Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Muniraju (Dead) on 7 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 7 th day of January, 2020
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions &
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No. 462/2018
COMPLAINANT: The State by
J.B. Nagar Police Station,
BENGALURU.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. Muniraju (Dead)
S/o late Obalappa,
Aged about 67 years,
R/o 95, 11th Cross, 8th Main,
Old Thippasandra, Bengaluru.
2. Ananda Shetty
S/o Late M. Venugopala Shetty,
56 years, R/at 15/1, 5th Cross,
2nd Main Road, Michel Palya,
Indiranagara, Bengaluru.
3. Shashikumar S/o Muniraju
Aged about 22 years
2 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
4. Chandrakala W/o Sathish
Aged about 32 years
A3 & A4 are R/at No.95, 11th Cross,
8th Main, Old Thippasandra,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt. Veena M, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence: 21-12-2012
2. Date of report of occurrence : 21-12-2012
3. Date of commencement of : 03-06-2019
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 04-11-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : R. Narayanappa
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 447, 341, 323, 504,
506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are acquitted of the
offences p/u/s 447 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accused are convicted for the
offences p/u/s 341, 323, 504, 506
r/w 34 of IPC.
J UD GM E N T
A Charge Sheet is submitted by the PSI of Jeevan Bhima
Nagara Police against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences
punishable under Section 447, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.
3 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
2. This case and another case in Spl.C. No.144/2013 are
the case and counter case, hence this case in CC No.
52850/2013 which was pending before X ACMM Court,
committed to this court u/s 323 of Cr.P.C., as per order dated
12.3.2018 passed by X ACMM, Bengaluru. After committing
this case to this court, new Spl.C No. 462/2018 is registered.
3. The charge sheet copies duly furnished to the accused
and thereby the provision u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. is duly complied
with.
4. Based upon the first information statement lodged by
R. Narayanappa, the Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police registered the
case in Cr. No.387/2012 against the accused No.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable u/s 504, 506, 341, 447, 323 r/w 34 of
IPC and sent FIR to the X ACMM Court. The Investigation
Officer/PSI on completion of investigation has filed the charge
sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences.
During the pendency of this case before X ACMM, the accused
No.1 reported as dead. Hence, case against accused No.1
came to be abated as per order dated 25.10.2012.
4 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
5. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows: -
There is dispute between CW.1 complainant and accused
persons in respect of the property bearing No. BBMP No.80,
Sy. No.35/1, situated at New Thippasandra Main Road, HAL
III Stage. The suit in O.S.No. 7224/1993, O.S.No.4319/1996,
O.S.No. 4941/2004, O.S.No. 2627/2006 were pending
between the parties. The Court Commissioner appointed to
measure the property and to submit report to the court. That
on 21.12.2012 the court commissioner fixed the date for
measure the land. That on 21.12.2012 at about 11.30 AM,
CW.7 came to BBMP Site No.80, Sy. No.35/1, situated at
Bramhananda Ashrama, New Thippasandra in order to
measure the land CW.2 Muniramaiah, CW.3 Chandrashekar
are the sons of CW.1 R. Narayanappa. The accused No.1 to 4
with common intention criminally trespassed into the property
bearing BBMP No. 80, Sy. No. 35/1, belongs to CW.1 and
wrongfully restrained CW.1 to CW.3 from further movement.
The accused persons abused CW.1 to 3 in filthy language as
"ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ ನಮಮ ಮ ದ ." The accused persons
ಮ ನ ಈ ಸಸತತತ ನಮಗ ಸಬರದತ
5 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
assaulted CW.1 to CW.3 with hands and voluntarily caused
them simple injures. The accused also gave life threat to CW.1
to CW.3. Based upon the first information statement lodged
by CW.1 on 21.11.2012 J.B. Nagar police registered the case
in Crime No.287/2012 and sent FIR to the court. The I.O.,
visited to the place of incident. CW.1 to CW.3 have taken
treatment in Bowring Lady Curzon Hospital. The I.O., visited
to the place of incident and conducted the spot mahazar. The
I.O., recorded the statement of the witnesses. The I.O., after
collecting all the materials on completion of investigation has
filed the charge sheet against the accused.
6. On 28.4.2015 charges were framed against the
accused. When this case pending before X ACMM Court, the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Thereafter
the case posted for evidence. Then the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor moved application u/s 323 of Cr.P.C., which
came to be allowed and case committed to this court in order
to try the case along with counter case in Spl.C. No.
144/2013.
6 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
7. After receiving the records, the accused No.2 to 4
appeared before this court and engaged counsel and released
on bail. On 21.8.2018 fresh charges are framed against the
accused No.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections
447, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C for which accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
8. During trial, the prosecution has examined 9 out of 10
witnesses cited in the charge sheet as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and
documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked.
9. On 21.11.2019 the statement of the accused as
required u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded by putting all
incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution
evidence to them.
10. The accused have denied all such incriminating
evidence and did not lead any defence evidence on their
behalf. In their 313 Statement the accused persons have
stated that "ನಮಗ ನರಯಣಪಪ ಮತತತ ಮಕಕಳತ ಜಗಳ ಮಡ ಹಬಡದ ಕರಣ
ಗಯ ಆಗತತತ ನವ ಅವರ ವರತದದ ದಬರತ ಕಬಟಟದವ."
7 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned Special Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.
