Bangalore District Court
R. Chandra Shekar vs Eshwari And 3 Others on 23 July, 2025
KABC030443392010
Presented on : 11-10-2010
Registered on : 11-10-2010
Decided on : 23-07-2025
Duration : 14 years, 9 months, 12 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 23rd day of July- 2025
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.43551/2010
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 09.08.2010
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Smt. Eashwari
W/o. Mohan( Split up)
Judgment 2 C.C.No.43551/2010
A2. Pandiyan,
S/o. Kariyappan,
Aged about 38 years,
A3. Balakrishna,
S/o. Kariyappan,
Aged about 36 years,
Both are R/at, Kamath
Compound, Nayakam Sweets
Selluru, Palam Station Road,
Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
A4. Karthik
S/o. Mohan ( Split up)
Offences U/s. 323, 324, 341 of R/w sec.,
34 of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 06.04.2024 and
accused No.2 and 3 are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 01.07.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Judgment 3 C.C.No.43551/2010
Final Oder Accused No.2 & 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order 23.07.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 324, 341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
It is alleged that, about six months ago the Cw.1 got love married to Tamil Nadu resident Surya and after the marriage the Cw.1 and his wife were residing within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, No.92. Gokula Nagar, 5 th Judgment 4 C.C.No.43551/2010 Main, Doddakallasandra. Further on 09.08.2010 at about 01.30 PM, when he was going to his house near Ruthish Enterprises at that time, the accused persons illegally restrained the Cw.1 from no moving forward and picked up the quarrel with him by saying he had kidnapped their daughter and assaulted the Cw.1 with a wicket on his body and caused injuries to Cw.1. Further, when the Cw.4 came to stop the quarrel between them, at that time the accused persons assaulted the Cw.4 with their hands and caused simple injuries to Cw.4 and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said offences punishable U/s. 323, 323, 341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
03. During the pendency of the case, the case against the accused No.1 and 4 are Split up. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/s. 323, 323, 341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC against the accused No.2 and 3.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.43551/2010 The accused No.2 and 3. were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused No.2 and 3 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the accused No.2 and 3 wherein they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10 witnesses, continuously this court issued summons, NBW and proclamation. In spite of that, the concerned police have failed to secure the said witnesses. Moreover, this case is 15 years old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to prosecution. In this regard this court relied on the following Hon'ble High Court, full bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
Judgment 6 C.C.No.43551/2010
2. Of the two questions which have been referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely, whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a Magistrate can acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to apply for the issue of summons to any witness and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunity to serve the summons or to produce the witnesses, is the one that directly arises for determination in these appeals. The second question which arises for determination by us incidentally is whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution does not apply for the issue of summons to any of the witnesses and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve the summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunities to serve the summons on the witnesses or to produce the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though the cases had been posted for hearing on various dates and summons had been issued to the witnesses for all the hearings, the Judgment 7 C.C.No.43551/2010 witnesses were not produced on any of the hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued that the case would be disposed of without examining the witnesses if they are not produced the prosecution did not choose to let in any evidence and as such the Magistrate found that the prosecution had no evidence to let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar, 1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows: "It was the duty of the prosecution to make necessary arrangements for the production of its witnesses.... The Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court. When nobody appeared in t he court to inform what the reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which was a minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh Judgment 8 C.C.No.43551/2010 summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen. When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".
16. There are quite a number of decisions in which it had been held that an acquittal of the accused on the failure of the prosecution to produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v. Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ 1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v. Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v. Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ 1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973 Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Judgment 9 C.C.No.43551/2010 Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker); State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965 Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ 1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v. Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker); Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad 25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960 Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR 1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S. Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR 1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these decisions, there are the following decisions in which it has been held that acquittal on the ground of non-production of witnesses by the prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution failed to produce their witnesses, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in Judgment 10 C.C.No.43551/2010 State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)'2 Cri LJ 537 (2), as follows: "Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."
" In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed Khan's case, it was found on the facts that the prosecution was not Judgment 11 C.C.No.43551/2010 at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully considering all the aforesaid decisions and the views expressed therein, we are of the view that if the prosecution had made an application for the issue of summons to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as already indicated by us and if still the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account of pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the Court had given it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then Judgment 12 C.C.No.43551/2010 the Court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons cases, and we answer the two questions referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10 are dropped. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.4 and 03 documents are got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Mo.1 is got marked.
