Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.9 : Subramani on 1 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITYF CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 1st day of July 2016
PRESENT:
Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., LL.B (Spl),
M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),
LL.M (Business Laws), M.Phil-in-Law
(Juridical Science)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 1347/2010 (Main case)
Connected
S.C.No. 1257/2011 (Clubbed case)
S.C.No. 1347/2010
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
The Police Inspector,
Basaveshwaranagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.9 : Subramani,
S/o. Venkataramareddy,
Aged 18 years,
R/a. Near Cauverynagar Drainage
Next Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri Chandrappa K.N, Advocate)
S.C.No. 1257/2011
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
The Police Inspector,
Basaveshwaranagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
2 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
Accused No.8 : Shivakumar,
(In Judicial Custody) S/o. Sampath,
Aged 21 years,
R/a. No.22, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross,
Kamalanagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri B.K.Ramesh, Advocate)
1 Date of commission of offence 17.01.2008
2 Date of report of offence 17.01.2008
3 Date of arrest of the accused 17.01.2008
4 Date of release of accused on bail 12.02.2008 = A.9
A-8 is in judicial custody
5 Date of commencement of 21.10.2015
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 27.04.2016
7 Name of the complainant G.C. Manjunath, PI.
8 Offences complained of Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 332, 353, 307, 427
r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
9 Date of pronouncement of 01.07.2016
judgment
9 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused
persons not proved
10 Order of Sentence As per final-order
COMMON-JUDGMENT
These are the two split-up charge-sheets against accused
No's.9 & 8 respectively from the other split-up charge-sheet at SC
No.997/2008, having levelled the charges against the accused
No's.9 & 8, respectively, for the commission of the offences
punishable U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 427 r/w
Sec.149 of I.P.C. in the committal V ACMM Court, Bengaluru City,
in it's CC No.9554/2008 in connection with the
Basaveshwaranagar P.S. Cr.No.11/2008.
3 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
2. These SC No's.1347/2010 & 1257/2011 against the
accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, having been split-up from the
other split-up charge-sheet at SC No.997/2008 for the same and
similar offences, the split-up SC No.1257/2011 is clubbed-with the
other split-up SC No.1347/2010, as per the order-sheet dated
21.10.2015 of SC No.1257/2011 for the purpose of common-
evidence and for disposal on merits by way of common-judgment.
3. The epitomized facts of the allegations that are leveled
against the above said accused persons in the charge-sheet run
thus:
On 17.01.2008 at about 8.15 a.m. in the morning, in front of
Thirumala Palace Kalyana Mantap in Kamakshipalya area, the
accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused
persons in prosecution with common-object formed an unlawful
assembly holding the deadly-weapons like stones and clubs etc.,
with an intention to commit rioting in connection with a canter
vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-7403 having been caused the accident
with a pedestrian who succumbed on the spot itself, pelted the
stones towards the police and used the criminal-force and
assaulted to deter them as public servants from discharging their
duties and caused the grievous bleeding injuries and attempted to
commit the murder of the police people and also pelted the stones
towards the vehicles passing there-from along-with BMTC buses
and caused the damage to the extent of Rs.2,25,000/-
4 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
approximately to the BMTC and thereby, the accused persons
committed the offences punishable U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148,
332, 353, 307, 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
4. After filing the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences
punishable U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 427 r/w
Sec.149 of IPC was taken by V ACMM Court, Bengaluru City.
On moving for bail, the accused No.9 has been released on
bail, as per the order dated 12.02.2008 in Crl.Misc.No.325/2008 of
the then FTC IX, Bengaluru City.
The accused No.8 is in judicial custody, in view of he having
arrested by the concerned police and produced before the Court.
Copies of the charge-sheet and other documents referred to
U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused No's.9 & 8,
respectively, by the V ACMM Court, Bengaluru City, in
contemplation with the provisions U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and
thereafter committed the case to this court in contemplation with
the provisions U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
After committing the case to this court by the V ACMM Court,
Bengaluru City, the accused No.8 having jumped his earlier bail,
later-on, he having been produced by the concerned police under
NBW, he is in judicial custody since-then.
After hearing both sides, charges for the offences punishable
U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC
5 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
were framed, and the same were read-over, and explained to the
accused persons in the vernacular best-known to them.