12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted
that PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 are the injured and eye witnesses have
spoken in detail about the incident. PW.1 has lodged the
complaint against the accused as per Ex.P1. PW.1 has shown
the place of incident to the police where the police conducted
Ex.P2 panchanama. PW.3 is the eye witness and mahazar
witness also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4
Assistant Executive Engineer who deposed that when he was
proceeding to the place of incident in order to carry out the
Commissioner work as the quarrel taken place between the
two parties, hence he returned back. PW.5 Ravindranath,
AEE who visited to the place of incident in order to carry out
the commission work has clearly deposed that the quarrel
taken place between the accused and CW.1 to CW.3. PW.7 is
the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP who issued Ex.P5
certificate stating that property bearing No.80 is standing in
the name of CW.1 R. Narayanappa and others. PW.8 who was
8 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
working as PSI who registered the case based on Ex.P1
complaint lodged by PW.1 and sent Ex.P6 FIR to the court.
Thereafter he sent CW.1 to CW.3 to the hospital for
treatment. Thereafter visited to the place of incident and
conducted Ex.P2 panchanama. PW.8 has deposed regarding
recording of statement of witnesses, collecting the documents
and on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet
against the accused. PW.9 is the eye witness has supported
the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the presence
of PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 in the place of incident cannot be
doubted as the Court Commissioner issued notice for
commission work. He submitted that certain minor
inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.6, PW.9
which is natural in every cases which required to be ignored.
PW.4, PW.5, PW.7, PW.8 are official witnesses. He submitted
that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. He submitted
that from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 since the prosecution
has established charges framed against accused beyond all
9 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
reasonable doubt, hence they are liable to be convicted for the
said offences.
13. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
CW.1 to CW.3 (PW.1, PW.2, PW.6) in order to counter blast
the case in Spl.C. No.144/2013 registered against them along
with their associates have lodged the false complaint against
the accused. She submitted that PW.1 and his associates
assaulted the accused and filed false case against the
accused. She submitted that in Ex.P7 to P9 wound
certificates, no such injuries are mentioned as deposed by
witnesses. In Ex.P7 to P9 wound certificates only complain
regarding the pain is mentioned. She submitted that PW.1 in
his cross-examination stated that he has sustained injuries
on his waist and leg but in Ex.P7 wound certificate no such
injuries are mentioned regarding the waist. PW.5 has
deposed that he do not know who was assaulted to whom.
She submitted that the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 are
not corroborating with each other. PW.1 has deposed that the
accused person along with 15 members came to the spot and
10 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
quarrelled but PW.6 has deposed that accused along with 7 to
8 persons came to the spot. PW.2 has deposed that the
accused persons along with 15 to 20 persons came to the
place of incident. She submitted that since PW.1 has grabbed
the land belongs to the Government, the accused have filed
case and same is pending. She submitted that accused No.1
belongs to Adi Karnataka comes under Scheduled Caste.
Knowing very well PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 and their associates
assaulted accused No.1 to 4 and others. Hence, accused No.1
lodged the complaint; based on the same the case in Spl.C.
No.144/2013 is registered. She submitted that the
prosecution is failed to prove the case against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, she prays for acquittal.
14. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my
consideration:-
POINTS
Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 21.12.2012 at
about 11.30 am within the jurisdiction of
J.B.Nagar police station, new
11 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Thippasandra Main Road, HAL III Stage,
Sy. No.35/1, BBMP Property No. 80, the
accused persons with common intention
criminally trespassed into the property
belongs to CW.1 and thereby the accused
have committed the offence punishable
u/s 447 r/w 34 of IPC?
Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the same day,
time and place, the accused persons with
common intention picked up quarrel with
CW.1 to CW.3 and wrongfully restrained
them from further movement and thereby
committed the offence punishable u/s
341 r/w 34 of IPC?
Point No.3:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the same day,
time and place, the accused persons with
common intention picked up quarrel with
CW.1 to 3 and assaulted them with
hands and voluntarily caused them
simple injuries thereby accused have
12 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
committed the offence punishable u/s
323 r/w 34 of IPC?
Point No.4:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place, the accused persons
with common intention abused C.W.1 to
3 in filthy language so as to provoke them
to break the public peace and insulted
them and thereby accused have
committed the offence punishable u/s
504 r/w 34 of IPC?
Point No.5: - Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place, the accused
persons with common intention
criminally intimidated C.W.1 to 3 by
giving life threat to them and thereby
accused have committed the offence
punishable u/s 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
Point No.6: - What order?
15. My findings on the above points are as follows:
13 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Point No.1:- In the negative
Point No.2:- In the affirmative
Point No.3:- In the affirmative
Point No.4:- In the affirmative
Point No.5:- In the affirmative
Point No.6:- As per final order for the
following
REASONS
16. POINT No.1 to 5:- Since these points are interlinked
with each other, hence for the sake of convenience and to avoid
repetition of facts and evidence, I would like to take all these
points together for common discussion.
17. PW.1 Narayanappa is the injured and complainant in
this case. PW.2 Muniramaiah, PW.6 Chandrashekar are the
injured and eye witnesses. PW.3 Avinash, PW.9 K. Chethan
are the eye witnesses and mahazar witnesses. PW.4 Lingaiah,
AEE, PW.5 Ravindranath, Assistant Executive Engineer who
were appointed as Court Commissioner to measure the land.