05. Thereafter examined the accused No.2 and 3 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and recorded their statement, the accused No.2 and 3 denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got marked on their behalf.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.43551/2010
06. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, about six months ago the Cw.1 got love married to Tamil Nadu resident Surya and after the marriage the Cw.1 and his wife were residing within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura Police Station, No.92.
Gokula Nagar, 5th Main, Doddakallasandra. Further on 09.08.2010 at about 01.30 PM, when he was going to his house near Ruthish Enterprises at that time, the accused persons illegally restrained the Cw.1 from no moving forward and thereby the accused persons have committed an Judgment 14 C.C.No.43551/2010 offence punishable U/s.341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, further the accused persons picked up the quarrel with Cw.1 by saying he had kidnapped their daughter and assaulted the Cw.1 with a wicket on his body and caused injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/s.324 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, further, when the Cw.4 came to stop the quarrel between them, at that time the accused persons assaulted the Cw.4 with their hands and caused simple injuries to Cw.4 and thereby the accused persons have Judgment 15 C.C.No.43551/2010 committed an offence punishable U/s.323 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
4. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : In The Negative
Point No.3 : In The Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3 : These points are inter connected to each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on records. Further, I have carefully Judgment 16 C.C.No.43551/2010 perused the oral and documentary evidence on records, in my humble opinion, some portion of the evidence is irrelevant, hence without wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy this court proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
10. The Cw.9 Smt. Shilaja examined as Pw.1 who is the doctor witness in this case, in her evidence she deposed before the court, on 09.08.2010 at about 07.30 the Cw.1 due to assault he came to the hospital for treatment and when the Cw.1 had been examined she found that, blood clot wound under the right eye. Blood clot wound on the back of the right thigh. Blood clot wound on the right hand ring finger and left thumb and she had given the wound certificate regarding the same.
Then the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 had cross examined the said witness, where in she denied the said counsel's suggestions.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.43551/2010
11. The Cw.12, S.Manjunath, who is examined as Pw.2 IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 11-08-2010, he received the case file from Cw- 10 and conducted further investigation. Then on the same day, he recorded the statements of Cw-4 to 8. On 18-08-2010, he attached the injury certificate of Cw-1 from Cw-9 to the file. Then, since the accused 1 to 4 are from outside the state and have absconded, he had submitted the final report to the Honorable Court and the superiors as the charges against the accused 1 to 4 are prima facie proven.
Further the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he had investigated regarding the Cw.1 had taken his wife without her concent but, he had not placed any documents before the court and further he had denied the rest of the Judgment 18 C.C.No.43551/2010 suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3.
12. The Cw.1 Chandrashekar who is examined as Pw.3 and he is the complainant/victim in this case, he deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 09-08-2010, he and his wife had received medical treatment of his wife Surya at Apollo Hospital and had returned to our house at 01-30 pm. When we were about 100 feet away from the house where we lived, the accused persons stopped us near Drutish Enterprises shop on his Star City two-wheeler No. KA-03-EV-7636, snatched the keys of the vehicle and the two mobile phones that he had, among them the accused No.2 assaulted him on his hands, legs and eyes with a wicket. Further, the accused No.3 started his vehicle and forcibly took his wife away. The accused persons restrained him from not moving forward and assault him with their hands. Later, when Cw-4 came to stop Judgment 19 C.C.No.43551/2010 the quarrel, the accused persons assaulted the Cw.4 also with their hands.. Later, after going to Victoria Hospital for treatment, he went to Subramanyapura Police Station on 10- 08-2010 and filed a complaint against the accused persons. Then, 2 days after filing the complaint, the police conducted a panchanama at the place shown by him from 08:30 to 09:30 in the morning, in the presence of the accused persons.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, as mentioned in the complaint he and Surya had married but not given any documents to the investigating officer, in this regard further the police did not called the Surya for investigation and the said Surya is did not living together with him any more, further their was a criminal case against him alleging that, he had kidnapped the said Surya, further in the Ex.P2 complaint, not mentioned that he was on his two Judgment 20 C.C.No.43551/2010 wheeler before the quarrel, further he came to know, that the accused persons had made quarrel with Cw.4, when he went to house at about 06.30 PM, further when he went to give complaint on the incident day, the PI was not at the police station hence, he went next day and lodged the compliant against the accused persons, further he went to Victoria Hostile for treatment between 03.00 PM to 04.00 PM and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3.