The accused persons have denied the same and pleaded not
guilty and further claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the guilt against the accused persons, the
prosecution has adduced the evidence of the witnesses, in all as
PWs.1 to 20, and placed it's reliance on the documents marked at
Exs.P.1 to P.21, P.1(a), P.1(b), P.2(a), P.3(a), P.3(b), P.4(a), P.5(a),
P.5(b), P.5(c), P.6(a), P.8(a), P.9(a), P.10(a), P.11(a), P.11(b), P.12(a),
P.12(b), P.14(a), P.20(a) & P.21(a), and the material-objects marked
on behalf of the prosecution are at MO No's.1 to 7.
6. After the prosecution's evidence was closed, as the
incriminating circumstances were arising-out of the evidence of the
prosecution-witnesses, the statements of the accused persons
under the provisions U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned
Public Prosecutor for the State as-well-as the respective learned
counsels for the accused persons.
8. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond the
shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on
17.01.2008 at about 8.15 a.m. in the morning, in front
of Thirumala Palace Kalyana Mantap in
Kamakshipalya area, the accused No's.9 & 8,
respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons in
6 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
prosecution with common-object formed an unlawful
assembly in connection with a pedestrian who
succumbed on the spot itself, and thereby, the
accused persons committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.143 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.?
(2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No's.9 &
8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons
in prosecution with common-object formed an
unlawful assembly holding the deadly-weapons like
stones and clubs etc., in connection with a canter
vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-7403 having been caused
the accident with a pedestrian who succumbed on the
spot itself, and thereby, the accused persons
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.144 r/w
Section 149 of I.P.C.?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No's.9 &
8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons
in prosecution with common-object formed an
unlawful assembly with an intention to commit rioting,
and thereby, the accused persons committed the
offence punishable U/Sec.147 r/w Section 149 of
I.P.C.?
(4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No's.9 &
8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons
in prosecution with common-object formed an
7 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
unlawful assembly holding deadly-weapons like stones
and clubs etc., with an intention to commit rioting,
and thereby, the accused persons committed the
offence punishable U/Sec.148 r/w Section 149 of
I.P.C.?
(5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No's.9 &
8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons
in prosecution with common-object formed an
unlawful assembly holding the deadly-weapons like
stones and clubs etc., with an intention to commit
rioting in connection with a canter vehicle bearing
No.KA-02-D-7403 having been caused the accident
with a pedestrian who succumbed on the spot itself,
pelted the stones towards the police people and
voluntarily caused the hurt to deter them as public
servants from their duty, and thereby, the accused
persons committed the offence punishable U/Sec.332
r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.?
(6) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No's.9 &
8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons
in prosecution with common-object formed an
unlawful assembly holding the deadly-weapons like
stones and clubs etc., with an intention to commit
rioting in connection with a canter vehicle bearing
No.KA-02-D-7403 having been caused the accident
with a pedestrian who succumbed on the spot itself,
pelted the stones towards the police people and used
8 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
the criminal-force and assaulted to deter them as
public servants from discharging their duties, and
thereby, the accused persons committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.353 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.?
(7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No.9 & 8,
respectively, along-with other 8 co-accused persons in
prosecution with common-object formed an unlawful
assembly holding the deadly-weapons like stones and
clubs etc., with an intention to commit rioting in
connection with a canter vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-
7403 having been caused the accident with a
pedestrian who succumbed on the spot itself, pelted
the stones towards the police people and used the
criminal-force and assaulted to deter them as public
servants from discharging their duties and also caused
the grievous bleeding injuries and attempted to
commit the murder of police, and thereby, the accused
persons committed the offence punishable U/Sec.307
r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.?
(8) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that, on the
above said date, time and place, the accused No's.9 &
8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused persons
in prosecution with common-object formed an
unlawful assembly holding the deadly-weapons like
stones, with an intention to commit rioting in
connection with a canter vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-
7403 having been caused the accident with a
pedestrian who succumbed on the spot itself, pelted
9 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
the stones towards the police people and also towards
the vehicles passing there-from and also the BMTC
buses and thereby caused the damages to the extent of
Rs.2,25,000/- approximately to the BMTC, and
thereby, the accused persons committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.427 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.?
(9) What order?
9. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. In the Negative.
Point No.4 .. In the Negative.
Point No.5 .. In the Negative.