PW.7 K.R. Sathish Kumar, Assistant Revenue Officer issued
14 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Ex.P5 certificate. PW.8 Chandrappa H. Barki, PSI is the
Investigating Officer.
18. P.W.1 Narayanappa has deposed that CW.2/PW.2
Muniramaiah, CW.3/PW.6 Chandrashekar are his sons. The
property in Sy. No. 35/1, BBMP No. 80, consisting of the
vacant land and house property belongs to him. There was civil
dispute between him and the accused persons in respect of
this property. The suit was decreed in his favour. That on
21.12.2012 at about 11.30 AM the BBMP authorities came to
his property bearing BBMP No. 80 in order to measure the
property at that time he and his sons PW.2, PW.6 and
Krishnamurthy, Ambarish were present. Accused persons
Muniraju, Ananda Setty, Shashi Kumar, Chandrakala are also
came there along with 10 to 15 people. PW.1 has deposed that
he told the accused that they can come for measurement but
10 to 15 people who came along with them should not come
inside. At that time accused No.1 pushed him near the gate.
Hence, fell down. Then the accused persons trespassed into
his property and assaulted his sons PW.2 Muniramaiah and
15 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
PW.6 Chandrashekar with hands. The accused persons
abused him and his sons Chandrashekar and Muniramaiah in
filthy language as "ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ" and also given life threat to them
that if they are in that house they will kill them. PW.1 has
deposed that on the same day, he has lodged the complaint
against the accused as per Ex.P1. The police took him and his
sons Chandrashekar and Muniramaiah to the Bowring
Hospital for treatment. He has deposed that due to assault
made by the accused he has sustained injuries over his waist
and leg. His sons are also sustained injuries due to assault
made by the accused. After lodging the complaint, on the next
day at about 9 AM the police visited to the place of incident
and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P2. During the
course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
accused PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that in
O.S.No.2627/2006 filed by the accused No.1, the court
appointed the Court Commissioner to measure the land, hence
the Court Commissioner issued notice to the accused No.1 and
to him to be present on 21.12.2012 in that place. He has
16 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
denied the suggestion that prior to the Court Commissioner
visited to that spot in order to measure the land he and his
children gathered 50 to 60 people. He has denied the
suggestion that he and his sons have assaulted the accused,
caused them injuries and abused them in the name of caste.
He has denied the suggestion that after accused No.1 lodged
the complaint against them in order to counter blast the same
he has filed the false complaint against the accused. PW.1 has
denied all other suggestions made to him.
19. PW.2 Muniramaiah has also deposed in similar
fashion to that of PW.1. PW.2 has deposed that there was a
civil dispute between his father and the accused in respect of
the land in Sy. No.35/1, BBMP No. 80 in all four suits were
filed and out of them two suits were dismissed, one suit was
withdrawn by accused No.1 and another suit in O.S.No.
2627/2006 also dismissed. He has deposed that in O.S.No.
2627/2016 as the court appointed the Court Commissioner,
hence BBMP authorities came to the spot on 21.12.2012 at 11
AM in order to measure the land. He has deposed that when
17 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
accused persons came along with 15 to 20 persons at that time
he and his father and brothers told them that the only accused
can come inside and others who came along with them not to
come to inside for measurement. At that time the accused and
the persons came along with them started to quarrel with them
and the accused persons trespassed into the property and
assaulted PW.1 Narayanappa with hands. When he intervened
to rescue PW.1 at that time accused Shashi Kumar and
Chandrakala by holding his hands twisted his hands and
assaulted him with hands and kicked him. The accused
persons also abused him and his father as " ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ,
ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ". The accused persons also given life threat to them by
giving threat that they will kill them. On the same day they
went to the police station and at 8 PM., the police received
complaint lodged by PW.1 and registered the case and
thereafter taken them to the Bowring Hospital for treatment.
During the course of his cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the accused PW.2 has admitted the suggestion that
on 21.12.2012 the accused persons came along with BBMP
18 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Commissioner in order to measure the land. He has denied the
suggestion that they have preplanned and gathered 50 to 60
people in that place in order to quarrel with the accused. PW.2
has denied all other suggestions made to him.
20. P.W.6 Chandrashekar has deposed that on
21.12.2012 as per the court order, the BBMP authorities came
to their property in order to measure the land at that time
accused No.1 also came inside the compound. When the
BBMP authorities started to measure the land at that time
Ananda Setty, Shashi Kumar came along with 7 to 8 persons.
At that time they told accused No.1 alone can come inside
others should not. At that time the accused persons picked
up quarrel with them and accused No.2 Anand Shetty and
accused No.3 Shashi Kumar assaulted him with hands. The
accused persons also assaulted PW.1 Narayanappa and PW.2
Muniramaiah with hands. The accused persons also abused
them in filthy language as "ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ, ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ". The accused
persons also given life threat to them. PW.6 has deposed that
thereafter they went to the police station. The police took them
19 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
to the Bowring Hospital for treatment. He has deposed that
due to assault made by the accused he has sustained injuries
over shoulder and chest. His father and brother were also
sustained injuries due to assault made by the accused. In his
cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.6
has admitted the suggestion that as the accused No.1 moved
application to the court in O.S.No. 2627/2006, the court
appointed the court commissioner to measure the land. He
has admitted the suggestion that the court commissioner has
issued notice to both the parties to be present in the spot on
21.12.2012 in order to conduct the measurement work. He
has admitted the suggestion that they knows that the accused
No.1, 3 and 4 are belongs to Madiga community. He has
denied the suggestion that prior to the court commissioner
visited to the place they have gathered 50 to 60 people in that
place. He has denied the suggestion that he and his brothers
and his father assaulted the accused persons and caused them
injuries and also abused them in the name of caste. He has
denied the suggestions that as accused No.1 lodged the
20 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
complaint against them in order to counter blast the same,
they have filed false complaint against the accused.