13. In such a case, the complaint will have to give credible and compelling reasons as to why there is 01 day delay in filing the complaint. However, in the absence of such reasons and also in the light of the dispute between the Pw.3 and the accused No.2 and 3 and also absence of proving the same with cogent evidence. It is suspected that, the complaint is self-inflicted. It may be cited in this context that the Hon'ble Judgment 21 C.C.No.43551/2010 Supreme Court, in the following decided judgment, held that, it is not possible to treat the allegations of an unsubstantiated complaint without doubt and that such belated complaints are afterthought complaints its held in:
1) (2003) 12 SCC 675 (DB) State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Kariparam
2) (2007) 12 SCC 332 Vikram V/s State of Maharashtra.
3) (2014) 9 SCC 365 Ramaiah V/s State of Karnataka.
'' 16. We are conscious of the fact that in such cases, sometimes there may be delay in lodging the FIR for various valid reasons. However, it is important that those reasons come on record. is no explanation worth the name given by the complainant as to why the complainant maintained stoic silence. In this backdrop, the testimony of these witness alleging dowry demand has to be tested more stringently and with some caution. On that touchstone, when we analyse the statements, we find the contradictions therein, as pointed out by the learned trial court, become very appealing and meaningful. ''
25. '' We may hasten to add here that many times in such type of cases, there can be reasons for keeping quiet at the given time and not reporting the matter immediately. Therefore, we are conscious of the legal position that delay Judgment 22 C.C.No.43551/2010 per se may not render prosecution case doubtful as there may be various reasons for lodging the Fir with some delay (see Sahebrao V. Sate of Maharashtra.) Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. However, what is emphasised is that if that was so, it was necessary for the prosecution to at least come forward with the the explanation as to why the complainant kept quiet and why he did not report the matter to the police immediately. No such explanation is coming forward in the present case. Moreover, in the instant case, the delay is seen as fatal when examined in juxtaposition with other material that has come on record and discussed above, which shakes the veracity of the prosecution case, bringing it within the four corners of doubtful prosecution story. '' (2008) 15 SC 582 State of Andhra Pradesh N Madhusudan Rao. In the said judgment also it may be noted that the learned Court has mentioned as follows "30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps. In casting a Judgment 23 C.C.No.43551/2010 serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.
31. In the present case, as noted supra, the first information report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19.04.1996 was lodged on 22.05.1996. Admittedly, after her discharge from the hospital on 22.04.1996, the complainant went to her parents house and resided there. In her testimony, the complainant has deposed that since no one from the family of the accused came to en-quire about her welfare, she decided to lodge the first information report. No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raised considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3) rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be reject in its entirely.''
14. Thus, as analyzed by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgments, even in the present case, Pw.3 has not given adequate and credible reasons for lodging the complaint 01 day late and under the conflicting and overwhelming testimony of other relevant evidences in the said case. It is clear that a lot of doubt has been raised about the complaint Judgment 24 C.C.No.43551/2010 lodged after thinking and about the points in the said complaint and the inconsistency evidences of the Pw.3 also lends sufficient support to the said suspicion.
15. The Cw.4 Smt. Eashwari, who is examined as Pw.4 and she is the eye/incident witness to the case, she has deposed in her evidence before the court that, on 09-08-2010, while she was at home, Cw-1 and his wife Surya left the house at 07-00 AM for the hospital. Later, Cw-1 and his wife Surya were coming near Drutish Enterprises shop on a two-wheeler at 01-30 PM when accused persons blocked them and all the accused persons assaulted the Cw.1 from the wicket. Then, she immediately went to the place where the fight was going on and when she went to settle the fight, the accused persons also assaulted me with their hands. Then the accused No.1 took away Chasa-1's wife awaay and regarding the same she had given her statment before the police.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.43551/2010 Further the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 had cross examined the said witness, where in she stated that, she did told in her statment that, Cw.1 is her brother, when the incident heppend she was at home, on the date of incident, the said Surya age is 20 years and her bother age is 35 years, further their was a case in Madurai alleging that, the Pw.3 had kidnapped the Surya and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3.
16. I carefully perused the oral evidence of Pw.4, who is the sister of Pw.3/complainant, admittedly she deposed that, at the time of incident she was in her house, as such she is not a eye witness in this case. It is well settled principal of law is oral evidence must be direct, it is clearly stated in Indian Evidence Act U/sec., 60. Moreover, the above said witness is close relation and family member of the Pw.3/complainant.