Point No.6 .. In the Negative.
Point No.7 .. In the Negative.
Point No.8 .. In the Negative.
Point No.9 .. As per the final-order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No's.1 to 8:- To avoid reiteration of material
available in hand and to appreciate the evidence in better position,
I hereby take-up Point No's.1 to 8 together admixingly for
discussion.
11. It is the specific tale of the prosecution that, on
17.01.2008 at about 8.15 a.m. in the morning, in front of
Thirumala Palace Kalyana Mantap in Kamakshipalya area, the
accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, along-with 8 other co-accused
persons in prosecution with common-object formed an unlawful
assembly holding the deadly-weapons like stones and clubs etc.,
10 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
with an intention to commit rioting in connection with a canter
vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-7403 having been caused the accident
with a pedestrian who succumbed on the spot itself, pelted the
stones towards the police people and used the criminal-force and
assaulted to deter them as public servants from discharging their
duties and caused the grievous bleeding injuries and attempted to
commit the murder of the police person and also pelted the stones
towards the vehicles passing there-from along-with BMTC buses
and caused the damage to the extent of Rs.2,25,000/-
approximately to the BMTC, and thereby, the accused persons
committed the offences punishable U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148,
332, 353, 307, 427 r/w Sec.149 IPC.
12. The absolute burden of proving the alleged imputations
against the accused persons is casted-upon the prosecution alone
in pursuance with the provisions under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
13. To substantiate it's case, the prosecution has got
examined in all the witnesses as PWs.1 to 20, in which CW.1 is
examined as P.W.1 who is the police
officer/complainant/eyewitness as-well-as the injured, CWs.10,
11, 13, 15 & 12 are examined as PWs.2, 4, 7, 10 & 13,
respectively, who are the BMTC bus-drivers/eyewitnesses as-well-
as the complainants, CW.6 is examined as PW.3 who is the spot-
mahazar-witness, CWs.8 & 7 are examined as PWs.5 & 6,
11 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
respectively, who are the seizure of clubs mahazar-witnesses,
CW.17 is examined as PW.8 who is treated Medical Officer,
CWs.29, 40, 42, 26, 49, 41 & 54 are examined as PWs.9, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17 & 18, respectively, who are the police officials/officers,
CW.14 is examined as PW.16 who is the Medical Officer having
conducted the post-mortem report, and CW.56 is examined as
PW.19 who is the partial investigating officer and additional-
witness No.1 is examined as PW.20 who is also the partial
investigating officer and thereby, the prosecution has placed it's
reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.21, in
which Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of PW.1,
Ex.P.1(b) is the signature of the PW.20, Ex.P.2 is the complaint,
Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the PW.2, Ex.P.3 is the mahazar,
Ex.P.3(a) is the signature of the PW.3, Ex.P.3(b) is the signature of
the PW.19, Ex.P.4 is the original-complaint, Ex.P.4(a) is the
signature of the PW.4, Ex.P.5 is the seizure-mahazar, Ex.P.5(a) is
the signature of the PW.5, Ex.P.5(b) is the signature of the PW.6,
Ex.P.5(c) is the signature of the PW.19, Ex.P.6 is the complaint,
Ex.P.6(a) is the signature of the PW.6, Ex.P.7 is the statement of
the PW.7, Ex.P.8 is the wound-certificate, Ex.P.8(a) is the signature
of the PW.8, Ex.P.9 is the intimation sent to the police, Ex.P.9(a) is
the signature of the PW.8, Ex.P.10 is the wound-certificate,
Ex.P.10(a) is the signature of the PW.8, Ex.P.11 is the wound-
certificate, Ex.P.11(a) is the signature of the PW.8, Ex.P.11(b) is the
12 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
signature of the PW.18, Ex.P.12 is the wound-certificate, Ex.P.12(a)
is the signature of the PW.8, Ex.P.12(b) is the signature of the
PW.19, Ex.P.13 is the statement of the PW.9, Ex.P.14 is the
statement of the PW.10, Ex.P.14(a) is the signature of the PW.10,
Ex.P.15 is the statement of the PW.11, Ex.P.16 is the statement of
the PW.12, Ex.P.17 is the statement of the PW.14, Ex.P.18 is the
statement of the PW.15, Ex.P.19 is the post-mortem report of the
deceased, Ex.P.20 is the letter of BMTC, Ex.P.20(a) is the signature
of the PW.19, Ex.P.21 is the First Information Report and
Ex.P.21(a) is the signature of the PW.20, and the material-objects
marked on behalf of the prosecution are at MO No's.1 to 7, in
which MO No.1 is the glass-pieces, MO No.2 is the eight stone-
pieces, MO No.3 is the torn-uniform-shirt, MO No.4 is the helmet,
MO No.5 is the four wooden-clubs, MO No.6 is the two survey-
wooden-clubs and MO No.7 is the shirt without having three
buttons.
