Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs ) V. Kishore Kumar @ Kishore on 26 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-56)
:Present :
Sri Kotrayya M. Hiremath, B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).
LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
: S.C.No. 1466/2014 :
DATED: THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015.
Complainant: The State of Karnataka,
Through the Police-Inspector,
Banaswadi Police Station, Bangalore.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
Accused : 1) V. Kishore Kumar @ Kishore,
S/o Venkatesh, Age: 30 years,
R/at No.1119, M.V.Nilaya,
Munegowda Road, 7th Cross,
R.S.Palya, Bengaluru.
2) Devid John @ John s/o Gnanaraj,
Age: 25 years, r/at No. 22,
Indira Street, 4th cross, R.S.Palya,
Bengaluru.
3) Manjunath @ Manja s/o Shankar,
Age: 27 years, R/at No.122,
3rd cross, Jayaram Street,
Munikalappa Garden,
R.S.Palya, Bengaluru.
(By.Sri. Shivakumar Y, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
1. Date of commission of 7-5-2014
Offence
2. Date of report of 8-5-2014
Occurrence
2 S.C No. 1466/2014
3. Date of commencement 28-4-2015
of evidence
4. Date of closing of 9-11-2015
Evidence
5. Name of the Sri Vijay s/o. Selvam
complainant
6. Offence complained of u/sec. 307, r/w. 34 of IPC
7. Date of arrest A1 - On 8-5-2014
A2 - On 8-5-2014
A3 - On 8-5-2014
8. Date of release A1 - On 27-6-2014
A2 - On 27-6-2014
A3 - On 27-6-2014
9. Opinion of the Judge Offence not proved
10. Duration: (from date of 01 year, 06 months and 19 days
commission of offence)
11. Order of sentence Accused No. 1 to 3 are acquitted
In this case the Police Inspector of Banaswadi Police station, Bangalore, has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that they have committed the offence of 'attempt to murder' punishable u/sec. 307, r/w. sec. 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution as per charge sheet are as under:-
2(a) The incident took place on 7-5-2014 at about 8.30 pm in front of Pooja Bakery, near R.S. Palya bus stop, Kammanahalli, situated within the limits of Banaswadi Police Station, at 3 S.C No. 1466/2014 Bengaluru. On that day at about 7:00 pm, the A1 to A3 were playing cards in BDA park at R.S. Playa. These A1 to A3 were known to CWs 1 and 2. When the CW1 saw A1 to A3 playing cards in the above mentioned place, he advised them not to play cards. Because of this reason the A1 to A3 got angry and they threatened the CW1 with dire consequences.
2(b) Then on the same day at about 8:30 pm the CW1 Vijay and CW2 Madan were standing in front of Pooja Bakery near R.S. Palya bus stop in Kammanahalli within the limits of Banaswadi police Station at Bangalore. At that time the A1 to 3 came there and quarreled with CW1. The CW2 told them not to quarrel. The A1 to 3 again got angry with CWs 1 and 2. The A3 Manjunath held CW1 tightly and the A1 Kishore kumar assaulted CW1 on his head with a chopper. When the CW2 came to the rescue of CW1, the A1 assaulted him on his left forehead with the same chopper. The A2 David John assaulted CW2 on his leg with a hockey stick. Then the A3 Manjunath assaulted CW1 on his head with a broken glass bottle. As a result of this the CWs 1 and 2 sustained injuries. It is alleged that the A1 to 3 did these acts with intention to kill CWs 1 and
2. Therefore, it is alleged that they have committed the offence punishable u/sec. 307, r/w. sec. 34 of IPC. 4 S.C No. 1466/2014
3. On receipt of charge sheet, the learned XI ACMM, Bangalore City has taken cognizance of the offence against accused Nos. 1 to 3 as per the charge sheet and after complying with sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. he has committed the case u/sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. against all the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for trial.
4. This is a sessions trial case. Both the parties are, therefore, heard by this court u/sec. 227 of Cr.P.C before framing the charge. It was found that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused have committed the alleged offense. Therefore, the charge has been framed u/sec. 228 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/sec. 307, r/w sec. 34 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3. It was read over and explained to the accused persons. They have pleaded not guilty and have claimed to be tried. Accordingly the case is tried by this court.
4(a) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has adduced the oral evidence of complainant and another witness as PW1 and PW2 respectively and has produced the documentary evidence such as complaint and statement of witness and got them marked as Exs.P.1 and 2 and also got marked one chopper, one hockey stick and one bottle as M.Os.1 to 3. 5 S.C No. 1466/2014
4(b) After closure of prosecution evidence it is noticed that there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused persons. Therefore, the recording of statements of accused u/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. There is no defence side evidence u/sec. 233 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides.