21. P.W.3 Avinash has deposed that on 21.12.2012 at
about 11 AM when he was in the shop of CW.5/PW.9 Chethan
at that time the quarrel took place in the house of PW.1
Narayanappa. He has deposed that the accused persons
quarrelled with PW.1 Narayanappa, PW.2 Muniramaiah, PW.6
Chandrashekar and assaulted them with hands and abused
them in filthy language and also given life threat to them. He
has deposed that he could not say who was assaulted to whom.
On the next day on 22.12.2012 the police visited to the place of
incident and conducted the mahazar in his presence and in the
presence of CW.5 Chethan. Since PW.3 partly supported the
case of the prosecution at the instance of learned Special
Public Prosecutor PW.3 treated as hostile and permitted to
cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination by
the learned Special PP PW.3 has admitted the suggestion that
the accused persons criminally trespassed into the property of
P.W.1. He admitted the suggestion that in his presence and in
21 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
the presence of Chethan, the police conducted panchanama as
per Ex.P2. During the course of cross-examination by the
learned counsel for the accused, PW.3 has deposed that he
could not remember the exact time of the incident. He has
denied the suggestion that when the court commissioner came
to that place at that time CW.1 to CW.3 and CW.5 have
quarrelled with the accused. PW.3 has denied all other
suggestions made to him.
22. P.W.9 K. Chethan has deposed that his parents were
running the xerox and mobile shop in the building belongs to
PW.1. That on 21.12.2012 at about 10.30 AM to 11 AM he and
his friend CW.4/PW.3 Avinash was in the xerox and mobile
shop at that time the BBMP authorities came to measure the
property. At about 11 AM the accused No.1 along with 20
persons came there and started to quarrel by saying that they
will not allow for measurement. When PW.1 asked the accused
No.1 to come inside and not to allow other people to come
inside at that time the accused No.1 and his associates
criminally trespassed into the property of PW.1 and quarrelled
22 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
with PW.1 Narayanappa. PW.9 has deposed that the accused
persons assaulted PW.1 Narayanappa , PW.2 Muniramaiah and
PW.6 Chandrashekar and caused them injuries. On the next
day of this incident, the police visited to the place of incident
and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P2 in his presence.
At the instance of learned Special Public Prosecutor PW.9
treated as hostile and permitted to cross-examination. During
the course of his cross-examination by the learned Spl.PP PW.9
admitted the suggestion that the accused abused PW.1, PW.2
and PW.6 in filthy language as "ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ, ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ". PW.9
admitted the suggestion that the accused persons also given
life threat to PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6. During the course of his
cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.9
has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time
of incident. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
23. P.W.4 Lingaiah, Assistant Executive Engineer has
deposed that in the year 2012 when he was working in BBMP
he was appointed by the court to measure the property in Sy.
No.35/1. Hence, he has issued notice to Narayanappa and
23 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Muniraju who were parties to the suit to be present at the spot
on 21.12.2012 at 11 AM in order to execute commission work.
He has deposed that on 21.12.2012 when he was proceeding
towards the land in Sy. No.35/1 on the way he received a
phone call from Assistant Executive Engineer Ravindranath
that as the quarrel taken place in the spot, the commissioner
work could not be executed. After receiving the phone call he
returned from half way without executing the commission
work. During the course of his cross-examination by the
defence PW.4 has admitted the suggestion that the suit in
O.S.No.2627/2006 was filed by the accused No.1 Muniraju
against PW.1 Narayanappa. He has deposed that he was
served the notice to both the parties on 11.12.2012. He has
admitted the suggestion that he was not executed the
commission work.
24. P.W.5 Ravindranath has deposed that on 21.12.2012
at about 11 AM he visited to the property No.35/1 as per the
direction of AEE Lingaiah (PW.4). When he visited to that place
PW.1 Narayanappa and accused No.1 Muniraju was there in
24 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
that place. He went inside the building and when he was
verified the records at that time the quarrel taken place outside
the building. He has deposed that the quarrel taken place
between Muniraju and his sons and Narayanappa and his
sons. By seeing the quarrel thinking that it is not possible to
measure the land after informing the same to PW.4 Lingaiah he
returned back to the office. PW.5 has deposed that he do not
know who was abused to whom and in what way quarrel taken
place. Since PW.5 has turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution, learned Spl. P.P., cross-examined him in detail.
In his cross-examination PW.5 has denied of giving any
statement before the police as per Ex.P3.
25. P.W.7 K.R. Sathish Kumar is the Assistant Revenue
Officer has deposed that on 1.7.2013 he received a requisition
of PSI who sought the information regarding the BBMP
Property No.80. After verifying the records in the office he has
issued his certificate as per Ex.P5 that the property bearing
No.80 is standing in the name of R. Narayan and others.
During the course of his cross-examination by the learned
25 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
counsel for the accused PW.7 has denied all the suggestions
made to him.