14. On meticulous perusal of the entire depositions of the
PWs.1 to 20, it is crystal clear that, the PW.1 being the police
officer as-well-as the complainant has endeavored to depose in
favour of the prosecution in his chief-examination to the effect
that, a person by name Chandrappa instigated his friends
Aachijanappa, Ramesh, Umesh and Karthik to kill the police
persons/personnel, in pursuance with the complaint stated to
have been lodged by him as per Ex.P.1, on which his signature is
13 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
as per Ex.P.1(a). But, in the cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the accused, he has clearly admitted to the effect that
before his arrival to the spot, about 400 to 500 persons had
gathered there-at and he cannot identify them and as-soon-as the
police-force went to the said alleged spot of incident, all the
persons gathered there-at disbursed and he does-not know as to
whether there is no any connection between the instant accused
persons with the said alleged incident taken place. On overall
consideration of these particular versions of the PW.1, it clearly
goes to indicate that when the police had been to the spot, in the
mob of persons the instant accused persons could not be identified
specifically as they themselves were assaulting persons, though
the PW.1 had identified the accused persons in the open-court
stating that they were present at the time of alleged incident.
Therefore, it creates a suspicious circumstance regarding the said
versions of the PW.1 being not with the consistency and not with
firmness, regarding the very case of the prosecution.
15. Further, the PWs.9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 & 18 being the
police officials/officers as-well-as the eyewitnesses and injured
though endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution, the
PWs.9, 11, 12, 14 & 15 have turned hostile, wherefore, the
prosecution has utterly failed to establish the Exs.P.13, P.15, P.16,
P.17 & P.18, respectively, through their mouths, whereby, the
learned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined them.
14 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
But, however, the PWs.17 & 18 having endeavored to depose in
favour of the prosecution, have stated to the effect that, on
17.01.2008 while they were on duty, they having received the
information regarding the rioting near Thirumala Palace Kalyana
Mantap situated at Ring Road, they were asked to rush to the said
spot, wherefore, they having went to the said spot along-with the
police officials/personnel, they found a dead-body lying due to the
accident by a canter vehicle burning the same and when the
police-force endeavored to disburse the crowd, the miscreants in
the said mob pelted the stones to the police vehicles as-well-as the
BMTC buses and also the police officials, more-particularly, the
Sub-Inspector of Police/Sripada Shastry, Police
Inspector/Manjunath and others and also assaulted them,
whereby the PWs.9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and other police officials
sustained the injuries, wherefore, the instant accused No's.9 & 8,
respectively, along-with 9 other accused persons were nabbed and
produced before the investigating officer and they have also
identified the said accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, along-with MO
No's.3 & 4 which are 8 stones and torn police-uniform. But, in the
cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, they
have clearly stated that, except Chandrappa, Aachijanappa,
Ramesh, Umesh and Karthik, they cannot say as to what the
others were doing. If that is so, then I fail to understand as to how
the said PWs.9, 11, 12, 14, 15 & 17 are capable of saying the
15 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
above said specific names. Apart from the same, they have stated
that they cannot say as to which accused was wearing what kind
of dress/clothes and also they do-not know as to what others were
doing except the above said persons, and they cannot say as to
who has caught which accused and they cannot specifically
identify the other persons except the above said persons. If really
the said PWs.9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 & 18 were to be the specific
persons to identify the accused persons committing the alleged
offences, then I fail to understand as to how they are incapable of
saying the other persons doing in the said assembled mob
comprising of 400 to 500 persons. By virtue of these particular
versions of the said prosecution-witnesses, it creates the fatal
doubts in the mind of this court, wherefore, their depositions
including the very deposition of the PW.1 do-not come to the aid of
the prosecution, since they are absolutely prevailing with the major
discrepancies creating the fatal doubts.
