Bangalore District Court
State By The Police Inspector vs Subramani on 15 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE: MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE
(CCH-58)
Present: Smt. B.S.REKHA, B.A.,(Law), LL.B.,
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.
Dated this the 15th day of September 2015
SC NO:211/2014
Complainant: State by the Police Inspector,
K.G.Halli Police station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused: 1. Subramani, @ Mani,
s/o Anjinappa, aged 34 years,
No.147, A.K.Colony, Nagawara,
Bangalore.
2. Somashekar @ Soma
s/o late Venkatachalaiah,
aged 21 years, r/at 6th cross,
Byranakunte Main road,
Nagawara, Bangalore.
3. V.Manjunath @ Manju,
s/o Venkatesh, aged 24 years,
No.125, Opp: Anjenaya temple,
Nagawara, Bangalore.
(By Sri K.S.Advocate)
4. Umesh Mourya @ Umesha,
s/o Bahadur Mourya
aged 22 years, No.2640, 6th cross,
Byrankunte Main road, Nagawara,
Bangalore.
2 S.C.211/2014
5. Satish Mourya @ Satish,
s/o Krishna Mourya,
aged 22 years, No.273, 5th cross,
Byrankunte Main road, Nagawara,
Bangalore.
6. Ramesh Mourya @ Ramesh,
s/o Bahadur Mourya,
aged 28 years, No.2640, 6th cross,
Byrankunte Main road, Nagawara,
Bangalore.
7. Vijay s/o Raghu,
aged 20 years, No.196, 9th cross,
Byrankunte Main road, Nagawara,
Bangalore.
8. Srinivasa @ Seenu,
s/o Narayanappa,
aged 31 years, No.243,
Opp: Sneha Mobiles,
Nagawara Main road, Bangalore.
(By Sri Manjunath Advocate)
9. Gopi, s/o Muniyappa,
Aged 37 years,
No.357, Nagawara,
Nanjappa colony, Byrankunte,
Bangalore.
10. M.C.Mohan,
s/o Boregowda,
aged 38 years,
No.6, 2nd Main, Shampur
A.C.Post, Bangalore.
(By Sri T.S. Advocate)
3 S.C.211/2014
TABULATION OF THE EVENTS
01. Date of Commission of offence: 23.01.2013
02. Date of report of offence: 24.01.2013
03. Date of arrest of accused: 30.03.2013
04. Date of release of accused from judicial
05. custody:24.04.2013
06. Name of the complainant : Srinivasa
07. Nature of offence complained : 143, 144, 147, 341,
323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC
08. Date of commencement of recording evidence:
18.6.2015
09. Date of closing of recording of evidence: 3.9.2015
10. Date of judgment: 15.09.2015
11. Opinion of the Judge
12. Duration of the case: Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 08 21
JUDGMENT
1. The charge sheet is submitted by the Police Inspector, K.G.Halli Police Station against this accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC.
2. Brief facts is that the complainant by name Srinivasa lodged the complaint before the K.G.Halli Police Station alleging that on 23.01.2013 at 11.45 p.m. when he was standing and talking with his friends by the side of a Coconut shop, near Nagawara Bus stop, Accused No.1 along with accused No.8 to 10, having previous enmity, with an intention to cause murder to the complainant, , 4 S.C.211/2014 suddenly came to the spot and abused the complainant in filthy language, and assaulted him with iron pipe on the back side of his head, accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod to his left shoulder, Accused No.3 assaulted with cricket stump to his back while accused No.4 to 6 caught the complainant firmly, accused No.7 with a knife stabbed to both his legs and other parts of the body causing grievous bleedings injuries and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC.
3. After receipt of the complaint, K.G.Halli police registered the case in crime No:41/2013 for the offences punishable under Sec. 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC and FIR sent to the jurisdictional court i.e. XI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City. After submission of the charge sheet, the XI ACMM court complied with the procedure, ie.. provided under Sec.207 of the Cr.P.C and copy of the charge sheet was furnished to the accused and as the offence punishable under Sec. 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC is exclusively triable by this court, XI ACMM court has committed the case to this court vide order dated 28.1.2014 5 S.C.211/2014
4. The Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, on receipt of records from the learned XI ACMM, Bangalore, registered a case in S.C. 211/2014, made over the same to this Court for disposal as per law.
5. This Court has framed the charge against the accused No.1 to 10 for the offences punishable u/s 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 10 has examined Pw.s 1 to 7 and got marked Ex. P1 to P11 and got marked Material objects as M.O.1 to 9.
