Bangalore District Court
State By Halsurgate vs No.1 Threatened C.W.1 With Dire on 17 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 17th day of January 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.32541/2018
Date of Offence : 9-10-2018
Name of complainant : State by Halsurgate
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : 1. Dhanaraj S/o Papanna,
aged 59 years,
r/o No.2, 4th floor,
Seven Hills, Satish Nilaya,
1st main, Thalakaveri
Layout, Amruthahalli,,
Benglauru 560 092.
2. Prakash @ Chandraprakash
S/o Sinivasreddy,
aged 42 years, R/o No.22,
2nd main, 3rd cross,
Chinnappanahalli,
Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru 37.
3. Smt.Lakshmi W/o Dhanaraj
aged 54 years, r/o No.2,
4th floor, Seven Hills,
2 C.C.No.32541/2018
Satish Nilaya,
1st main, Thalakaveri
Layout, Amruthahalli,,
Benglauru 560 092.
Offences complained off: U/s.341, 323, 324, 355, 504
& 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused are acquitted
Date of Order : 17-01-2022.
JUDGMENT
PSI, Halsurgate P.S. has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that on 9-10-2018 at 1.30 p.m. while C.W.1 had attended O.S.No.1754/2006 before Hon'ble CCH 7 th Court, City Civil Court complex, Bengaluru and when he was in corridor of said court, accused No.1 to 3 in 3 C.C.No.32541/2018 furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained him and picked up quarrel with him. Further accused No.1 to 3 abused him in filthy language with an intention to insult and provoke him for breach of public peace. Further accused No.1 pulled shirt of C.W.1 and assaulted him on his face and head with hands and his shoe. Further accused No.1 threatened C.W.1 with dire consequences. Thereafter on same day C.W.1 lodged first information before Halsurgate police, they registered the case in their P.S.Cr.No.237/2018 and issued FIR. After completion of investigation, I.O. filed charge sheet against accused persons for above offences.
3. After filing of this charge sheet, cognizance of above offences is taken and summons is issued. Accused No.1 to 3 have appeared in pursuant to summons and they are enlarged on bail. Charge sheet copy is furnished to accused persons u/s 207 4 C.C.No.32541/2018 of Cr.P.C and charge is framed. Accused have not pleaded guilt of alleged offences and they have claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked 7 documents as per Exs.P1 to P7. M.O.1 is also identified. However, evidence of P.W.1 is discarded as per order dated 30-12-2021 as he is not secured for cross-examination. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence against them and they have not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on 9-10-2018 at 1-30 p.m. accused no.1 to 3 in furtherance of 5 C.C.No.32541/2018 common intention, wrongfully restrained C.W.1 at the corridor of CCH 7 Court of City Civil Court Complex with an intention to pick up quarrel with him and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 341 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1, in furtherance of common intention of all accused assaulted C.W.1 with hands and voluntarily caused simple injuries on his face and head and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 323 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1, in furtherance of common intention of all accused assaulted C.W.1 with his shoe and voluntarily caused simple injuries on his face and head and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 324 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1, in furtherance of 6 C.C.No.32541/2018 common intention of all accused assaulted C.W.1 with his shoe with an intention to dishonour him and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 355 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention abused C.W.1 in filthy language with an intention to provoke him for breach of public peace and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 504 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1, in furtherance of common intention of all accused threatened C.W.1 with dire consequences and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 506 R/w.
Section 34 of IPC?
7. What order ?
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused persons. Perused oral 7 C.C.No.32541/2018 and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 to 6 : In the Negative Point No.7 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1 to 6:- These points are taken together for consideration as findings on one point have bearing on other points.
8. P.W.1 Vijaykumar Reddy S/o Thippareddy who is said to be the informant-cum-victim of alleged incident has testified in his evidence that on aforesaid date accused No.1 to 3 abused him, they pulled his shirt and accused No.1 assaulted him with his shoe. He has further stated that they threatened him with dire consequences, C.W.2 to 4 pacified the tussle, they took him to hospital and then he lodged first information as per Ex.P1. He has also testified 8 C.C.No.32541/2018 with regard to conducting of spot mahazar by police on 11-10-2018 as per Ex.P2, he has identified shoes of A.1 as per M.O.1 and his signatures on above documents as per Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P2(a). However, though initially cross-examination of this witness is taken as nil, the said witness has been recalled for cross-examination as per order dated 27-11-2019. But thereafter despite sufficient opportunity P.W.1 has not entered into witness box for cross-examination. Hence evidence of this witness has been discarded by his court as per order dated 30-12-2021. Hence discarded evidence of this witness does not help prosecution in any manner.
