Bangalore District Court
Inspector vs No.1 To 3 Criminally Intimidated To The ... on 24 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019
Serial Number of the C.C.12041/2019
case
Name of the State by Police Sub
complainant Inspector, Malleswaram Police
station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1). Nikitha,
person/s D/o.Srinivas,
Aged about 29 years,
2). Ranjitha,
W/o.Shivanna,
Aged about 32 years,
3). Shivu @ Shivananda,
S/o.K.H.Ramegowda,
Aged about 38 years,
All accused are R/At.No.5,
2nd main, 3rd cross, Subedar Palya,
Yeshwanthpur Bengaluru
(Reptd by
Sri.Lakshmi.N..Adv.,)
Offences complained U/Secs.341, 323,504, 506 r/w
of Sec. 34 of the IPC.
2 C.C.12041/2019
Date of 18.11.2018
commencement of
offence
Date of 20.07.2019
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closure of 20.07.2019
recording evidence
Plea of the accused Not Guilty
and his examination :
Offences proved Nil
Final Order : Accused Not found guilty
Date of final order 24.10.2019
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C I. Case of the prosecution It is specific case of the prosecution that on 18.11.2018 at about 10.00 P.M the accused no.1 to 3 picked up quarrel with C.W.4 and wrongfully restrained C.W.4 and the accused no.3 assaulted C.W.4 with hands. Further it is alleged that the accused no.1 and 2 abused C.W.1 in filthy language and assaulted her with hands and accused no.1 to 3 criminally intimidated to the life of C.W.1 and 4. It is case of the prosecution that dispute 3 C.C.12041/2019 relating to the parking of autorickshaw is the cause for this incident.
II. Brief statement of reasons for the decision:
1. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, C.W.1 -Smt-Lakshmi who is informant of crime is examined as P.W.1. This P.W.1 in her chief examination explained that in the month of November 2018 the accused no.1 to 3 came near K.C.General hospital and accused no.1 to 3 were about to assault her and at that time she went inside the hospital and closed the gate of the hospital.
Further P.W.1 explained that the hospital people called Hoysala Police and thereafter accused no.1 to 3 left the place. Further P.W.1 explained that 3 days after the incident, she Iodged the complaint to the police and she deposed that police drawn mahazar on the spot.
The complaint and spot mahazar are marked as per Ex.P.1 and 2.
3. Since evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the case of the prosecution, learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor permitted to treat this witness as hostile witness. In the 4 C.C.12041/2019 cross examination made by learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor, this P.W.1 admitted the suggestions posed to her as per case of the prosecution.
4. C.W.4 one Hanumanthrayappa is examined as P.W.2 claiming to be injured witness. This witness in the chief examination deposed that accused no.1 to 3 assaulted him and C.W.1 near K.C.General hospital. This witness also failed to explain the other details of the case of the prosecution. Hence learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor permitted to treat this witness as hostile witness. During cross examination, made by learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor this witness admitted the suggestions posed to him as per case of the prosecution.
5.The prosecution failed to secure other witnesses inspite of giving sufficient opportunities.
6. During course of trial, defence of the accused is total denial of the case of the prosecution. 5 C.C.12041/2019
7. Admittedly there is dispute between the parties. Admittedly criminal case was registered prior to this incident. No doubt there is hostility between the parties.
8. In the decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 443( Babu VS- State of UP, wherein it is held that:
"-where the witnesses are interested, their evidence should be scrutinized with great caution"
9. In this present case on hand, as I have above stated, both P.W.1 and 2 failed to explain the incident on their own. The say of P.W.1 and 2 in the chief examination is not supporting to the case of the prosecution. This aspect creates a serious doubt. According to the case of the prosecution, the dispute between the parties is relating to parking of the autorickshaw and this is the cause for incident. This specific case is denied as false by the P.W.1 and according to P.W.1, flow of water in front of the house of accused is the real cause for dispute between them. This contradictory statement of P.W.1 also creates a serious doubt.
6 C.C.12041/2019
10. According to the case of prosecution, the alleged incident took place on 18.11.2018 at 11.00 A.M. The Ex.P1-Complaint indicates that complaint is registered on 19.11.2018 at 8.00 P.M. The FIR indicates that the FIR reached the Magistrate at 11.00A.M on 22.11.2018. The delay in registering the crime and reaching the FIR to the Magistrate also creates a serious doubt.
11. For the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is not sufficient to act upon and to hold the accused guilty. Further this court observed that out of the evidence and circumstances of the case, serious doubt arises and as a matter of right, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. With this opinion, this court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
7 C.C.12041/2019
II. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341,
504, 323 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.
Accused no.1 to 3 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of accused and that of surety stand canceled.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, typed by her on the computer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of October 2019).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1- Smt.Lakshmi P.W.2-Sri.Hanumantharayappa 8 C.C.12041/2019
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a): Signature
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused NIL
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
NIL (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.