Bangalore District Court
State By Indiranagar Police Station vs Ahmed Khan @ Papun on 10 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXIII ADDL., CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-64)
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017.
PRESENT
SRI.JOSHI VENKATESH, B.A.LL.B,(Spl),
LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SC.No.1429/2014
Complainant : State by Indiranagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
Accused : Ahmed Khan @ Papun,
S/o Afiz Khan,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.22, 1st Cross,
Bazaar Street, Ulsoor,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. B.S. and Smt. M.K., Advs.,)
2 SC.1429/2014
1. Date of commission of offence : 25.04.2012
2. Date of report of offence : 25.04.2012
3. Arrest of Accused : 26.04.2012
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Murtajsaheb Mulla
5. Date of commencement of trial : 12.08.2015
6. Date of closing of evidence : 24.11.2016
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.333 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
*****
JUDGMENT
1. Sub-Inspector of Police, Indiranagar Police Station, Bangalore, filed charge sheet against accused alleging that he has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.333 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, complainant being driver of B.M.T.C. bus given complaint before the police on 25.04.2012 at 23.30 hours as per Ex.P.1 stating that, when he was on duty on 25.04.2012 at 10.30 p.m. from Banashankari to Indiranagar and Bus reached in front of H.D.F.C. bank, C.M.H. Road, at that time there was auto in front of the bus. Hence he pressed the horn. Thereafter two persons who were sitting in the auto came out and picked up quarrel with the complainant stating that "¤ªÀÄä C¥ÀàAzÀ 3 SC.1429/2014 gÀ¸ÉÛ". Then they stopped the auto in front of the bus and used vulgar language against the complainant, kicked him and threatened to take his life. Accordingly he sustained injuries to his head and nose. One of them gave dash to his nose with head, due to which complainant sustained bleeding injuries and prevented him from doing his duty. Accordingly prayed the police to take action against the said persons.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant Investigating Officer registered a case against unknown persons for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC. Then conducted spot panchanama. On 26.04.2012 accused was arrested and produced before the I.O. I.O., arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. On 27.04.2012 complainant appeared before the I.O., and gave further statement. After receiving the injury certificate I.O., filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that he has committed offence punishable U/Sec.333 of IPC.
4. After receipt of the charge sheet, X A.C.M.M., Bangalore registered case against the accused for the offence 4 SC.1429/2014 punishable U/Sec.333 of IPC. Accused appeared before the Court and he was released on bail. After furnishing copy of the charge sheet to accused case is committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offence alleged is exclusively tri able by court of sessions.
5. After receipt of case papers from the X A.C.M.M., Bangalore, Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered the case against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.333 of IPC and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
6. After receipt of the case papers this Court issued summons to accused. Accused appeared before the Court and released on bail.
7. After hearing the Advocate for the accused and prosecution, Charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.333 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to accused in Kannada language known to him. After knowing the same, accused not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
8. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.4 documents. Even though NBW is issued to CW.5 it returned un-executed 5 SC.1429/2014 without any property reasons. Hence prayer of the prosecution to re-issue NBW to CW.5 is rejected and taken prosecution evidence as closed.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, 313 Cr.P.C., statement of accused is recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case and submits no defense evidence.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. The points those arise for consideration are :
Point No.1: C©üÃAiÉÆÃd£É ¥ÀgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ¢. 25.04.2012 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 10.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ¹.JA.ºÉZï gÀ¸ÉÛ , ºÉZï.r.J¥sï.¹. ¨ÁåAPï ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÁQë 1 ªÀÄÄvÀÄðd ¸ÁºÉÃ¨ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 4 ªÉÆúÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ §¸ï £ÀA.PÉJ-01-J¥sï-9421 gÀÆmï £ÀA.201-11 §£À±ÀAPÀj¬ÄAzÀ zÉƪÀÄä®ÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ §¹ìUÉ DmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß CqÀØ ¤°è¹ KPÉ ºÁgÀ£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¤ªÀÄä¥Àà£ÀzÀ ¨ÉÆýªÀÄUÀ£É , ¸ÀƼÉêÀÄUÀ£Éà JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ KPÁKQ dUÀ¼À vÉUz É ÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 ªÀÄÄvÀÄðd ¸ÁºÉèï gÀªÀjUÉ PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¯ÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆV£À ºÀwÛgÀ vÀ¯É¬ÄAzÀ ¢aÑ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹ PÀvðÀ ªÀåzÀ°èzÀÝ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀĪÀ¸ÀªÛç À£ÀÄß ºÀjzÀĺÁQ ¸ÀPÁðj PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥r À ¹ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸À»vÀ PÀ®A 333gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzÀs ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÆwÃvÀªÁV ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉAiÉÄà ?
Point No.2 : K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ ?