9. P.W.2 Chetankumar S/o Krishnamurthy has supported prosecution case and he has testified in his evidence that on 9-10-2018 at 1-30 p.m. he had been to CCH 7 in City Civil Court complex, along with C.W.1 , 3 & 4 and while he was sitting outside, accused persons abused C.W.1 in filthy language, 9 C.C.No.32541/2018 accused No.1 assaulted C.W.1 with shoe and pulled his shirt. He has further stated that he pacified the tussle along with C.W.3 & 4 and at that time accused persons threatened C.W.1 with dire consequences. P.W.2 has further testified that thereafter they took C.W.1 to Police station and C.W.1 lodged first information against accused. Then they took C.W.1 to Victoria and Jeevik Hospital and he had given his statement before police. P.W.2 has further stated that on 11-10-2018 police conducted spot mahazar at scene of offence as per Ex.P2 and identified shoes used by accused persons seized by police as per M.O.1. He has identified his signature on said mahazar as per Ex.P2(b). However, as per the charge sheet documents it shows that the alleged shoe said to have been used by accused No.1 to assault C.W.1 was produced by accused himself at police station on 2-11-2018 as per Ex.P4 seizure mahazar and same is not recovered from the spot under Ex.P2 mahazar. 10 C.C.No.32541/2018 Hence inconsistent evidence of this witness with regard to M.O.1 shoe raises a doubt with regard to his evidence. In cross-examination by defence side P.W.2 admits that P.W.1 and C.W.3 are his friend and C.W.4 works under P.W.1 himself. This aspect clearly shows that they are closely acquainted with each other and C.W.2 to 4 appears to be interested witnesses in the case. Further though P.W.2 asserted that P.W.1 had taken him court, nothing explained by him as to for what reason he attended the case with P.W.1. Most importantly he has clearly admitted that he signed Ex.P2 mahazar at police station. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side. However, the aforesaid inconsistent and interested version of P.W.2 does not help prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused.
10. P.W.3 Muthukannan S/o Pachiyappa has also supported prosecution case and testified similarly 11 C.C.No.32541/2018 that on 9-10-2018 at 1-30 p.m. he had been to CCH 7 in City Civil Court complex, along with C.W.1, 2 & 4 and he was sitting outside. At that time, accused persons abused C.W.1 in filthy language, accused No.1 assaulted C.W.1 with shoe and pulled his shirt. He has further stated that he pacified the tassel along with C.W.2 & 4 and at that time accused persons threatened C.W.1 with deadly consequences. P.W.3 has further testified that thereafter they took C.W.1 to Police station and C.W.1 lodged first information against accused. Then they took C.W.1 to Victoria and Jeevik Hospital and he had given his statement before police. P.W.3 has also inconsistently stated that on 11-10-2018 police conducted spot mahazar at scene of offence as per Ex.P2 and identified shoes used by accused persons under mahazar as per M.O.1. He has identified his signature on said mahazar as per Ex.P2(c). In cross-examination by defence side P.W.3 has also admitted that P.W.1 and 12 C.C.No.32541/2018 C.W.2 are his friend and C.W.4 works under P.W.1 himself. Most importantly P.W.3 has also admitted that he signed Ex.P2 mahazar at police station. The entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side. Hence inconsistent and interested version of P.W.3 also does not help prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused.
11. P.W.4 D.Vinod Reddy S/o Kodanda Reddy has testified that on 9-10-2018 he was working as Medical officer in emergency ward of Jeevik Hospital, at 7.00 p.m. C.W.1 Vijaykumar approached him for treatment with the history of assault and said patient was given first aid initially at 1.30 p.m. in Victoria Hospital. He has further stated that on examination of C.W.1 he found contusions on left side of his face, near left ear and left side of temporal region. He has identified wound certificate issued by him in that regard as per Ex.P3 and his signature on it as per 13 C.C.No.32541/2018 Ex.P3(a). he has further stated that such injuries may be caused if a person is assaulted with shoes. In cross-examination P.W.4 has specifically admitted that prior to his statement, P.W.1 had taken treatment before Victoria Hospital from one Vijay kumar. However absolutely no documents are produced in respect of said hospital, which raises doubt with regard to alleged injures on P.W.1. The entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he has issued false certificate. However, nothing explained by prosecution as to why P.W.1 took treatment in Jeevik Hospital despite he was earlier examined in Victoria Hospital and said aspect is a ground to suspect the medical document and evidence of above witness.