7. After closing of the prosecution evidence case was posted for recording statements of the accused as provided under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the statement were recorded. The defence has not lead any evidence
8. Heard Public Prosecutor and also heard the learned counsels for the accused.
9. The following point do arise for my consideration is:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 23.1.2013 at 11.45 p.m. the accused became the members of unlawful assembly at Nagawara bus stand near Shri Vigneshwara Enterprises shop on road with 6 S.C.211/2014 previous ill-will with common intention, committed the offence punishable u/s 143 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their act, on the same date, time and place with common intention the accused were armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 144 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their act, on the same date, time and place with common intention the accused became members of unlawful assembly intended to commit unlawful act and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 147 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their act, on the same date, time and place with common intention the accused have wrongly restrained CW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 341 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their act, on the same date, time and place with common intention the accused No.8 to 10 have assaulted CW.1 to the shoulder and back with hands and legs and abused in filthy language to CW.1 and the accused assaulted CW.2 with stumps on the neck and caused simple injuries and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their act, on the same date, time and place with common intention the accused No.1 assaulted 7 S.C.211/2014 CW.1 on the neck with iron pipe and accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod to the right shoulder of CW.1, accused No.3 assaulted CW.1 to his back and accused No.4 to 6 assaulted with cricket stump to CW.1 all over his body and caused bleeding injuries and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 324 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their act, on the same date, time and place with common intention the accused No.2 assaulted CW.1 with knife to both his legs and intended to kill him and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 307 r/w sec.149 of IPC?
8. What order?
10. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and after going through the evidence of the witnesses, my answer to the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 to 7 : In the negative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS.
11. Points No.1 to 7: In order to prove the case of the prosecution, CW.1 Srinivas examined as PW.1 has categorically stated that CW.2 to 4 are his friends and he knows the accused and 8 S.C.211/2014 accused's houseare situated opposite to each other. About two years back at 11.15 p.m. when he alighted from the bus at Nagawara bus stop, there was no electricity supply and somebody assaulted him. He had not seen them. However, he sustained injuries to head and legs. He was taken to Sai Hospital, thereafter to NIMHANS and thereafter to Baptist hospital. At 5.00 a.m. the police came to Sai hospital and took his signature to the document i.e. Ex.P.1. He is not aware who assaulted him. He did not identify the properties before court. He had categorically stated that he had not stated in the complaint and further statement that accused assaulted him. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in entirety.
12. CW.2 Madhu examined as PW.1 had categorically stated he knows the complainant, Ramesh, Shafiulla and the accused. About 2 years back at 11.15 p.m. when he was waiting for Srinivasa at Nagawara bus stop, Srinivasa came and at that time as thee was no electricity supply, some persons assaulted him. He had not seen those persons. He sustained injuries to the head. He lost conscious and he was taken to NIMHANS hospital. At 11.30 p.m. police have taken his signature on Ex.P.3. He is not aware of the contents of the mahazar. He is not aware of the weapon used for the incident. 9 S.C.211/2014 He had not identified the articles before court. He had not given statement to the police alleging against the accused. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in entirety.
13. CW.4 Shafiulla examined as PW.3 had categorically stated that he knows Srinivas, Ramesh and Madhu. He is not aware of the accused. About 2 years back at 11.15 p.m. when he was waiting for Srinivasa at Nagawara bus stop, Srinivasa came and at that time as thee was no electricity supply, some persons assaulted him. He had not seen those persons. He sustained injuries to the head. He lost conscious and he was taken to NIMHANS hospital. At 11.30 p.m. police have taken his signature. He is not aware of the contents of the mahazar. He is not aware of the weapon used for the incident. He had not identified the articles before court. He had not given statement to the police alleging against the accused. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in entirety.
14. CW.8 Sunil examined as PW.4 had stated that he knows Srinivas, Ramesh, Madhu and Shafiulla but he is not aware of the accused. He is not aware of the quarrel between the complainant and the accused. About 2 years back when he went to bring meals, he found that somebody was assaulting, but he is not aware of those persons. The police have taken his signature on that day. He 10 S.C.211/2014 had not seen the articles before court. He has not given statement before police. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in entirety.
15. CW.3 Girish examined as PW.5 had categorically stated that he knows Srinivas, Madhu, Shafiulla and accused. Accused aare friends of his brother Mani. About 1 year back at 11.15 p.m. after completion of his work, when he alighted from the bus at Nagawara bus stop, there was no electricity supply and somebody were quarrelling with each other. He is not aware of those persons. Srinivas sustained injuries to the head and back. He is not aware who assaulted him. They have taken him to Sai hospital. He is not aware of the incident. He had not seen the persons who assaulted him. He had not given statement to the police. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in entirety.
16. CW.9 Rajesh examined as PW.6 has categorically stated that he knows Srinivas, Madhu, Shafiulla, Sunil, Girish and the accused. About 1 year back at 11.15 p.m. after completion of his work, when he alighted from the bus at Nagawara bus stop as there was no electricity supply, he saw somebody quarrelling. He is not aware of those persons. He went to his home. He had not given 11 S.C.211/2014 statement to the police. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in entirety.
