Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1: Sri.T.Chandrashekar on 23 September, 2016
1 C.C.No.8792/2010
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 23rd September 2016
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc., LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.No:8792/2010
Complainant : The State represented by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Byatarayanapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1: Sri.T.Chandrashekar,
S/o Sri.N.T.Gowda,
Aged about 51 yrs,
A2: Smt.Nagarathna @ Divya,
W/o Sri.T.Chandrashekar,
Aged about 40 yrs,
2 C.C.No.8792/2010
A1 & A2 R/at:No:31/5,
FCI Layout, Mysore Road,
Benglauru-26.
A3: Sri.Ramesh,
S/o Sri.Munihuchegowda,
Aged about 47 yrs,
A4: Smt.T.Indira,
W/o Ramesh,
Aged about 40 yrs,
A3 & A4 R/at:No:31/7,
FCI Layout, Mysore Road,
Benglauru-26.
(By Sri.KS Adv., Bengaluru)
---
JUDGEMENT U/Sec.355 of Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.8792/2010
Date of offence : 5/10/2009
Complainant : Sri.Naveen Kumar
Accused : As detailed above
3 C.C.No.8792/2010
Offence : U/Sec.448, 427 and 506
R/w Sec.34 of IPC
Charge : Accused claimed to be tried
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 23/9/2016
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
JUDGEMENT
The P.S.I. of Byatarayanapura Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 427 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
4 C.C.No.8792/2010
It is the case of the prosecution that on 5/10/2009 at about 10.00 a.m. all the accused persons with an common intention trespassed the House and Site property bearing No.31/6, caused damages to the house and house hold articles, removed electrical cable and water connection resulting in loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and on questioning all the accused persons abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. On the complaint of CW.1 by name Sri. Naveen Kumar the Byatarayanapura Police have registered a case in Crime No.480/2009 and after completion of investigation filed the chargesheet.
3. The accused persons appeared before the Court and engaged the services of a counsel. The charges framed by the learned predecessor and the accused persons claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PW1 and relied upon the documents as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The 313 Cr.P.C., statement of the accused persons is recorded. No defence evidence adduced by the accused persons. 5 C.C.No.8792/2010
4. Heard, perused the entire case records.
5. The only point that arises for my consideration is:
1.Whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 427 and 506 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
6. My findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order For the following:
::REASONS::
7. Point No.1: In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined CW1 by name Sri.Naveen Kumar as PW1. By identifying the accused persons it is the evidence as per the contents of the complaint and the spot mahazar marked as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and identified the signatures 6 C.C.No.8792/2010 as per Ex.P1(a) and Ex.p2(a). It is necessary to mention the witness was examined on 16/9/2013 in part and the further chief examination was deferred.
8. On consideration of the materials available on record the order sheet reveals ever since 7/1/2014 repeatedly summons, bailable warrant and NBW have been issued against the PW1 and other charge sheeted witnesses. Inspite of it the concerned investigation agency failed to secure any of the witnesses before the Court. Vide order dated 17/6/2016 the prayer of the learned Sr.APP to issue summons to witnesses came to be rejected.
9. The evidence of PW1 is incomplete and cannot be taken into consideration. The prosecution has failed to prove the contents of Ex.P2 as well as the seizure of material objects. Thereby, there is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The available evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to prove the case beyond 7 C.C.No.8792/2010 all reasonable doubt. Under the said circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the accused persons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
10. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused persons are hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 427 and 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused persons and that of the surety stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, transcribed by her, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 23/9/2016).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.8 C.C.No.8792/2010
::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.Naveen Kumar
2. Documents marked on the side of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P2 : Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
3. Material objects marked : NIL
4. Defence Evidence : NIL
---
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
9 C.C.No.8792/2010
10 C.C.No.8792/2010