26. P.W.8 Chandrappa H. Barki, PSI has deposed that on
21.12.2012 at about 8.00 PM he registered the case in Crime
No.287/2012 based on Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW.1 and
sent Ex.P6FIR to the court. On the same day he sent
complainant and his sons, Muniramaiah, Chandrashekar to
Bowring Hospital for treatment. On 22.12.2012 he visited to
the place of incident and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P2
in the presence of panchas Avinash and Chethan as the place
of incident was shown by the complainant R. Narayanappa.
On the same day he has recorded the statement of CW.2
Muniramaiah, CW.3 Chandrashekar, CW.4 Avinash, CW.5
Chethan, CW.6 Lingaiah, CW.7 Ravindranath. On 29.6.2013
he arrested the accused and released them on bail. On
2.7.2013 he received Ex.P5 certificate from Assistant Revenue
Officer of the BBMP. On 26.7.2013 he has received Ex.P7
wound certificate of Narayanappa, Ex.P8 wound certificate of
Muniramaiah, Ex.P9 Wound Certificate of Chandrashekar from
26 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Bowring Hospital. On 1.8.2013 on completion of investigation
he has filed the charge sheet. During the course of his cross-
examination by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.8 has
denied all the suggestions made to him.
27. Based upon the above evidence, it is to be
considered if the prosecution has established the charges
framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
In this case P.W.1 is the injured and complainant, P.W.2
and P.W.6 are injured and eye witnesses. P.W.3 and P.W.9
are eye witnesses and mahazar witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 Lingaiah AEE, P.W.5
Ravindranath AEE have partly supported the case of the
prosecution. P.W.7 Assistant Revenue Officer; P.W.8
P.S.I/I.O. have supported the case of the prosecution. Prior
to proceed further it is important to note some of the
undisputed facts. Accused No.1 Muniraju (Deceased) is the
father of accused No.3 and accused No.4. Accused No.2
Anand Shetty is the friend of accused No.1. P.W.1 is the
father of P.W.2 and P.W.6. The relationship is admitted. It
27 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
is not in dispute that civil suits were pending between
accused No.1 and P.W.1 in respect of land in Sy.No.35/1.
It is undisputed fact that in O.S.No.2627/2006 filed
accused No.1 against P.W.1 the Court Commissioner was
appointed. It is also not in dispute that the Assistant
Executive Engineer of BBMP who was appointed as Court
Commission fixed the date as 21.12.2012 to execute Court
Commissioner work by measuring the land after issuing
notice to both the parties to be present in the spot on that
day. It is not in dispute that the Court Commissioner could
not measure the land in Sy.No.35/1 on 21.12.2012 as
quarrel taken place in that land. It is undisputed fact that
the criminal case also registered against P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.6 and 2 others and connected case in
Spl.C.C.No.144/2013 also pending against them. The
presence of accused and P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 is not
seriously disputed by the accused. Keeping in view these
admitted fact now I will discuss the oral and documentary
28 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
evidence adduced by the prosecution. In this case P.W.3
and P.W.6 are the eye witnesses and mahazar witnesses.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramasanjeev V/s State of Bihar (AIR 1996 SC 326) and
decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 1996 Crl. L.J
848 enunciating the principles governing the assessing of
evidence eye witness they are:
1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible
to believe his presence at the scene of occurrence or
ensure situation as would makes it possible for him to
witness the facts deposed by him.
2. Whether there is anything inherently improbable or
unreliable in his evidence.
Applying these principles to P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.3,
P.W.9 whether their presence in the scene of offence is
possible or not to be considered first. So far as the
presence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 in the place of incident
their presence is not seriously disputed by the accused as
the accused have taken defence that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6
29 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
have quarrelled with them and abused them in the name
of caste and assaulted them with bat and rod and caused
them injuries. Since accused persons have not disputed
the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 in the place of incident
by taking defence that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 have assaulted
them the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 in the place of
incident cannot be doubted. P.W.3 Avinash is the eye
witness has deposed that when he was in the shop of
C.W.5/P.W.9 Chethan at that time the quarrel taken place.
Accused person quarrelled with P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6
and assaulted them with hands and abused them in filthy
language and also given life threat to them. P.W.9
K.Chethan has also deposed that when he was in his
parents mobile phone and xerox shop in the building
belongs to P.W.1 on 21.12.2012 at that time accused
persons trespassed into the property of P.W.1 and
quarrelled with P.W.1 and assaulted him his sons P.W.2,
P.W.6 and caused them simple injuries. Both P.W.3 and
P.W.9 have deposed that when they were in the shop
30 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
situated in the same building the quarrel taken place. The
presence of P.W.3 and P.W.9 in the place of incident cannot
be doubted. P.W.5 Ravindranath who visited to the
property bearing Sy.No.35/1 to measure the land even
though turned hostile but he has deposed to the extent
that as the quarrel taken place between accused No.1 and
sons and P.W.1 and his sons he could not execute Court
Commissioner work. P.W.5 has specifically deposed that as
the quarrel taken place between both the parties he could
not execute the Court Commissioner work. No doubt P.W.5
has not deposed about who assaulted to whom. P.W.3 and
P.W.9 have also partly turned hostile.