17. CW.14 Srinivas examined as PW.7 had categorically stated that on 23.1.2013 when he was doing beat duty at 12.15 a.m. he received intimation that there was a quarrel near Nagawara bus stop and he went to the spot and found that nobody was there. He got information that the injured Srinivas was admitted to hospital and he went to the hospital and enquired the injured and recorded his statement with the permission of the Doctor. Thereafter he came back to the police station and registered the case and submitted the FIR to the court. On 24.1.2013 he conducted spot mahazar at the spot shown by Madhu in presence of panch witnesses Krishna and Prakash and he identified his signature on the mahazar. On the next day he recorded the further statement of the complainant. On 3.2.2013 he recorded the statement of witnesses Ramesh, Madhu, Girish, Shafiulla, Sunil, Prakash and Ramesh. On 4.3.2013 and on 6.3.2013 he received wound certificates of the injured as per Ex.P.10 and P.11. On 30.3.2013 the accused appeared before the police station and he arrested them and recorded their voluntary statement. Thereafter he went to the house in front of Sneha Mobiles and in the presence of Ravi and 12 S.C.211/2014 Nagajyothi he seized iron rod, pipe and 6 wicket stumps and one knife under mahazar Ex.P.9 and subjected to P.F. Ex.P.10 Thereafter he identified M.Os 1 to 9. On 31.5.2013 the remaining accused along with anticipatory bail order and he arrested and released them. On 26.7.2013 he submitted the charge sheet. He identified the accused. He recorded the statement of complainant at 4.30 a.m. and he was conscious. On 4.3.2013 he obtained the wound certificate from Sai hospital wherein the injuries are shown as simple. According to him, as the intention of the accused was to murder, he included Sec.307 IPC.
18. In this case, on perusal of the overall oral and documentary evidence on record, it could be seen that though there is charge sheet against the accused u/s 143, 144, 147, 323, 324 and 307 r/w sec.149 of IPC but including the complainant, only one witness and the injured were examined on behalf of the prosecution who have categorically stated about the incident, but denied about the involvement of these accused. According to these witnesses, the incident occurred at Nagawara bus stop on 23.1.2013 at 11.45 p.m. but they have stated that these accused have not assaulted. Even the witnesses have stated that at the time of the incident, there was no electricity supply. They have not seen the persons 13 S.C.211/2014 who assaulted. However they have stated that somebody were quarrelling and somebody assaulted. In this case, the accused are the persons who are residing in the house opposite to the house of the complainant. In this case, except the evidence of the I.O there is no supporting evidence on behalf of the complainant. Even when the complainant and the eye witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, what evidentiary value could be attached to the evidence of I.O, has to be considered by this court. In this case, the I.O stated about recording of statement of the complainant, thereafter registering of the case and also conducting mahazar and recording voluntary statement of the accused and discovery of the articles and recording of statements of witnesses. In this case, there is allegation of curtailing the complainant from the incident which occurred. However, in this case, when there are no witnesses supporting the complaint or the mahazar, the court has to come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt on their part. Hence I answer Points No.1 to 7 in the negative.
19. Point No.8: In view of my finding on Points No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:
14 S.C.211/2014
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 10 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. The M.O1 is confiscated to state after the appeal period. M.Os 2 to 9 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced in the open court this the 15th day of September 2015) (B.S.Rekha) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1: Srinivas PW2: Madhu PW3: Saifulla PW4: Sunil PW5: Girish PW6. Rajesh PW7 Srinivas ...15 S.C.211/2014
List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 statement of complainant Ex.P.1(a) & (b) signatures Ex.P.2 further statement of PW.7 Ex.P.2(a) signature Ex.P.3 spot mahazar Ex.P.3(a)& (b) signatures Ex.P.4 to 7: statements Ex.P.8 FIR Ex.P.8(a) signature Ex.P.9 mahazar Ex.P.9(a) signature Ex.P.10 wound certificate Ex.P.10(a) signature Ex.P.11 wound certificate Ex.P.11(a)`signature ...
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1 knife
M.O.2 to 9: wooden logs(stumps)
...
(B.S.Rekha)
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.
16 S.C.211/2014
15.9.2015:
State by: PP
A-1 to 10: on bail.
Judgment:
Judgment pronounced in open court
(vide separate orders)
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1)
of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 10 are
acquitted of the offences punishable
u/s 143, 144, 147, 341, 323, 324,
307 r/w sec. 149 of IPC.
Their bail bonds and surety
bonds stand cancelled.
The M.O1 is confiscated to
state after the appeal period. M.Os 2
to 9 being worthless are ordered to
be destroyed.
(B.S.Rekha)
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.