Bangalore District Court
State By Hebbala Police vs Nos.1 To 3 Before The Hebbala Police ... on 20 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 20th day of April 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.12911/2015
Date of Offence : 30-5-2014
Name of complainant : State by Hebbala Police
Station, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Shivanna s/o Govindappa,
aged 35 years,
r/o No.40/4,
1st main, Doddamma Layout,
Manorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar, Post, Bengaluru 32,
2. Lakshmipathy,
s/o Venkataramanappa,
aged 26 years,
r/o Doddamma Layout,
near Doddamma Temple,
Manorayanapalya,
Bengaluru,
3. Jani s/o Srinivasan,
aged 27 years, r/o 3rd cross,
Manorayanapalya, Hebbala,
R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru 32.
Offences complained off: U/s. 290, 341 and 332 r/w Sec.
34 of IPC.
2 C.C.No.12911/2015
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 20-4-2018.
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hebbala Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 20-5-2014 at about 11-30 p.m, in front of Srishanth Gents Parlour of Doddamma temple of Manorayanapalya, the accused behaved badly under the influence of alcohol. When C.Ws.1 and 2 questioned the same, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted him by holding his collar and caused simple injury and accused No.3 assaulted C.W.2 and thereby restrained C.Ws.1 and 2 from discharging their official duty. Under such circumstances, a complaint has been filed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Hebbala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.142/2014. After completion 3 C.C.No.12911/2015 of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences.
3. After appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 necessary documents as relied by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused Nos.1 to 3 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 8 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3, during the course of trial, C.Ws.2, 1, 8 and 6 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and identified M.Os.1 to 3. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of summons and warrants. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused Nos.1 to 3 was recorded under 4 C.C.No.12911/2015 Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 3 have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 3.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
2. What order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that, on 20-5-2014 at about 11-30 p.m, in front of Srishanth Gents Parlour of Doddamma temple of Manorayanapalya, the accused behaved badly under the influence of alcohol. 5 C.C.No.12911/2015 When C.Ws.1 and 2 questioned the same, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted him by holding his collar and caused simple injury and accused No.3 assaulted C.W.2 and thereby restrained C.Ws.1 and 2 from discharging their official duty and thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC, C.W.2 is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 is a home Guard of Hebbala Police Station and he has deposed with regard to the alleged incident. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.1 in brief, in which P.W.1 has deposed in page No.2 to the following effect:
¢£ÁAPÀ 30.05.2014 gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ gÁwæ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä »jAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁVzÀÝ ²æà £ÁgÁAiÀÄt EªÀgÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ 6 C.C.No.12911/2015 JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÁ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀz° À è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above is not sufficient to prove and establish that he was on duty on the particular date and time. Therefore, in the absence of any such material evidence, the allegations made against the accused with regard to causing obstruction in discharging official duty to P.W.1 is not believable. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that subsequently at the instance of the accused, P.W.1 was recalled, but he was not subjected for cross-examination. Therefore, as per the order of the court P.W.1 was discharged. Hence, his evidence is incomplete and cannot be considered.
10. C.W.1 is examined as P.W.2 who is also injured person and complainant who has deposed as deposed by P.W.1 and reiterated the allegations made in the course of complaint and marked Ex.P1 and also identified the accused persons. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has 7 C.C.No.12911/2015 cross-examined P.W.2 in brief, in which P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect:
£Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ¦J¸ïLgÀªjÀ UÉ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÉ.Ý F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ 4 D¸Á«ÄUÀ¼À ZÀºÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤¦-1gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ºÉÆAiÀÄì¼À ªÁºÀ£z À À° è M§â qÉçʪÀgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÇð¸ï C¢üPÁj EzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ¯Éà 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ DVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄgÉwzÉÝãÉ. The evidence of P.W.2 as above is also not sufficient to prove that he was on duty on the particular date and time and at that time the accused have assaulted them. Any amount of oral evidence, in the absence of material documentary evidence to prove that P.Ws.1 and 2 were on duty on particular date and time, the allegations made against the accused is not sustainable and not believable. 8 C.C.No.12911/2015 Moreover, it is admitted by the P.W.2 that they have prepared the complaint in the Police Station.
11. In the further cross-examination in page No.3 and 4, P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect:
I have not taken treatment in Government Hospital. At the time alleged incident I was in the Police Uniform. The evidence of P.W.2 as above is fatal to the case of the prosecution, because if really the accused have assaulted P.W.1 and 2 on the particular date and time, why they have not seized the uniform and produced before the court to prove the alleged incident. Therefore, non-seizure of torn uniform is not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused.
12. C.W.8 is examined as P.W.3 who is the Investigating Officer who has also deposed with regard to his official duty discharged by him and got marked certain documents as Ex.P4. The counsel appearing for the accused has 9 C.C.No.12911/2015 cross-examined P.W.3 in detail, in which P.W.3 has deposed in para No.2, page No.2, to the following effect:
ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-1jAzÀ 3 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV J¯Áè ¨ÁgÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¹UÀÄvÀª Û É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-1 jAzÀ 3gÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÁ¸Á-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªgÀ À ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ aÃnUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CAn¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ J¸ïJA D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-1gÀªÀjUÉ aQvÉì ¤ÃrzÀ §UÉÎ CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-4 ¸À®ºÁ aÃn JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁÀr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The evidence of P.W.3 as above is not at all sufficient to prove the alleged incident as well as drawing of mahazar and also seizure of M.os.1 to 3 from the spot. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence of P.W.3 is also not sufficient to prove the alleged offences. 10 C.C.No.12911/2015
13. C.W.6 is examined as P.W.4 who is a witness to the mahazar which is marked as Ex.P3. Since P.W.4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but in the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited to prove the guilt of the accused.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has argued vehemently and relied on the following judgments:
1) Nathu Ra, and others Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 2817,
2) State of Orissa Vs. Govindaram Rathore reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. NOC 91,
3) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dinesh Chander Sharma reported in 201 Cri.L.J. 2418.
The law laid down in the above said cases and in view of the fact that there is no material placed on behalf of prosecution, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 11 C.C.No.12911/2015 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal for the alleged offences. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
15. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 stands cancelled. M.Os.1 to 3 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of April 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.12 C.C.No.12911/2015
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Chandrashekar, P.W.2, Narayanappa, P.W.3, Sriharsha K.N., P.W.4, Kumar;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Report,, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P2, FIR, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P3, Spot mahazar, Ex.P4, Medical certificate, Ex.P5, Statement of P.W.4; Material Objects Produced:- M.Os.1 to 3, Beer bottles;
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:- NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.13 C.C.No.12911/2015
20/4/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused Nos.1 to 3 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341 and 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 stands cancelled. M.Os.1 to 3 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(V.Jagadeesh) I ACMM, Bengaluru.14 C.C.No.12911/2015
15 C.C.No.12911/2015