29. It is now settled principle of law is that merely
because the witnessed turned hostile their evidence cannot
be discarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision
reported in 2010 SAR (Cal) 382 Paramajith Singh @
Pamma V/s State of Uttarkhand held that the deposition
of hostile witnesses can be relied upon at least upto the
extent they supported the case of the prosecution. The
31 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birju V/s State of
Madhyapradesh reported in (2014)3 SCC 421 held that
the evidence of hostile witness cannot be discarded as a
whole and relevant parts there of which are admissible in
law can be used either by the prosecution or by the
defence. In the present case even though P.W.5 has turned
hostile, he has supported to the case of the prosecution to
the extent that quarrel taken place between accused No.1
and P.W.1 and their sons and daughter. In this case the
case registered against the accused on the same day of
incident. There is no delay in lodging the complaint by
P.W.1 complainant. P.W.1, P.W.2. P.W.6 have deposed that
due to assault made by the accused they have sustained
the injuries hence the police took them to the Bowring
Hospital, Bengaluru. In this case the wound certificates
Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 are marked through P.W.8/P.S.I. P.W.8
has deposed that after he received the complaint from
P.W.1 on 21.12.2012 at 8-00 p.m. he registered the case in
Crime No.287/2012 and sent FIR to the Court and at the
32 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
same time he sent P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 to the Bowring
Hospital for treatment. No doubt in this case despite of
sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, the
prosecution has not examined C.W.9 Dr. R.Radha. The
wound certificates as per Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 marked through
P.W.8/P.S.I. The learned counsel for the accused
vehemently argued that the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.6 are not corroborating with the documents Ex.P.7 to
Ex.P.9 wound certificates. This arguments of learned
counsel for the accused is not acceptable. In Ex.P.7 wound
certificate of injured Narayanappa. R following 3 injuries
are mentioned (1) C/o pain in the left low back (2)
Abrasion wound on anterior aspect of lower 1/3rd of leg
(3) C/o pain over lower left chest. These injuries are
mentioned as simple in nature. In Ex.P.8 wound certificate
of Muni Ramaiah (P.W.2) 2 injuries are mentioned (1)
Redness of left iliac region of the abdomen (2) C/o pain of
right elbow. In Ex.P.9 wound certificate of Chandrashekar
it is mentioned no external injuries seen but C/o pain in
33 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
occipital region of scalp and low back. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6
have clearly deposed that the accused persons have
assaulted them with hands. P.W.1 has deposed that due to
assault made by the accused he has sustained injuries
over his waist and leg. P.W.2 has deposed that accused
Shashi Kumar and Chandrakala by holding his hands
twisted his hands and assaulted him with hands and
kicked him. P.W.6 has deposed that accused No.2 Anand
Shetty and accused No.3 Shashi Kumar assaulted him
with hands. The accused persons also assaulted P.W.1 and
P.W.2 with hands. The oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6
is corroborating with the documents Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9
wound certificates which would goes to show that due to
assault made by the accused with hands. P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.6 have sustained simple injuries. The learned counsel
for the accused argued that due to assault made by the
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and 2 others accused No.2 has
sustained grievous injuries and accused and accused No.1,
3, 4 have sustained simple injuries. The learn counsel for
34 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
the accused filed memo on 12.12.2019 and produced 7
photos of the incident and injuries sustained by accused
No.2. The accused persons have not stepped into witness
box and not got marked the documents to prove their
defence by preponderance of probabilities. There is counter
case pending against P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and other 2
accused and this Court in this case need not discuss about
the case filed by accused No.1. In this case the accused
persons have not lead any defence evidence to show that
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 are only aggressors and these accused
persons have not quarrelled with them. The oral evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 which is supported by the
documents Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 wound certificates shows that
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 have also sustained simple injuries
due to assault made by the accused. P.W.3 and P.W.9 eye
witnesses to the incident have also supported the case of
the prosecution by deposing that the accused persons
quarrelled with P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and assaulted them
with hands. During the course of cross-examination of
35 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
P.W.3 and P.W.9 by the defence nothing is elicited from
their mouth to show that they had any enemity with the
accused. The presence of P.W.3 and P.W.9 in the place of
incident cannot be disbelieved. P.W.3 and P.W.9 have also
deposed about conducting Ex.P.2 panchanama in their
presence in the place of incident on following day of
incident. P.W.8 P.S.I./I.O. who conducted the mahazar as
per Ex.P.2 on 22.12.2012 also deposed that he has
conducted Ex.P.2 mahazar in the presence in the presence
of P.W.2 and P.W.9. During the course of cross-
examination of P.W.3, P.W.8, P.W.9 by the learned counsel
for the accused nothing is elicited from their mouth to
discard their version regarding Ex.P.2 mahazar. More than
that the place of incident is not disputed by the accused.
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 who are all injured and P.W.3, P.W.9
who are eye witnesses have clearly deposed that the
accused persons have assaulted P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and
caused them injuries. Thus there is clear evidence on the
side of the prosecution to show that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6
36 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
have sustained simple injuries due to assault made by the
accused with hands.
30. P.W.1 has deposed that accused No.1 pushed
him near the gate. Accused persons assaulted his sons
P.W.2 and P.W.6 and abused him and his sons in filthy
language as "ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ" and also given life threat to him.