16. Further, the PWs.2, 4, 7, 10 & 13 being the BMTC bus-
drivers/eyewitnesses as-well-as the complainants though
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in their chief-
examinations to the effect that, on 17.01.2008 near Thirumala
Palace Kalyana Mantap situated at Ring Road, there was a rioting,
due to which there was a heavy-traffic having jammed and
stagnated their vehicles there-at and at that time, all of a sudden,
the miscreants in the mob started pelting the stones towards the
16 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
buses and broken the glasses of the said buses, wherefore, to
escape from such perilous situation, they got down from the buses
and immediately intimated to the higher-officials and on arriving of
their higher-officials, they have lodged the complaints at the say of
their higher-officials. But, the instant case being initiated by the
PW.1/police officer as a complainant, I fail to understand as to
how the said PWs.2, 4, 7, 10 & 13 have lodged the complaints in
the same case. Apart from the same, none of them have identified
the accused persons, whereas, they have disclosed their
incapability to identify the accused persons themselves were the
miscreants for the said alleged rioting/incident, wherefore, by
virtue of the said inefficient versions of the PWs.1, 2, 4, 7, 10 & 13
due to their incapability of identifying the accused persons, and
also the PW.7 having absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution
and the prosecution having failed to establish the Exs.P.6 & P.7
through the mouth of the PW.7, the learned counsel for the
accused has not cross-examined them stating that no credible and
incriminating material is emanating through their mouths against
the accused persons.
17. Even, the PWs.5 & 6 being the seizure of clubs mahazar-
witnesses have absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution by
exhibiting their animus of hostility, for which the learned Public
Prosecutor was inclined to cross-examine them; But, no worth-
relying material has been extracted and elicited through their
17 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
mouths, wherefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish
the Exs.P.5 & P.5(a), respectively, beyond the shadow of all the
reasonable doubts.
18. Further, the PW.8 being the Medical Officer has
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in his chief-
examination to the effect that, the CWs.54, 49, 38 & 29 having
come to him with the history of assault, he has treated them
medically and issued the wound-certificates as per Exs.P.8 & P.10
to P.12, respectively.
19. Further, the PW.16 being the Medical Officer having
conducted the post-mortem report, has endeavored to depose in
favour of the prosecution in pursuance with the post-mortem
report issued by him, as per Ex.P.19.
20. Further, the PW.20 who is also the police officer has
endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution in respect of he
having registered the case basing on the oral-statement of the
CW.1/police officer who was under treatment in the hospital, by
reducing the same into writing as per Ex.P.1, sent the said
original-complaint with it's original-First Information Report to the
concerned committal court as per Ex.P.21, on which his signatures
are as per Exs.P.1(b) & P.21(a), respectively.
21. Further, the PW.19 being the subsequent-partial
investigating officer has endeavored to depose in favour of the
prosecution in respect of he having received the case-file from the
18 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
PW.20 for further investigation on 17.01.2008 and visited the spot
of incident and drawn the spot-mahazar in presence of the spot-
panchas i.e., CWs.5 & 6 as per Ex.P.3, on which his signature is as
per Ex.P.3(b) and seized the glass-pieces as per MO No.1, 8 stones
as per MO No.2 and 4 wooden-clubs as per MO No.5 and thereafter
deputed the CWs.24 to 28, 40 to 43 & 47 to 49 to nab the accused
persons and produce before him. Accordingly, on the same-day in
the afternoon, they produced the accused persons, in all, as 11
persons at about 3.45 p.m. before him, whereby he recorded their
self-voluntary-statements and also thereafter at the behest of the
accused No's.1 & 2, Chandrappa and Anjanappa, he visited the
spot and seized the two clubs as per MO No.6 under the seizure-
mahazar in presence of CWs.7 & 8 as per Ex.P.5, on which his
signature is as per Ex.P.5(c) and thereafter, he has recorded the
statements of the CWs.29, 32, 33, 41, 42, 52 & 53 by getting
identified the accused persons through them and then seized the
MO No.7 from the CW.52 and thereafter the statements of the
CWs.24, 26 to 28, 43 & 48 and also the statements of the CWs.5 to
7 and thereafter, he produced all the accused persons before the
concerned Magistrate. It is further stated by the PW.19 that, he
has received a letter from the CW.30 in respect of the damages
caused to the BMTC buses, as per Ex.P.20, on which his signature
is as per Ex.P.20(a), and on 19.01.2008 the CWs.22 & 23 having
produced one Jayamma/accused No.12 under a report, he has
19 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
arrested her and recorded the statements of the CWs.22, 23, 47,
52 & 53 by getting identified her and then on the same-day, he
