Bangalore District Court
State By Police Inspector vs Zafrulla Khan on 16 January, 2023
1 S.C.No.420/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU,
[CCH.NO.29]
Present :- Sri. K.M. Rajashekar, B.Sc., L.L.M.,
Dated this the 16th day of January 2023
S.C.No.420/2019
Complainant:- State by Police Inspector,
Kadugondanahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused:- 1. Zafrulla Khan,
S/o Pyarejan,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.198, 10th Cross,
2nd Main Road, Vinoba Nagar,
K.G.Halli, Bengaluru-45.
(By Si. MTB Advocate)
1. Date of Offence : 24.11.2018
2. Date of report of Offence : 25.11.2018
3. Date of arrest of accused : 25.11.2018
2 S.C.No.420/2019
4. Date of release of accused on bail : Accused is in
JC.
5. Period of undergone in custody
(during pre-trial) : Y M D
: 00 00 00
6. Name of the Complainant : Sri. Hammered Umar.
7. Commencement of trial : 13.2.2020
8. Closing of evidence : 25.11.2022
9. Offences complained of : U/S 302, 504 of IPC.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Person found
guilty, hence, he is convicted.
[K.M. Rajashekhar],
XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge,
Mayo hall, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
This is a Charge Sheet submitted by the C.W.32 Sri. S. Edwin Pradeep, Police Inspector, K.G.Halli Police Station, against the Accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 504 of IPC.
3 S.C.No.420/2019
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:
That the Accused has started A.C.Mechanic Business with the deceased Yahiya @ Moosa and sustained loss and thereafter they stopped the said business. The Accused use to pick up quarrel with the deceased blaming him that the loss in the business was caused due to him only. In connection with the enmity, on 24.11.2018 at about 11.45 to 12.15 hours mid night, when the deceased Yahiya @ Moosa came in his Bullet Vehicle near Vinoba Nagar 10th Cross junction, Masjid-e-
Alkhair, 2nd Main Road, Vinoba Nagar, within the limits of Kadugondanahalli Police Station, on seeing the said Yahiya @ Moosa the Accused stopped his vehicle and abused him in filthy language, when the said Yahiya questioned him about abusing him, the Accused picked up quarrel with him and pushed Yahiya along with his vehicle on the ground and with an intention to kill Yahiya the Accused with the help of scissor assaulted on the neck and chest of the deceased and have caused 4 S.C.No.420/2019 grievous bleeding injuries and as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries and thereby committed the offences of culpable homicide amounting to murder which is punishable under Section 302, 504 of IPC. Hence, the complaint.
3. Thereafter, based on the complaint of Complainant-C.W.1- Sri. Mohammed Umar, a case is registered in Crime No.589/2018 of K.G.Halli Police Station for the offences punishable U/S 302, 504 of IPC., and after completion of investigation submitted Charge Sheet for the offences punishable U/S 302, 504 of IPC.
4. The Committal Court after taking cognizance of the offences has registered the case against the Accused Persons. Later, the Accused produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. The copy of Charge Sheet was furnished to the Accused person as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter heard both sides, case has been committed for trial.
5 S.C.No.420/2019
5. After registration of case before this Court, Accused marked his appearance before the Court through his Counsel. After hearing both sides, charge for the offences punishable U/S 302, 504 of IPC., has been framed and it was read over and explained to the Accused Person in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by the Court. Hence, the trial was fixed.
6. The Prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17 out of 32 witnesses cited in the Charge Sheet, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and MO.1 to MO.8 in support of its case.
7. After conclusion of Prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., of the Accused was recorded and the Accused pleaded not guilty. Accused did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard both side arguments and perused the records.
6 S.C.No.420/2019
9. Now the points that arose for my consideration are as under:
1) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the Accused has started business of A.C.Mechanic on 24.11.2018 at about 11.45 to 12.15 hours mid night, when the deceased Yahiya @ Moosa came in his Bullet Vehicle near Vinoba Nagar the Accused stopped his vehicle and abused him in filthy language, and pushed Yahiya along with his vehicle on the ground and with an intention to kill Yahiya the Accused with the help of scissor assaulted on the neck and chest of the deceased and have caused grievous bleeding injuries and as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries and thereby committed the offences of culpable homicide amounting to murder which is punishable under Section 302, 504 of Indian Penal Code?7 S.C.No.420/2019
2) What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- Upon going through the prosecution theory, it indicates that, according to the Prosecution, that the Accused has started A.C.Mechanic Business with the deceased Yahiya @ Moosa and sustained loss. The Accused use to pick up quarrel with the deceased blaming him. On 24.11.2018 at about 11.45 to 12.15 hours mid night, near Vinoba Nagar the Accused stopped deceased vehicle and abused him in filthy language and pushed Yahiya along with his vehicle on the ground and with an intention to kill Yahiya the Accused with the help of scissor assaulted on the neck and chest of the deceased and have caused grievous bleeding injuries and as a result of which the deceased succumbed 8 S.C.No.420/2019 to the injuries and thereby committed the offences of culpable homicide amounting to murder which is punishable under Section 302, 504 of IPC. In support of its case the Prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17 out of 32 witnesses cited in the Charge Sheet, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and MO.1 to MO.8 in support of the Prosecution.
12. Upon going through the materials available on record, it indicates that in support of their case, Prosecution cited 32 witnesses in the Charge Sheet and able to examined only 17 witnesses out of 32 witnesses.
