercive steps. Further, it is pertinent to note that, on 11/09/2017 this court has framed charge and this court has extended fullest assistance to secure the witnesses by issuing summons, warrants and even proclamation which is apparent in the order sheet.
13. The prosecution has examined C.W. 5 Sri. Nagaraju.B.M. as P.W. 1, wherein he has totally turned hostile, not deposed anything against accused No.2 and thereby not supported the case of prosecution. As such, nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination.
14. Further, it is pertinent to note that, C.W. 1 Sri. T.K. Ramesh who has set the law into motion and who is an injured in this case, has not appeared before this court to put forth his case in respect of the allegations made against accused No.2, which weakens the case of prosecution and in the absence of material evidence of complainant and other independent witnesses, it would not be proper to hold accused No.2 as guilty minded. Therefore C.W. 1 to 4, 6 to 10 have been discharged from deposing 7 C.C.No.25291/2016 evidence by rejecting the prayer of prosecution. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge leveled against accused No.2 with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above points No.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
15.Point No.4: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.341, 504, 325 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.2 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Articles seized and subjected under P.F. No.262/2012, being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of July 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.8 C.C.No.25291/2016
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Nagaraju.B.M.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W. 1
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.9 C.C.No.25291/2016
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.341, 504, 325 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of accused No.2 and surety shall stands cancelled.
Articles seized and subjected under P.F. No.262/2012, being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.10 C.C.No.25291/2016