produced her before the concerned Magistrate. On 21.01.2008 on
producing the accused No.13/Manjunath @ Chappar Manja by
CWs.46 & 52 at about 12.15 p.m. in the afternoon, he arrested
him and recorded the statements of the said CWs.51, 53 & 54 by
getting identified him and then produced the said accused No.13
before the concerned Magistrate. On 22.01.2008 he has recorded
the statements of the CWs.9 to 13 and at about 3.30 p.m. in the
afternoon, the CWs.24 & 25 having produced the accused
No.14/Krishnappa S/o Doddasiddaiah under a report, he arrested
him and recorded his self-voluntary-statement and then further
recorded the statements of the CWs.24, 25 & 52 to 54 by getting
identified the accused No.14 through them and then on
26.01.2008 he received the wound-certificates pertaining to the
CWs.29 & 52, as per Exs.P.12 & P.11, respectively, on which his
signatures are as per Exs.P.12(b) & P.11(b), respectively. On
29.01.2008 the CWs.24, 43 & 48 having produced the accused
No's.15 & 16 by name, Narasimha and Narayanaswamy, at about
3.15 p.m. in the afternoon under a report, he arrested them and
recorded their self-voluntary statements and then the statements
of the CWs.43 & 52 to 54 along-with the CWs.37 & 43. On
03.02.2008 at the directions of the DCP of Western-Range, he has
handed-over the case-file for further investigation to the CW.57
20 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
and the CWs.40 & 42 have given the statements before him, as per
Exs.P.17 & P.18, whereas, the CWs.13, 29, 26 & 49 have given
their statements before him, as per Exs.P.7, P.13, P.17, P.18,
respectively. He has identified the said accused persons and also
he has converted the seized material-objects into respective
property-forms.
22. During the time of trial, the learned Public Prosecutor
has voluntarily given-up the CWs.22, 23, 28 & 55. Despite, having
issued sufficient process to the CWs.2 to 5, 9, 14, 18 to 21, 24, 25,
27, 30 to 39, 43 to 48, 50 to 53 & 57, they have not at-all turned-
up before this court to depose in favour of the prosecution in the
witness-box. In addition to the same, even the concerned police
have not at-all taken the matter as serious to execute the process
against the said prosecution-witnesses (CWs) disclosing their
absolute ignorance and negligence, due to which it has caused the
absolute hindrance to the very merits of the prosecution's case,
wherefore any negativity causing to the very case of the
prosecution is only at the risk of the concerned police-agency.
Therefore, in the absence of substantial grounds, the instant court
was inclined to reject the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor
and dropped the said CWs.2 to 5, 9, 14, 18 to 21, 24, 25, 27, 30 to
39, 43 to 48, 50 to 53 & 57 and closed the prosecution's side.
23. On meticulous consideration of the entire depositions of
the PWs.1 to 20, it is crystal clear that, the PWs.2, 4, 7, 8 & 13
21 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
being the BMTC bus-drivers/eyewitnesses as-well-as the
complainants have not identified the accused persons, whereas,
the PW.7 has absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution,
wherefore, it has failed to establish the Exs.P.6 & P.7. Even, the
PWs.5 & 6 being the seizure of clubs mahazar-witnesses have
absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution, wherefore, the
prosecution has failed to establish the Ex.P.5 through them. Even,
the PWs.9, 11, 12, 14 & 15 being the police officials/officers having
absolutely turned hostile to the prosecution, it has failed to
establish the Exs.P.13, P.15, P.16, P.17 & P.18 through them,
respectively, wherefore, their depositions do-not come to the aid of
the prosecution. Even though the PWs.17 & 18 have endeavored
to depose in favour of the prosecution, their versions in their cross-
examinations are absolutely emanating with the major
discrepancies and contradictions creating the fatal doubts,
wherefore, their depositions also do-not come to the aid of the
prosecution. Even though the PW.3 being the spot-mahazar-
witness has endeavored to depose in favour of the prosecution, he
has fatally stated in his cross-examination that he does-not
remember as to who has written the Ex.P.3 and also the contents
of the said Ex.P.3 are not read-over to him and also he does-not
know the contents of the same and his signatures are not obtained
on MO No's.1 & 2. By virtue of these fatal versions, no credit can
be adhered-to the very deposition of the PW.2 to invoke it's aid to
22 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
the prosecution's case, since it is prevailing with the plethora of
fatal infirmities. Merely basing on the very depositions of the PW.8
who is the Medical Officer having treated the injured- PSI/PW.18
(CW.54), PW.6 who is the Medical Officer having conducted the
post-mortem report, PW.20 who is the PSI having registered the
case and PW.19 who is the partial investigating officer, this court
cannot arrive-at a conclusion to target the said accused persons
for the conviction in the absence of substantial chunk of material
as there is no subsistency and continuity in the chain-link of the
events and circumstances, as the prosecution has utterly failed to
bring-home the guilt against the accused persons for the reasons
stated herein before supra.