12. P.W.5 G.Rangaswamy S/o Gavirangappa ASI of Halsurgate PS and IO of this case has testified that he took up further investigation of the case from 14 C.C.No.32541/2018 C.W.8 on 2-11-2018 and issued notice to accused No.1 to produce shoes used for alleged offence. He has further stated that on same day accused No.1 produced the said shoes before him and he seized the same by conducting Ex.P4 mahazar. He has identified said shoes as per M.O.1 and his signature on above mhazar as per Ex.P4(a). P.W.5 has further testified that he recorded statement of C.W.4 and further statement of C.W.1 and after completion of investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused persons. However, prosecution has not secured C.W.5 and 6 panchas of Ex.P4 seizure mahazar and as such the very seizure M.O.1 shoe is not proved to satisfaction of the Court. In cross- examination the entire evidence of this witness is denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that he has filed false charge sheet in the case. 15 C.C.No.32541/2018
13. P.W.6 N.Venkatesh S/o Dasappa ASI, Halsurgate PS and other I.O. of this case has testified in his evidence that on 10-10-2018 at 5-30 p.m. accused voluntarily appeared before him in police station and he enlarged him on bail. He has stated that he can identify accused if shown to him. However, evidence of this witness is not challenged by defence side by way of cross-examination and same does not help prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of the accused.
14. P.W.7 Prakash S/o Rangappa the then ASI of Halsurgate PS and the other I.O. of this case has testified in his evidence that on 9-10-2018 at 4.00 p.m. C.W.1 appeared before him and lodged first information as per Ex.P1. He has further stated that he registered case in their P.S. Cr.No.237/2018 and issued FIR as per Ex.P6. Thereafter on 11-10-2018 he conducted spot mahazar at scene of offence as per 16 C.C.No.32541/2018 Ex.P2, he recorded voluntary statement of accused on 10-10-2018 and statements of P.Ws.2 & 3. However, entire evidence of this witness is also denied by defence side and it is suggested to him that though accused have not given any voluntarily statement, he is deposing falsely.
15. Most importantly P.W.8/C.W.4 Thimmareddy S/o Venkatareddy who is said to be an independent eye witness of alleged incident has turned hostile by testifying that he does not know anything about this case and he has not given any statement before police. Though this witness is treated as hostile and cross- examined at length by learned Sr.APP, nothing worth while is elicited from his mouth to prove alleged incident. P.W.8 has denied to have given statement before I.O. as per Ex.P7.
16. Thus on perusal of entire evidence of prosecution, it shows that except evidence of official 17 C.C.No.32541/2018 witnesses and P.WS.2 and 3 interested witnesses, absolutely there is nothing on record to prove that accused no.1 to 3 had abused, assaulted, insulted and threatened P.W.1. Further the evidence of P.W.1 is discarded as he is not tendered for cross- examination. Further P.W.2 and 3 who are admittedly closely acquainted with P.W.1 are shown as panchas of Ex.P2 and they have inconsistently stated that they signed Ex.P2 mahazar at police station itself. This inconsistent version and interested version of said witnesses makes their evidence doubtful. Further as already stated above the seizure M.O.1 shoe is not proved to the satisfaction of the Court and the sole independent witness i.e., P.W.8 has turned hostile. Hence the evidence adduced by prosecution does not inspire the confidence of the Court to believe that the accused have committed above offences. Hence, it is incumbent upon this court to hold that 18 C.C.No.32541/2018 prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused have wrongfully restrained, abused, assaulted, dishonoured and threatened C.W.1 and thereby they have committed offences punishable under Sec.341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence point no.1 to 6 are answered in the Negative.
17. Point No.7: -
For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 6 , following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused no.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused no.1 to 3 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.19 C.C.No.32541/2018
M.O.1 Shoe being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal Period.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 17 th day of January 2022).
(Anand T Chavan) st 1 Addl. CMM., Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Vijay Kumar Reddy, P.W.2, Chetan Kumar, P.W.3, Muthukannan, P.W.4, Dr.Vinod Reddy, P.W.5, G.Rangaswamy, P.W.6, N.Venkatesh, P.W.7, Prakash, P.W.8, Thimmareddy;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Complaint,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P1(b), Signature of P.W.7,
Ex.P2, Spot mahazar,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2(b), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P2(c), Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P3, Wound certificate,
Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.4,
20 C.C.No.32541/2018
Ex.P4, Seizure mahazar,
Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.5,
Ex.P5, Further statement of complainant,
Ex.P6, First information report,
Ex.P6(a), Signature of P.W.7,
Ex.P7, Statement of P.W.8;
List of material object :
M.O.1, Two shoes;
List of Witnesses examined for defence:-
NIL List of documents marked for defence:-
NIL 1st Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.21 C.C.No.32541/2018
03-1-2022 State by Sr.APP Accused No.2 to 5 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused no.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused no.1 to 3 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.
M.O.1 Shoe being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal Period.
ACMM, Bengaluru.