6 SC.1429/2014
12. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
13. Point Nos.1 & 2 :- It is the specific case of the prosecution that, on 25.04.2012 complainant was on duty in B.M.T.C. bus from Banashankari to Indiranagar. When bur reached in front of H.D.F.C. bank, C.M.H. road at 10.30 pm, at that time auto of the accused was moving in front of the bus. Hence complainant gave horn. Accused came out from the auto and picked up quarrel with the complainant, used vulgar language against him and dashed to the nose of the complainant with his head which resulted in grievous bleeding injuries. Accused torn the uniform of the accused and obstructed his official duty thereby committed the offences pun. U/Sec.333 of IPC.
14. It is well settled principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Whenever doubt arises in the mind of the court about the case of the prosecution, then accused is very well entitled to get the said benefit of doubt in their favour. Let us see 7 SC.1429/2014 whether the prosecution is successful in proving its case against the Accused.
15. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.4 documents.
16. PW.1 is the complainant as well as the injured. PW.2 and PW.4 are spot panchas. PW.3 is the conductor of the bus as well as eye witness, PW.5 is the Investigating Officer who registered case against un-known persons. PW.7 is the doctor who treated the injured and gave injury certificate, PW.6 is the Investigating officer who arrested the accused, recorded the further statement of complainant, obtained injury certificate and filed charge sheet against the accused.
17. Ex.P.1 is complaint, Ex.P.2 is spot panchanama, Ex.P.3 is F.I.R and Ex.P.4 is the injury certificate of the injured.
18. In this case complainant and PW.3 are working in the same depot and they are interested persons. Independent eye witness is not examined before the Court.
19. PW.1 is the complainant as well as injured. PW.1 stated before the Court that, on 25.04.2012 when driving bus from Banashankari to Domlur at 10.30 p.m. in the night 8 SC.1429/2014 reached C.M.H. road, in front of HDFC bank, galata taken place. In front of the bus auto was moving and complainant pressed the horn of the bus. 2-3 vehicles were moving in front of the bus. Accused got down from his auto and picked up quarrel with him, used vulgar language against him, dragged the injured/complainant from the bus from seat of the driver to the road and assaulted him which resulted in bleeding injuries to the nose. Then PW.3, himself and public gathered there caught the accused and then taken him to Indiranagar police station and handed over him to the police. Then he filed complaint as per Ex.P.1. On the next day police called him to the spot and conducted spot panchanama. Evidence given by complainant is not in conformity with Ex.P.1 complaint. Of course on 27.04.2012 he has given further statement stating that there was only one accused. But in the complaint, complainant stated that two persons sitting in the auto came out and picked up quarrel with him. On the contrary he stated before the Court that, accused who was the auto driver stopped his auto in front of the bus and picked up quarrel with him. Both are quite contrary. 9 SC.1429/2014 According to complainant, on the same day of the incident he caught the accused along with PW.3 bus conductor and public and handed over him to the police. But there is no any such statement given by PW.1 before the Court. In the cross examination complainant clearly admits that, two persons who were sitting in the auto, picked up quarrel with him. In his examination in chief complainant stated that, accused picked up quarrel with him. But in the cross examination he stated that two persons picked up quarrel with him. So evidence of complainant is not free from doubt. If at all complainant shirt was torn on that day, then what prevented the complainant to produce the said shirt before the police is not made known. There is no whisper about the shirt in the entire Ex.P.1 complaint. Even in Ex.P.2 panchanama complainant stated that two persons attacked him. PW.5 who registered the case against two unknown persons stated in the cross examination that, on the date of filing of the complaint, complainant only came to the police station. PW.5 never stated that he sent the complainant to the Doctor for treatment after registering the case. So it is very difficult to accept the self-serving 10 SC.1429/2014 statement of PW.1 which is not corroborated with Ex.P.1 and P.2. Hence evidence of complainant is not free from doubt. His evidence requires corroboration.
20. PW.2 and PW.4 are spot panchas for Ex.P.2 panchanama.
PW.2 stated before the Court that, in front of HDFC bank, C.M.H. Road, police taken his signature on Ex.P.2 panchanama as there was a galata. In the cross examination he stated that he has no knowledge what is written in the panchanama. As per the instructions given by the police he signed on Ex.P.2 panchanama. PW.4 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even though cross examination is made nothing has been brought before the Court to show that in presence of PW.2 and PW.4 Ex.P.2 panchanama is conducted by the police on the instructions of complainant. So it creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the case of the prosecution.