24. Therefore, under all these circumstances, I am of the
clear opinion that, the entire case of the prosecution is prevailing
with the major discrepancies, discrepanting the entire case of the
prosecution, creating the fatal doubts in the mind of this court,
without any alimentation. Therefore, the benefit of such doubts
will have to be given to the accused persons by virtue of a well-
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. Under all these
circumstances, even it is highly impossible and improbable to
ameliorate regarding the alleged imputations against the accused
No's.9 & 8, respectively. Therefore, in view of all these reasons, I
am of the clear opinion that, the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish and prove the Point No's.1 to 8 beyond the shadow of all
23 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
the reasonable doubts. Hence, I am inclined to answer Point No's.1
to 8 in the 'Negative'.
25. Point No.9:- For the reasons discussed at much-length
while answering the Point No.1 to 8 in the Negative, herein before
supra, I am inclined to proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the Accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, and therefore, the Accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, are found not guilty for having committed the offences U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
In exercise of the powers conferred-upon me U/Sec.232 r/w Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the instant Accused No.9 in SC No.1347/2010, by name, Subramani, S/o. Venkataramareddy, Aged 18 years, Residing at Near Cauverynagar Drainage Next Road, Bengaluru, and the instant Accused No.8 in SC No.1257/2011, by name, Shivakumar, S/o. Sampath, Aged 21 years, Residing at No.22, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru, and set them to liberty forthwith in these cases.
The instant Accused No.9 in SC No.1347/2010, by name, Subramani, S/o. Venkataramareddy, Aged 18 years, Residing at Near Cauverynagar Drainage Next Road, Bengaluru, is hereby discharged of his bail-bond, along-with his surety.
The instant Accused No.8 in SC No.1257/2011, by name, Shivakumar, S/o. Sampath, Aged 21 years, Residing at No.22, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, 24 SC No.1347/2010 Connected SC No.1257/2011 Kamalanagar, Bengaluru, shall be released, in the instant case only, if he is not required in any other cases.
The seized properties marked at MO No's.1 to 7, namely, glass-pieces, eight stone-pieces, torn uniform- shirt, helmet, four wooden-clubs, two survey wooden- clubs and a shirt without having three buttons are hereby ordered to be preserved, maintained and retained by the concerned, wherever they are in the same position, till the disposal of the other cases pending against the co- accused persons of the Accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, and in case if no any other cases are pending against any other co-accused persons, then the said MO No's.1 to 3 & 5 to 7 are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the efflux of the appeal period and MO No.4 is ordered to be confiscated to the Exchequer of the State Government after the efflux of the appeal period.
The first-copy of this judgment shall be kept in the case-file of SC No.1347/2010 and the second-copy shall be kept in the case-file of SC No.1257/2011.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 1st day of July, 2016) (G.D.Mahavarkar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side in SC No.1347/2010 & SC No.1257/2011:
PW.1 G.C. Manjunath
PW.2 Manjegowda
PW.3 Anwar Pasha
25 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
PW.4 Samiulla
PW.5 Paramesh
PW.6 Raju
PW.7 S.T. Nagaraj Naik
PW.8 Dr. Kiran
PW.9 Bheeresha
PW.10 Srinivasa
PW.11 Shivarudrappa
PW.12 C. Narayanappa
PW.13 K.S. Prakash
PW.14 P.T. Madhusudhana
PW.15 D.B. Veeranna
PW.16 Dr. Girish Chandra Y.P.