Judgment 26 C.C.No.43551/2010 Under such circumstance, in the absence of independent and beliable evidnece, the court could not be consider the above said witness evidence is proved with beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regared I relied on the below decision as under:
17. AIR 1984 SC 1622 - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s State of Maharashtra -
In the said judgment, it has been held that the evidence of the acquaintanc i.e. the trustworthy witness should be scrutinized very carefully because in the absence of such proximate or interested evidence i.e., the possibility of giving evidence in favor of the complaint, even if one does not know the fact of whose negligence the incident took place, has to be observed. On the other hand, the Pw.4 evidence is create the doubt that, with the intrest of his brother Pw.3/complainant, she may be deposed with fasely implications and also in the light of the dispute regarding kidnapping case as admitted in her oral evidence.
Judgment 27 C.C.No.43551/2010
18. Under such circumstances, it is the paramount duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused No.2 and 3 can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
19. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10 respectively this court repeatedly issued summons, NBW and proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police, they have failed to secure these witnesses since long time. Hence, Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10 are dropped after giving sufficient opportunities. In the present case material witness such as i.e Pw.3 who is the complainant/material witness to the case, admitted in his cross examination there was a criminal case against him in Madurai court regarding kidnapping the Surya who said to be his wife but he had not placed any documents before the court to prove the same, Judgment 28 C.C.No.43551/2010 further he had told in his cross examination that, after the incident he went to Victoria Hospital between 03.00 PM to 04.00 for the treatment, but in the Ex.P1 wound certificate the time is mentioned as 07.30 PM and there is a lot of improvements and inconsistency in the evidence of the Pw.3.
Under such circumstance, the court can to considered the evidence of Pw.3 to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3.
Further the Pw.1 who is the doctor witness to the case, she has deposed as per the treatment and given wound certificate of Pw.3. Further the Pw.2 who is the IO in this case, he has deposed as per his investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the court. Further, the Pw.4 who is the eye/incident witness and sister of the complainant ie., Pw.3, she admitted in her cross examination that, at the time of incident she was in her home. Hence, she is the hearsay witness, as per Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act., the oral Judgment 29 C.C.No.43551/2010 evidence must be direct. Hence, her evidence is not supported the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt as discussed supra. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the the Pw.1 to 4 regarding the offences committed by the accused No.2 and 3 as alleged by the Pw.3.Further, as discussed supra inconsistency evidence of Pw.3 is clearly arise the doubt regarding the allegations of complaint Ex.P2. Moreover, in the non availability of the evidence of independent witness and also regarding spot mahazar, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pw.2 to 4 in proving the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 without any corroborative and material evidence with chain link as discussed supra. As such, in the absence of proving the allegation against the accused No.2 and 3, they are certainly would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, regarding Judgment 30 C.C.No.43551/2010 the allegations made by the prosecution. Regarding this I have relied on the following Judgment.
20. On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 - AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon'ble Apex held thus hereunder:
''56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ''may be true''' but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of ''must be true''. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.'' Judgment 31 C.C.No.43551/2010
21. Thus, the above Hon'ble Apex Court decision has opt to the present case on hand and the accused No.2 and 3 are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. In the present case, it is important to note that the material witness, eye witness and the IO witness have not proved the alleged commission of the offences by the accused No.2 and 3 with corroborative evidence. As such the accused No.2 and 3 have certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused No.2 and 3 to prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused No.2 and 3 are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt.
By considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
Judgment 32 C.C.No.43551/2010
21. Point No.4: In view of the Negative findings on the above Point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The Powers Confirmed upon me U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 & 3 are hereby Acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.323, 324, 341, R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.2 & 3and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
The property seized by the IO in P.F.No.122/2010, One Wicket, is being worthless, is hereby order to be destroy the same, after the appeal period is over, in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 23rd day of July-2025) (Thimmaiah.G) 30 A.C.J.M., B'lore.
th
Judgment 33 C.C.No.43551/2010
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Dr. Shilaja
P.W.2 : Sri. Manjunath.S
P.W.3 : Sri. R. Chandrashekar
P.W.4 : Smt. Eashwari
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Digitally signed by Mo.1 : One Wicket THIMMAIAH THIMMAIAH G G Date:
2025.07.29 17:16:03 +0530 (Thimmaiah.G) 30th A.C.J.M., B'lore. Judgment 34 C.C.No.43551/2010 Judgment 35 C.C.No.43551/2010