6. Now the following points will arise for my consideration and determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 7-5-2014 at about 8.30 pm in front of Pooja Bakery, near R.S.Palya bus stop, Kammanahalli, situated within the limits of Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru, the A1 did cause injury to CW1 on his head by assaulting him with a chopper and also injury to CW2 on his left fore-head by assaulting him with the same chopper, the A2 caused injury to CW2 on his left leg by assaulting him with a hockey stick and the A3 caused injury to CW1 on his head with a broken glass bottle and that the A1 to A3 did these acts with intention to kill CWs 1 and 2 because of their previous ill-will and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec. 307 r/w. sec. 34 of IPC ?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following :
6 S.C No. 1466/2014
REASONS
Point No. 1 :-
8. There are totally fifteen witnesses named in the charge sheet as CWs 1 to 15. Among them the prosecution has examined the CWs. 1 and 2 as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, the prosecution is now depending upon the oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, the documentary evidence Exs.P1 and 2 and the material objects M.Os 1 to 3 to prove its case.
9. The CW1 Vijay, complainant, who has deposed as PW1 has stated that about 1 year back at about 7:30 or 8:00 pm he was present near the medical shop at Ramaswamy playa, at that time the quarrel was going on between two groups, about 20 to 30 persons were gathered in the said place and that he was assaulted by some one when he tried to pacify the quarrel. He has further stated that as a result of it he became unconscious, after gaining consciousness he ran away upto the main road from where one auto driver took him to the police station and told him to lodge complaint before the police. He has further stated that he lodged complaint against the persons who were named by the said auto driver. He has further stated that the CW2 was also assaulted by some one. But it is important to note that this PW1 has not stated anything 7 S.C No. 1466/2014 against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3. He has stated that he does not know A1 to 3 and that he has not seen them anywhere. He has stated that he does not know who assaulted him. Because of this reason the learned public prosecutor has treated him as a hostile witness and has cross-examined him in detail. Even then this PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, it is to be noticed that the injured complainant PW1 himself has not supported the case of prosecution.
10. The other witness examined by prosecution is PW2 Madan. According to the case of prosecution this PW2 Madan was present with PW1 Vijay in the place of incident at the time of incident and he is also assaulted by accused persons. But this PW2 has also not supported the case of prosecution. He too has stated that he does not know A1 to A3 and that he has not seen them anywhere. He has stated that about 1 year back when he was going near a bakery at Ramaswamy playa in Kammanahalli somebody were assaulting CW1 Vijay, when he went to the said place he was also assaulted by some one and that he does not know who assaulted him. He has stated that he fell down and became unconscious and does not know who took him to the hospital.
8 S.C No. 1466/2014
11. The prosecution got issued witness summons and warrants to other material witnesses CWs 3, 4, 5, 10, 14 and
15. But inspite of issuance of summons and warrants several times these CWs 3, 4, 5, 10, 14 and 15 did not come forward to give their oral evidence. Because of this reason the prayer of learned public prosecutor for re-issue of witness warrants to these witnesses is rejected by the court. As already noticed above the important material witnesses who are said to have sustained injuries during the incident have turned fully hostile to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if the prosecution examines the remaining charge sheet witnesses it does not serve the purpose of prosecution. Because of this reason the prayer of learned public prosecutor for issuance of witness summons to the remaining witnesses is rejected by the court.
12. Because of these above mentioned reasons the prosecution has failed to prove its case against A1 to 3. The A1 to 3 are therefore entitled for clear acquittal. Hence the point No. 1 is answered in the negative.
Point No.2:
13. In view of the finding already given on point No. 1 above, I proceed to pass the following:
9 S.C No. 1466/2014
ORDER The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted u/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the alleged commission of offence punishable u/sec. 307, r/w sec. 34 of IPC and they are set at liberty.
2) The bail bonds executed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and their surety bonds stand cancelled.
3) The material objects M.O.1 one chopper is ordered to be confiscated to the State and M.O.2 one Hockey stick and M.O.3 one broken glass bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period as they are valueless.
[Directly, dictated to the Judgment writer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, dated this 26th day of November 2015.] (Kotrayya M. Hiremath) LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURES List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW1 Vijay PW2 Madan
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 Statement of witness
10 S.C No. 1466/2014
List of Material Objects Marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 One Chopper M.O.2 One Hockey stick M.O.3 One Bottle
List of Witnesses Examined and documents marked on behalf of the defense:
-NIL-
(Kotrayya M. Hiremath) LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.11 S.C No. 1466/2014