13. The Prosecution has charge sheeted the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302, 504 of IPC. Even though the Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses out of 32 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Upon careful perusal of the evidence it indicates that, the Prosecution cited the brother of the deceased CW.1 Mohammed Umar as Complainant and CW.2 to CW.11 as the eye-witnesses to this incident. Admittedly, PW.1 is not an eye-witness to this incident. 9 S.C.No.420/2019 Rather, he deposes about receiving information about the death of his brother and visited the spot and later lodged complaint. Even though, the Prosecution cited and examined CW.2 to CW.11 as PW.2 to PWs.5, 8, 9, 14 to 16. But unfortunately none of the witnesses deposes about the overt act committed by the Accused in stabbing the deceased with scissors and done him to death. Unfortunately, all the witnesses claimed that they have not seen the incident of Accused stabbing the deceased to death. Rather they claim that they have not given any statement before the Police. It is significant here to note that PW.16 is the wife of the deceased. She also not supported the case of the Prosecution. Inspite of Prosecution making suggestion regarding the quarrel and previous enmity between the Accused and the decease. This witness denied the same. Even though the Prosecution made hectic efforts to cross-examine all the materials witnesses at length. But, the efforts of the Prosecution to elicit any incriminating materials to prove 10 S.C.No.420/2019 that the Accused stabbed the deceased was not established.
14. Even though, the Prosecution examined CW.14 to CW.20 who were panch witnesses to Spot and Recovery Mahazer as PWs.7, 10, 11 to 13. But, none of these witnesses speak about either preparing Spot Mahazar in their presence or recovery of material objects. All these witnesses claimed that Police took their signature in the Police Station and they have no information about the incident and nothing is recovered in their presence. The evidence of Medical Officer is only formal in nature, does not establish that the injuries found on the deceased is caused by the Accused himself. So also the evidence of IO is very bald and did not establish any incriminating materials to prove that the Accused has stabbed the deceased to death. The evidence of IO is not sufficient to independently uplift the theory of Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Upon careful perusal of the materials on record, it indicates that the very materials star eye-witness not supported 11 S.C.No.420/2019 the case of Prosecution and the Panch Witnesses to the Spot and Recovery Mahazar also failed to support the Prosecution. Hence, the Prosecution has utterly failed in proving the fact that the Accused has committed the stab on the deceased and done him to death. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Prosecution has utterly failed in proving the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I hold that Accused Persons are entitle for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in Negative.
15. Point No.2:- From the discussions made in the above Point No.1, it is very much clear that Accused Persons are entitled for an order of acquittal and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Invoking the provisions U/S 232 of Cr.P.C., Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 504 of IPC.
The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled.12 S.C.No.420/2019
The articles seized in PF.No.1492/2018 dtd:
25.11.2018, P.F.No.150/2018 dtd: 26.11.2018, P.F.No.25/2019 dtd: 30.1.2019 of Banaswadi Police Station being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period, if the same is not required for any other purpose.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 16th day of January 2023).
[K.M. Rajashekhar], XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Mohammed Umar.
P.W.2 : Sikandar Khan.
P.W.3 : Irfan Ulla.
P.W.4 : Mohammed Mansoor.
P.W.5 : Iliyas Khan.
P.W.6 : Dr. B.M. Nagaraj.
P.W.7 : Ashwaq Ahmed.
13 S.C.No.420/2019
P.W.8 : Sundar.
P.W.9 : Mohsin Khan.
P.W.10 : Mohammed Sikandar.
P.W.11 : Saleem Sait.
P.W.12 : Asgar Pasha.
P.W.13 : Akbar Pasha.
P.W.14 : Saleem Khan.
P.W.15 : Mohammed Vasim.
P.W.16 : Safa.
P.W.17 : Edwin Pradeep.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 : Photographs.
Ex.P.5 : Complaint.
Ex.P.6 : Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.7 : Statement of P.W.2.
Ex.P.8 : Statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P.9 : Statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P.10 : Statement of P.W.5.
Ex.P.11 : Postmortem Report.
Ex.P.12 : Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P.13 : Statement of P.W.8.
Ex.P.14 : Statement of P.W.9.
14 S.C.No.420/2019
Ex.P.15 : Inquest Mahazar.
Ex.P.16 : Statement of P.W.14.
Ex.P.17 : Statement of P.W.15.
Ex.P.18 : Statement of P.W.16.
Ex.P.19 : FIR.
Ex.P.20 : Spot Sketch.
Ex.P.21 : Seizure Mahazar.
Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
Nil.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Accused:
Nil.
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO.1 & 2 : Clothes.
MO.3 & 4 : Bloodstained cotton.
MO.5 & 6 : Clothes.
MO.7 : Mobile Phone.
MO.8 : Scissor.
[K.M. Rajashekhar],
XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge,
Mayo hall, Bangalore.
15 S.C.No.420/2019
Order pronounced in the open
Court (vide separate order)
ORDER
Invoking the provisions U/S 232 of Cr.P.C., Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 504 of IPC.
The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled. The articles seized in PF.No.1492/2018 dtd: 25.11.2018, P.F.No.150/2018 dtd: 26.11.2018, P.F.No.25/2019 dtd: 30.1.2019 of Banaswadi Police Station being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period, if the same is not required for any other purpose.
[K.M. Rajashekhar], XXVIII. Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore.
16 S.C.No.420/2019