Bangalore District Court
And Accused. It Is True To vs Has Not Threatened Me At The on 3 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 3rd day of January 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.B.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.1949/2016
Date of Offence : 18-11-2015
Name of complainant : State by Gangammagudi Police
Station, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : S.Suresh s/o late Sundar,
aged 25 years,
r/o No.109, 110, 4th cross,
Pampanagar, Yashwanthpur,
Bengaluru.
Offences complained off: U/Sec.323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of
IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 3-1-2018
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gangammagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the 2 C.C.No.1949/2016 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 19-11-2015 at about 8 p.m. when C.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 were returning to their house after completion of their work in Navodaya Enterprises situated at Abbigere Industrial Area, the accused picked up quarrel with them, abused them in filthy language and assaulted C.W.1 on his face, head and right shoulder with hands and also threatened him with dire consequences of life. Under such circumstances, C.W.1 has lodged a complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC. On the basis of the said complaint, the Gangammagudi Police have registered the case against the accused for the aforesaid offences in Crime No.174/2015. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. After appearance of the accused, necessary documents as relied by the prosecution are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been 3 C.C.No.1949/2016 framed and same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 10 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, the C.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 3, 7 and 8 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and identified M.O.1. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time, hence they are dropped.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
4 C.C.No.1949/2016
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC?
2. What Order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that on 19-11-2015 at about 8 p.m. when C.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 were returning to their house after completion of their work in Navodaya Enterprises situated at Abbigere Industrial Area, the accused picked up quarrel with them, abused them in filthy language and assaulted C.W.1 on his face, head and right shoulder with hands and also threatened him with dire consequences of life and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC.
5 C.C.No.1949/2016
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC, C.W.1 is examined as P.W.1. In the course of chief examination P.W.1 has reiterated the contentions and allegations made in the course of complaint and got marked the complaint and mahazar as Exs.P1 and P2 and identified M.O.1.
10. To test the veracity of P.W.1 and to disprove the case of the prosecution, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in brief, in which P.W.1 has deposed in page No.2 to the following effect:
It is true to suggest that, there was a money transaction between the complainant and accused. It is true to suggest that, at the instigation of my friends and on wrong presumption complaint was filed. It is true to suggest that accused has not assaulted me and scolded in filthy language. Similarly, the accused has not threatened me at the knife point. I have signed the mahazar in the police station. I do not know the 6 C.C.No.1949/2016 contents of the mahazar. It is true to suggest that, M.O.1 shown to me for the first time in the open court.
The categorical admission of P.W.1 as above disproves the allegation made against the accused for the alleged offences. P.W.1 being the complainant is not consistent in his version to prove the guilt of the accused.
11. C.W.2 is examined as P.W.2 who is an eye witness who has deposed in similar manner as deposed by P.W.1. Similarly, in the course of cross-examination P.W.2 also deposed to the following effect:
I have not seen any incident held between the accused and P.W.1. It is true to suggest that, the M.O.1 shown to me for the first time before the court. The evidence of P.W.2 as above is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences.
12. C.W.4 is examined as P.W.3 and C.W.5 is examined as P.W.4. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged incident. Therefore, both P.Ws.3 and 4 were treated 7 C.C.No.1949/2016 as hostile witnesses and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission of the court, but in the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to prove the alleged incident.
13. C.W.9 is examined as P.W.5 who is a Medical Officer who has deposed that he has treated one Delhi Babu for the injuries and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P5. In the course of cross-examination P.W.5 has categorically admitted that he has not mentioned the age of the injuries in the wound certificate and not produced x-ray before the court. When complainant himself admitted that there was no incident and the accused has not assaulted him, the evidence of P.W.5 is not at sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
14. C.W.10 is examined as P.W.6 who has deposed that when he was in Police Station as SHO complaint was filed as per Ex.P1. Accordingly, he has registered the case and conducted the mahazar and seized M.O.1, but the evidence of P.W.6 is also not sufficient, because complainant turned hostile.
8 C.C.No.1949/2016
15. C.W.3 is examined as P.W.7 and C.W.7 is examined as P.W.8. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the seizure mahazar witnesses. Both P.Ws.7 and 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of M.O.1. Therefore, they were treated as hostile witnesses and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission of the court, but nothing has been elicited to prove the seizure mahazar.
16. C.W.8 is examined as P.W.9 who is also a seizure mahazar witness who has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission of the court, but nothing has been elicited to prove the seizure of M.O.1. Therefore, viewed form any angle, the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 9 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
9 C.C.No.1949/2016
17. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stand cancelled.
M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 3rd day of January 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Delhi Babu,
P.W.2, Kiran,
P.W.3, Arogyaswamy,
P.W.4, Purushotham,
P.W.5, Dr.Girish H.R,
10 C.C.No.1949/2016
P.W.6, Palaksha Prabhu,
P.W.7, Govindaraj,
P.W.8, Kalai Mani,
P.W.9, Kutti;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Complaint, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2, Spot mahazar, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2(b), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P3, Statement of P.W.3, Ex.P4, Statement of P.W.4, Ex.P5, Wound certificate Ex.P5(a), Signatures of P.W.5, Ex.P5(b), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P6, FIR, Ex.P6(a), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P7, Voluntary statement of accused, Ex.P8, Seizure mahazar, Ex.P8(a), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P8(b), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P8(c), Signature of P.W.9, Ex.P9, Statement; Material Objects Produced:- M.O.1, Knife;
Witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the defence: - NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.11 C.C.No.1949/2016
3/1/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506(B) of IPC. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stand cancelled. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.12 C.C.No.1949/2016 13 C.C.No.1949/2016