P.W.2 has also deposed that accused persons who
assaulted them with hand also abused them as "ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ,
ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ". Accused persons have also given life threat to
them. P.W.6 has also deposed that accused abused them
in filthy language as "ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ, ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ" and also given
life threat to them. P.W.3 and P.W.9 are the eye witnesses
have also deposed that accused persons abused P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.6 in filthy language and given life threat to
them. The oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6,
P.W.9 are corroborating with each other regarding the
abusive language used by the accused and giving life
threat.
37 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Himachal Pradesh-Vs Lekh Raj and another reported
in AIR 1999 SC 3916, has held that 'Minor discrepancies
or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case
doubtful".
32. In the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar V/s State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1999 SC 3544, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "When eye-witness is
examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some
discrepancies. No true witness can escape from making some
discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well
tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-
discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only
when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court
is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view
to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an
incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or
38 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
as between two statements of the same witness) is an
unrealistic approach or judicial scrutiny".
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State
of Haryana V/s Bhagirath and others reported in
1999(5) SCC 96, has held that "It is impossible in any
criminal trial to prove all elements with scientific precision.
Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at
every segment of evidence but an advantage to be afforded
to the accused at the final end after consideration of entire
evidence if the judge conscientiously and reasonably
entertains doubts." In view of the principle laid down in the
aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the court need not
concentrate on the minor discrepancies when there is
cogent evidence to prove the case of the prosecution.
34. The learned counsel for the accused argued
regarding deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 who deposed
about number of persons accompanied with the accused.
Merely because there is variance in the deposition of P.W.1,
39 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
P.W.2, P.W.6 regarding the number of persons
accompanied with the accused that cannot be ground to
doubt the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6. Admittedly
the Investigation Officer filed charge sheet in this case
against accused No.1 to accused No.4. Any contradiction
in the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 regarding
number of persons came along with accused whether it
was 7 to 8 persons or 15 to 20 persons, it is trivial in
nature. The oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6,
P.W.9 would goes to show that accused persons wrongfully
restrained P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and abused them in filthy
language and given life threat to them.
35. With regarding the offence u/s 447 of I.P.C. is
concerned admittedly Court Commissioner issued notice to
accused No.1 and P.W.1 to be present in that place in
order to measure the property. The oral evidence of P.W.4
Lingaiah Assistant Executive Engineer is very clear that he
has issued notice to P.W.1 Narayanappa and accused No.1
Muniraju who are parties in the suit to be present at the
40 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
spot on 21.12.2012 at 11-00 a.m. so as to execute
commission work. P.W.2, P.W.6 are the sons of P.W.1.
Accused No.3 and 4 are the son and daughter of accused
No.1. Accused No.2 is the friend of accused No.1. Since the
Court Commissioner issued notice to the parties to be
present at the spot, hence presence of accused in
Sy.No.35/1 cannot be termed as criminal trespass. P.W.7
who issued Ex.P.5 certificate deposed that the property
bearing BBMP No.80 is standing in the name of
R.Narayana (P.W.1) and others. Admittedly as on the date
of the incident civil suit was pending between P.W.1 and
accused No.1 with respect to this property. The Court
Commissioner was appointed to measure the property.
Under such circumstances the presence of the accused in
the place of incident cannot be termed as criminal
trespass. In Ex.P.1 complaint P.W.1 has not mentioned
that he was told the accused that they can come inside for
commissioner work but others who came along with them
should not come inside. The oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2,
41 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
P.W.6 is not corroborating with the document Ex.P.1
regarding alleged criminal trespass. When the Court
Commissioner came to spot in order to measure the
property and to execute commissioner work, the presence
of accused in that place cannot be termed as criminal
trespass. However, it cannot give licence to accused to
assault P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and abuse them in filthy
language and to give life threat to them. The oral evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 is corroborating with the document
Ex.P.1 complaint about the incident of accused wrongfully
restrained them and assaulted them with hands and
abused them in filthy language and given life threat to
them. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.9 are
consistent with regard to the overt act of the accused
persons in assaulting P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 with hands and
caused them simple injuries and abused them in filthy
language and given life threat to them. The prosecution
has successfully proved that the accused persons have
committed the offences punishable under Section 341,
42 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
323, 504, 506 and R/w 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution has
failed to prove that accused have committed the offences
punishable u/s 447 R/w 34 of I.P.C. The evidence of P.W.1
to P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.9 which is supported by Ex.P.7
to Ex.P.9 wound certificates and evidence of P.W.8
Investigation Officer are consistent, cogent with regard to
the role played by the accused for the commission of the
offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of
I.P.C. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that
accused persons have committed the offences u/s 447
R/w 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution has proved that the
accused persons have committed the offences punishable
u/s 341, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, I
answered point No.1 in the Negative, point No.2 to 5 in the
Affirmative.
36. In view of my findings on points No.1 to 5, I
proceeds to pass the following:-
43 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
O R DE R
Exercising jurisdiction conferred upon me
under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2
to 4 have not guilty of the offences punishable
under Sec. 447 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly
they are acquitted of the said offences.
Exercising jurisdiction conferred upon me
u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. I hereby find accused No.2 to
4 guilty of the offences punishable u/s 341, 323,
504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
The case posted for hearing on quantum of
sentence to be imposed on the accused.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer to
him, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me
in open Court on this the 7th day of January, 2020.)
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
44 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE DATED 07.01.2020
Heard the learned counsel for the accused/convict and
accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor on the
quantum of sentence to be imposed on the convict/accused
No.2 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 504, 506
r/w 34 of IPC which are proved against the accused/convict.