21. PW.3 is the conductor of the bus and eye witness to the incident as per the case of the prosecution. He stated before the Court that, complainant was working as driver and he was working as conductor in 4th depot. On 25.04.2012 the bus was moving from Banashankari to 11 SC.1429/2014 Domlur and reached C.M.H. road. When bus came in front of H.D.F.C. bank an auto was standing in middle of the road. Then driver of the bus pressed horn. But auto driver did not move his auto. Once again horn was pressed, at that time accused i.e., the auto driver dragged the complainant/driver from the bus and assaulted him with hands and dashed his head to the head of complainant. Due to which there was bleeding injury on the nose of the complainant. His uniform was blood stained and the clothes of the complainant were torned. Next day when he went to the police station police summoned the accused. Police sent the complainant to the hospital for treatment. Evidence given by PW.3 is not corroborative with the evidence of PW.1. PW.3 stated that, accused assaulted the complainant with hands and dashed his head to the head of the complainant. Hence there was bleeding injury from nose. But complainant stated that, accused dashed his head to his nose. Accordingly there was a bleeding in the nose. PW.3 never stated that accused dashed to the face of the injured. Further PW.3 stated that, uniform worn by the complainant was torn and blood stained. If at all it is so, 12 SC.1429/2014 then the I.O. could have seized it for the purpose of investigation. Complainant could have produced the same before the IO. But no such blood stained uniform is seized by the I.O. PW.5 IO who registered the case never stated that when complainant come to the police station for filing the complaint his cloths were torned and blood stained. Hence it creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the evidence given by PW.3. PW.1 stated before the Court that, he, PW.3 and public handed over the accused to the police on the date of incident. But PW.3 and 5 never whispered about it. As such evidence of PW.3 is not free from doubt. This witness in his cross examination stated that, since there was galata he seen the accused on the spot and seen accused on the next day in the police station. So from this it is very clear that, accused had not come to the police station on the date of incident. Hence evidence of PW.3 is not free from doubt and not fit to be taken into consideration to connect the guilt of the accused. Accordingly it is not taken into consideration.
22. PW.5 is the retired P.S.I. He stated before the Court that, on 25.04.2012 when he was S.H.O. of the police station at 13 SC.1429/2014 about 11.30 p.m. complainant came to the police station and gave written complaint. Accordingly he registered the case in Cr.No.145/2012 for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC against two unknown persons and forwarded F.I.R. to the Court. If at all complainant's evidence is believed then PW.5 could not have registered the case against unknown persons. He could have registered the case against the accused who alleged to be handed over by PW3 and 5 on the day of complaint. Since evidence of PW.1 to 4 is not fit to be taken into consideration to connect the guilt of the accused, evidence of PW.5 will not come to the help of the prosecution. More over PW.5 clearly stated before the Court that, complainant alone came to the police station and nobody accompanied him. Hence it s not taken into consideration.
23. PW.7 is the doctor who treated the injured. He stated before the Court regarding the injury sustained by the complainant on nasal bone. In the cross examination PW.7 admits that, if the driver while driving the bus applies sudden break and if his face comes in contact with the staring there is possibility of occurring injury shown in 14 SC.1429/2014 Ex.P.4. Since evidence of complainant other witness is not fit to be believed, the evidence of PW.7 doctor will not come to the help of the prosecution to connect the guilty of the accused.
24. Then evidence remaining for consideration is the evidence of Investigating Officer. He stated before the Court that, after registering the case he visited the spot, conducted spot panchanama and arrested the accused on 26.04.2012. Complainant gave further statement on 27.04.2012. Then he obtained injury certificate and filed charge sheet. Since evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 is not fit to be believed to connect the guilt of the accused, then the evidence of I.O. is also not fit to be taken into consideration to connect the guilt of the accused. Evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubt. Prosecution failed to clarify the doubt arises in the mind of the Court. Whenever doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the case of the prosecution, then accused is very well entitled to claim the said benefit of doubt in his favour. Looking to any angle, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution utterly failed to prove its case as alleged against the accused. Hence by awarding benefit 15 SC.1429/2014 of doubt in favour of the accused, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
25. Point No.4 : In view of the discussion made above and the findings given on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Acting U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.333 of IPC.
2. Bail-bond of accused and that of his surety stands cancelled.
3. Accused is directed to execute fresh bail bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety like sum to secure his presence before higher court in case of any appeal is preferred against this judgment of acquittal as required U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C., and such bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of its execution.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, the transcript revised by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of January 2017).
(JOSHI VENKATESH) LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
16 SC.1429/2014ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 : Murthaza Saheb, Mohammed Saheb, 37 yrs PW.2 : Mahendra, S/o Basappa, 40 yrs PW.3 : Mohan, S/o Kenchahanumappa, 34 yrs, PW.4 : Nagaraju, S/o Muniyappa, 42 yrs, PW.5 : Kotappa, S/o late Muniswamy, 62 yrs, PW.6 : Kempegowda, S/o Nanjegowda, 48 yrs, PW.7 : Dr. Maralikumar, S/o G.Veeraswamy, 48 yrs.
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
- NIL-
3. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.3 : F.I.R.
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.4 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.7.
4. List of documents marked for the Accused:
- NIL -
5. Material object marked in this case:
- NIL -
(JOSHI VENKATESH), LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.17 SC.1429/2014 18 SC.1429/2014
.19 SC.1429/2014