Bangalore District Court
The State By P.S.I vs A2: Girish S/O Late Murali on 26 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 26th Day of October, 2021
C.C. No.20123/2015
Complainant:
The State by P.S.I.
Vyalikaval Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused:
A2: Girish s/o late Murali
Age 30 years, r/at No.24
13th Cross, near Nagawara
Bus Stop, Nagawara, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.G.Vishwanath Advocate)
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 20123/2015
2. The date of commission 25072010
of the offence
2 C.C.No.20123/2015
3. Name of the complainant Arun
4. Name of the accused Girish and another
5. The offence complained of U/s. 323, 324 and 504 r/w 34
or proved of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused No.2 is acquitted
8. Date of such order 26102021
JUDGMENT
The Police SubInspector of Vyalikaval Police Station has filed the final report against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 25072010 at about 4.30 p.m., at 13th Cross, Pawan Travels, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru the accused No.1 and 2 have voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 with previous grudge with hands and with a dragor knife on his 3 C.C.No.20123/2015 left ear, left shoulder and abused in filthy language. Accordingly, CW1 lodged first information statement before the Vyalikaval Police. The said police have registered the case and issued FIR against the accused No.1 and 2. After investigation the IO has filed the charge sheet against both the accused which was registered in C.C.41852/2010. In view of the continuous absence of accused No.2 the case against accused No.2 was split up and registered this split up case. Accordingly, the NBW was issued against the accused No.2. Since, accused No.2 was in JC in another case so, the body warrant was issued against him.
3. Thereafter, the accused No.2 by moving application got released on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to him in compliance of provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. 4 C.C.No.20123/2015
4. After hearing both the side, my predecessor in office has framed the charges, read over and explained to the accused No.2, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and got marked two documents as per Ex.P.1 and 2. Inspite of taking coercive steps the prosecution has not secured CW1 to 4, 6 to 8 and 11. So, the side of the prosecution was taken as closed.
6. Thereafter, the accused No.2 was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and not chosen to lead his defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are; 5 C.C.No.20123/2015
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that 25072010 at about 4.30 p.m., at 13th Cross, Pawan Travels, Vyalikaval, the accused No.2 with accused No.1 in furtherance of their common intention have voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 with the hands and with a dragor knife on his left ear, left shoulder and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.2 with accused No.1 in furtherance of their common intention intentionally insulted CW1 knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 504 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under: 6 C.C.No.20123/2015
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : In the negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Points No.1 and 2: In order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken all these points together for common consideration for sake of brevity.
10. PW1/Dr.Dayanand being the Medical Officer, K.C.General Hospital, deposed that on 25072010 at about 6.10 p.m., CW1 was came with a history of assault and after examination he found wound behind left ear measuring 1 X ½ cms and cut wound on left shoulder measuring 3 X 1 cm, the said injuries were simple in nature accordingly he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P1.
7 C.C.No.20123/2015
11. During the cross examination he denied that there is every chance of sustaining injury referred in Ex.P1 if a person fell from moving vehicle. He denied that he has not given treatment to CW1 and as per the request of police he has given false wound certificate.
12. PW2/Umesh being the police constable deposed that on 01082010 he and CW8 were deputed by PI to trace out the accused. As per the direction they went to pipeline, swimming pool extension, Kodandaramapura, when they were on patrolling at about 2.45 p.m., at 12th Cross Kodandaramapura they found accused Srikanth and Girish. They caught hold them and produced before CW11.
13. During the cross examination he expressed ignorance about the colour of the dress worn by the accused on that day. So also he cannot say the registration number of the auto in 8 C.C.No.20123/2015 which they taken the accused to the police station. He denied the suggestion that though he has not caught hold the accused and not produced before CW11 but as per the say of his higher officer was deposing falsely.
14. PW3/Suresh Babu being the seizure mahazar witness deposed that he has signed on seizure mahazar at about 1012 years back at police station and one knife was shown to him. But he do not know from whom it has been seized and he cannot identify the same. The certified copy of the seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P2. Thus, the learned Sr.APP after treating him hostile cross examined him wherein he denied that on 01082010 at about 3.45 p.m., to 4.15 p.m., the police have seized the knife from the accused by drawing seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 in his presence.
9 C.C.No.20123/2015
15. In this case, the prosecution has failed to secure CW1 to 4 6 to 8 and 11. The CW1 being the victim and alleged injured has not been secured by the prosecution. So also the prosecution is not able to secure the other independent witnesses. The PW1 to 3 are the Doctor, Police Constable and mahazar witness.
16. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused assaulted on CW1. So, the CW1 is the main and important witness. Without his evidence it is not possible for the prosecution to prove its case. However, the prosecution has not at all secured CW1 despite taking coercive steps by this court. PW3 being the mahazar witness has not supported the case. The prosecution has also not examined the Investigating Officer.
10 C.C.No.20123/2015
17. Under such circumstances, only on the basis of evidence of PW1 and 2 it is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offences. Therefore the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. As per the settled principle of law the accused entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, I answer the above points in the negative.
18. Point No.3: For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above point, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No.2 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 323, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC, by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. 11 C.C.No.20123/2015
His bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
The property seized under P.F.No.63/2010 being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 26th day of September 2021.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Dr.Dayanand s/o Jayashankarappa PW2 : Umesh s/o Doddaiah PW3 : Suresh Babu s/o Partha Sarathi 12 C.C.No.20123/2015
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Wound Certificate Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW3
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M. BENGALURU 13 C.C.No.20123/2015 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Accused No.2 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 323, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC, by acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
His bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
The property seized under P.F.No.63/2010 being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.