The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the
accused persons were visited to the property along with court
commissioner and they had no criminal intention to quarrel
with PW.1, PW.2, PW.6. She submitted that the accused are
not involved in any other cases or convicted in any other
criminal cases. The accused No.4 is lady. They are
permanent residents of Bangalore. Thus, she prays to take
lenient view in the matter of imposing sentence.
On the other hand, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor prays to impose maximum sentence as prescribed
in each sections and also prays to sentence of imprisonment
and impose fine.
45 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by
PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 due to assault made by the accused and
the manner in which the accused committed the offences
when the date fixed for executing the commissioner warrant,
this court of the view that the accused/convict are not
entitled any benefit u/s 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act. Hence this Court is declined to grant any benefit to the
convict/accused under the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act.
The accused No.3 is lady, it is find that in in another
connected case, these accused are the injured due to assault
made by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6. This is the mitigating
circumstance. On the other hand when the court
commissioner fixed for measurement of land on that day
these accused quarrelled with PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 that too
within the view of public and caused them simple injuries.
This is the aggravated circumstances.
Considering the facts of the case and considering the
nature of injuries sustained by PW.1, PW.2, Pw.6, I am of the
46 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
view that the accused shall be punished with sentence of
imprisonment for the offences u/s. 341, 323, 504, 506 R/W
34 of IPC which are proved against them. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following:
ORDER
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s 341 r/w 34 of IPC.
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to pay fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each.
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
47 Spl.C.No. 462/2018The substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
Office is directed to furnish the copy of the judgment to the convicts as required u/s 363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgement Writer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of January, 2020.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A N NE X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Narayanappa
P.W.2 : Muniramaiah
P.W.3 : Avinash
P.W.4 : Lingaiah
P.W.5 : Ravindranath
P.W.6 : Chandrashekara
P.W.7 : K.R. Sathish Kumar
P.W.8 : Chandrappa H Barki
P.W.9 : Chethan
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P. 2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW.3
48 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Ex.P2(c) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P2(d) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P 3 : Statement of PW.5
Ex.P 4 : PSI Letter
Ex.P 5 : P.F.No.80 certificate letters of
P.W.1 & others
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW.5
Ex.P5(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P6 : FIR
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P7 : Wound Certificate of PW.1
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P8 : Wound Certificate of PW.2
Ex.P8 (a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P9 : Wound Certificate of PW.6
Ex.P9(a) : Signature of PW.8
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.49 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Order pronounced in the open court vide separate order ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE DATED 07.01.2020 Heard the learned counsel for the accused/convict and accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on the convict/accused No.2 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC which are proved against the accused/convict.
The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused persons were visited to the property along with court commissioner and they had no criminal intention to quarrel with PW.1, PW.2, PW.6. She submitted that the accused are not involved in any other cases or convicted in any other criminal cases. The accused No.4 is lady. They are permanent residents of Bangalore. Thus, she prays to take lenient view in the matter of imposing sentence.
On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor prays to impose maximum sentence as prescribed in each sections and also prays to sentence of imprisonment and impose fine.
Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 due to assault made by the accused and the manner in which the accused committed the offences when the date fixed for executing the commissioner warrant, this court of the view that the accused/convict are not entitled any benefit u/s 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence this Court is declined to grant any benefit to the convict/accused under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The accused No.3 is lady, it is find that in in another connected case, these accused are the injured due to assault made by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6. This is the mitigating circumstance. On the other hand when the court commissioner fixed for measurement of land on that day these accused quarrelled with PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 that too 50 Spl.C.No. 462/2018 within the view of public and caused them simple injuries. This is the aggravated circumstances.
Considering the facts of the case and considering the nature of injuries sustained by PW.1, PW.2, Pw.6, I am of the view that the accused shall be punished with sentence of imprisonment for the offences u/s. 341, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 of IPC which are proved against them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following:
ORDER The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s 341 r/w 34 of IPC.
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to pay fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each.
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
The convict/accused No.2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The substantive sentence shall run concurrently. Office is directed to furnish the copy of the judgment to the convicts as required u/s 363(1) of Cr.P.C.
LXX A.C.C & S.J. & Spl.J, Bengaluru.
The learned counsel for the accused filed application u/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C., praying for suspension of sentence.
I heard on the application.51 Spl.C.No. 462/2018
Since the accused intends to prefer appeal the opportunity is given to them, the application filed u/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed subject to following conditions: -
1) It is ordered to suspend the sentence of imprisonment till appeal appeal period subject to condition that the accused/convict shall execute personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each and shall furnish one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of this court.
2) They shall appear before the court to received the sentence whenever directed to do so.
3) They shall deposit fine amount.
4) They shall not involve in any other criminal cases.
The counsel for accused prays time to furnish surety.
Time granted. Call for furnishing surety and to deposit fine on 8.1.2020.
LXX A.C.C & S.J. & Spl.J, Bengaluru.
52 Spl.C.No. 462/2018Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment.
O R DE R Exercising jurisdiction conferred upon me under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 to 4 have not guilty of the offences punishable under Sec. 447 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences.
Exercising jurisdiction conferred upon me u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. I hereby find accused No.2 to 4 guilty of the offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
The case posted for hearing on quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused.
LXX A.C.C & S.J. & Spl.J, Bengaluru.