Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

State By Halsurgate vs No.1 And 2 In Furtherance Of Their Common on 17 May, 2022

 IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU

           Dated this the 17th day of May 2022

  Present: Shri Anand T Chavan, B.Com., LL.B(Spl.).
                I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.

             JUDGMENT U/s. 355 Cr.P.C.,

Case No.              : C.C.No.21884/2019

Date of Offence       : 28-9-2018 to 29-9-2018

Name of complainant : State by Halsurgate
                      Police Station, Bengaluru.

                        (By Learned Sr. APP)

Name of accused       : 1. Parasmal
                          aged 28 years, R/o No.107,
                          Kenchanahalli, 1st main,
                          Rajarajeshwarinagar
                          Bengaluru.

                       2. Rajesh Jain,
                         S/o Gowatham Chand,
                         aged 36 years,
                         R/o No.120835th 'B' Cross,
                         4th T Block, Jayanagar,
                         Bengaluru.

                    (By Doreraju C., Advocate)

Offences complained off: U/s. 343, 504, 506 R/w
                          Sec.34 of IPC.

Plea of accused         : Pleaded not guilty
                       2               C.C.No.21884/2019


Final Order            : Accused are acquitted

Date of Order          : 17-5-2022

                     JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Halsurgate P.S. has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 343, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:- From 28- 9-2018 at 7.30 p.m. to 29-9-2018 at 8.15 p.m. accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully confined C.W.2 in a shop by name Pavithra Gold, situated at Raja complex, SMM Lane, Nagarthpet cross for the reason that he has not returned ornaments belonging to accused No.1. Further both accused abused C.W.2 in filthy language and they threatened him with deadly consequences. Thereafter C.W.1 who is brother of C.W.2 lodged first information before Halsurgate 3 C.C.No.21884/2019 police on 30-9-2018, which was registered by them in their PS Cr.No.229/2018 and FIR is issued. After recording statements of material witnesses and after conclusion of investigation, I.O. has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for above offences.

3. After filing of this charge sheet, accused no. 1 and 2 have appeared before court and they are enlarged on bail. Copy of charge sheet furnished to accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge is framed against accused. Accused No.1 and 2 have not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and they have claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, prosecution has got examined 1 witness as P.W.1 and got marked 1 document as per Ex.P1. However, C.W.2 who is victim of alleged incident is 4 C.C.No.21884/2019 reported as dead. Further, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against accused.

5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused have committed offence punishable under section 343 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused have committed offence punishable under section 504 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?

3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused have committed offence punishable under section 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?

4. What order ?

6. Heard arguments. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 5 C.C.No.21884/2019

7. The following are findings to above points.

Point No.1 to 3: In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order, for the following:

REASONS

8. Point No.1 to 3:- These points are taken together for consideration as findings on one point have bearing on other points.

9. In support of its case, prosecution has got examined C.W.1 and first informant of the case by name Ramlal S/o Bhura Ram Chowdary as P.W.1 and he has testified that deceased victim/C.W.2 is his brother and he is now no more. He has further testified that in the month of September 2018, C.W.2 had not returned to their house and in that regard he had approached Halsurgate police apprehending his kidnap and illegal detention. He 6 C.C.No.21884/2019 has further stated that said police did not receive any details, but obtained his signature on the document and he does not know the contents of said document. Most importantly he has completely turned hostile by stating that he does not know accused No.1 and 2 present before court. Though he has identified Ex.P1 first information and his signature on it as per Ex.P1(a), he has stated that he does not know the contents of said document and accused have never illegally detained C.W.2, they never abused and threatened him.

10. Though P.W.1 is treated as hostile witness and cross-examined at length by learned APP, nothing worth while is elicited from his mouth in order to prove that accused had illegally detained C.W.2, they abused him in filthy language and threatened him as per case of prosecution.

11. Further C.W.2 is reported as dead and as such the very victim of the case could not be examined to prove the guilt of accused. Further C.W.3 to C.W.10 have also not stepped into witness box despite issuance of witness summons. However, in view of death of victim and hostile evidence of P.W.1, rest of prosecution witnesses are dropped as no purpose of prosecution would be served by examining them.

12. Hence in view of hostile evidence of aforesaid principal witness and death of victim of alleged incident, it is difficult to believe that accused No.1 and 2 have committed alleged offences. Hence in view of above reasons, the evidence of prosecution witness has not inspired the confidence of the Court with regard to alleged guilt of accused No.1 and 2. Hence, it is incumbent upon this Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 and 2 have 8 C.C.No.21884/2019 committed offences punishable under Sections 343, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in Negative.

13. Point No.4: -

For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 3, following is:

ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 504 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.

The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.1 and 2 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.

(Typed by me directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 17 th day of May 2022).

(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-

P.W.1, Ram Lal;

List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-

Ex.P1,          First information
Ex.P1(a),       Signature of P.W.1;


List of material object :
                NIL

List of witnesses examined for defence:-

NIL List of documents marked for defence:-

NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.

26-4-2022 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 504 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.

The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No.1 and 2 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.

I ACMM, Bengaluru.