Bangalore District Court
State By - D.J.Halli Police Station vs Smt. Nasreen Taj on 7 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XI A.C.M.M., AT MAYO HALL UNIT.
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore City.
Present: Sri.P.SRINIVASA, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XI A.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
Dated: This the 7th day of October 2015.
C.C.No.24323/2007
COMPLAINANT :: State by - D.J.Halli Police Station
(State represented by Sr.APP)
Vs.
ACCUSED :: 1. Smt. Nasreen Taj,
W/o. Late. Amanulla,
29 years,
No.23,
Raghavappa Block,
D.J.Halli,
Bengaluru.
2. Munni,
D/o. Syed Ahmed,
28 years,
No.23,
Raghavappa Block,
D.J.Halli,
Bengaluru.
3. Smt. Zeenath Unnissa,
W/o. Syed Ahmed,
52 years,
No.23, Raghavappa Block,
D.J.Halli,
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.3 dead. Case against
accused No.3 abated.
2
C.C.NO.24323/2007
Case against accused NO.1 split up.)
(Accused No.2 represented by
Advocate Sri. A.C.Patil)
*****
1. Date of commission of the offence :: 07-08-2006
2. Date of report of offence :: 07-08-2006
3. Arrest of the accused :
a) Date of arrest of accused :: -
b) Release of accused on bail :: 08-04-2013
4. Name of the Complainant :: PYARE
5. Date of recording evidence :: NIL
6. Date of closing evidence :: NIL
7. Offences complained of :: Ss.323 & 506
R/w 34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge :: Accused No.2
found not
guilty.
XI A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Judgement
3
C.C.NO.24323/2007
JUDGEMENT
The PSI, of D.J. Halli Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows; The complainant herein is the owner of property bearing old No.2, New NO.6 Gramathana, Devarajeevanahalli measuring 80 x 160 Sq. Feet. The accused herein without any title filed false suit against the complainant in OS No.16094/2004. The said suit is still pending for consideration. On 07-08-2006, at 9 p.m., the accused No.1 to 3 herein tried to put up illegal construction in the said property and when the complainant questioned the same, the accused herein assaulted the complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Hence, complainant has filed the above complaint before the jurisdictional police.
Judgement 4 C.C.NO.24323/2007
3. Accused No.3 reported to be dead. Hence, case against accused No.3 is abated. On 08-04-2013 accused No.2 herein appeared before this Court and later she was enlarged on bail. Accused No.1 remained absconding. Hence, case against accused No.1 is split up. After filing of the charge sheet against the accused herein, cognizance of the offences was taken by this Court. Copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.2 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Plea was framed and read over and explained to the accused No.2. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty. Hence, case was posted for trial. Inspite of issue of summons, warrants and proclamation several times the prosecution failed to keep the witnesses present and adduce evidence before the Court. Hence, CW-1 to CW-9 were dropped. The accused statement U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
4. Heard arguments.
Judgement 5 C.C.NO.24323/2007
5. After analysing oral evidence and materials available on records, points for my determination are as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 07-8-2006 at 9 a.m., at property situated at Gramathana Sy.No.2 New Sy.No.6, the accused No.2 herein along with accused No.1 & 3 with common intention assaulted the complainant with hands and voluntarily caused hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323 R/w 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.2 herein along with accused No.1 & 3 with common intention threatened the complainant with dire consequences and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 R/w 34 of IPC ?
3. What order ?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows;
Judgement
6
C.C.NO.24323/2007
POINT NO-1 & 2 :: In Negative
POINT NO-3 :: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No-1 & 2 :: The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused No.2 herein committed the offences punishable U/s.323 & 506 R/w 34 of IPC.
8. It is pertinent to note that, on 12-8-2014, plea was framed in the above case. From 12-8-2014 till 24.8.2015 opportunity was granted to the prosecution to keep the witnesses present and adduce evidence before the Court. Inspite of issue of summons, warrants and proclamation several times the prosecution failed to keep the witnesses present and adduce evidence before the Court. Therefore, CW-1 to 9 were dropped. Non-examination of complainant, IO and other material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused No.2 herein. Therefore, Judgement 7 C.C.NO.24323/2007 benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.2 herein. Hence, I answer Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative.
9. POINT NO-3 :: In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
Bail bond and surety bond of accused No.2 shall stands cancelled.
Case against accused No.3 abated. Office is hereby directed to retain this file till disposal of split up case. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, the transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 7th day of October 2015.) (P.SRINIVASA) XI A.C.M.M., Mayo hall, Bangalore.
Judgement 8 C.C.NO.24323/2007 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :: N I L DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :: N I L WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED ::
NIL DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED ::
NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION ::
NIL (P.SRINIVASA) XI A.C.M.M., Mayo hall, Bangalore.
Judgement