PW.17 C.N. Ravikumar
PW.18 Sripada Shastry
PW.19 B.N. Shamanna
PW.20 Kempanna
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side in SC No.1347/2010 & SC No.1257/2011:
Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1.
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of the PW.20.
Ex.P.2 Complaint.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the PW.2.
Ex.P.3 Mahazar.
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of the PW.3.
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of the PW.19.
Ex.P.4 Original-complaint.
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the PW.4.
Ex.P.5 Seizure-mahazar.
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of the PW.5.
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of the PW.6.
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of the PW.19.
Ex.P.6 Complaint.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the PW.6.
Ex.P.7 Statement of the PW.7.
Ex.P.8 Wound-certificate.
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of the PW.8.
Ex.P.9 Intimation sent to the police.
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of the PW.8.
Ex.P.10 Wound-certificate.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of the PW.8.
Ex.P.11 Wound-certificate.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of the PW.8.
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of the PW.18.
Ex.P.12 Wound-certificate.
26 SC No.1347/2010
Connected
SC No.1257/2011
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of the PW.8.
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of the PW.19.
Ex.P.13 Statement of the PW.9.
Ex.P.14 Statement of the PW.10.
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of the PW.10.
Ex.P.15 Statement of the PW.11.
Ex.P.16 Statement of the PW.12.
Ex.P.17 Statement of the PW.14.
Ex.P.18 Statement of the PW.15.
Ex.P.19 Post-mortem report of the deceased.
Ex.P.20 Letter of BMTC.
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of the PW.19.
Ex.P.21 First Information Report.
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of the PW.20.
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side in SC No.1347/2010 & SC No.1257/2011:
MO No.1 Glass-pieces. MO No.2 Eight stone-pieces. MO No.3 Torn-uniform-shirt. MO No.4 Helmet. MO No.5 Four wooden-clubs. MO No.6 Two survey-wooden-clubs MO No.7 Shirt without having three buttons. List of witnesses examined for the defence-side in SC
No.1347/2010 & SC No.1257/2011:
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side in SC No.1347/2010 & SC No.1257/2011:
- NIL -
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.27 SC No.1347/2010
Connected SC No.1257/2011 (Judgment pronounced in the open-court. Operative-portion of the same is extracted as under) ORDER The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the Accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, and therefore, the Accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, are found not guilty for having committed the offences U/Secs.143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 427 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
In exercise of the powers conferred-upon me U/Sec.232 r/w Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the instant Accused No.9 in SC No.1347/2010, by name, Subramani, S/o. Venkataramareddy, Aged 18 years, Residing at Near Cauverynagar Drainage Next Road, Bengaluru, and the instant Accused No.8 in SC No.1257/2011, by name, Shivakumar, S/o. Sampath, Aged 21 years, Residing at No.22, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru, and set them to liberty forthwith in these cases.
The instant Accused No.9 in SC No.1347/2010, by name, Subramani, S/o. Venkataramareddy, Aged 18 years, Residing at Near Cauverynagar Drainage Next Road, Bengaluru, is hereby discharged of his bail-bond, along-with his surety.
The instant Accused No.8 in SC No.1257/2011, by name, Shivakumar, S/o. Sampath, Aged 21 years, Residing at No.22, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru, shall be released, in the instant case only, if he is not required in any other cases.
The seized properties marked at MO No's.1 to 7, namely, glass-pieces, eight stone-pieces, torn uniform-shirt, helmet, four wooden-clubs, two survey wooden-clubs and a shirt without having three buttons are hereby ordered to be preserved, maintained and retained by the concerned, wherever they are in the same position, 28 SC No.1347/2010 Connected SC No.1257/2011 till the disposal of the other cases pending against the co-accused persons of the Accused No's.9 & 8, respectively, and in case if no any other cases are pending against any other co-accused persons, then the said MO No's.1 to 3 & 5 to 7 are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the efflux of the appeal period and MO No.4 is ordered to be confiscated to the Exchequer of the State Government after the efflux of the appeal period.
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
29 SC No.1347/2010Connected SC No.1257/2011