Bangalore District Court
State By - K. G. Halli Police vs Imtiyaz Ahmed on 11 March, 2015
CC.No.53019/2013
IN THE COURT OF THE XI A.C.M.M., AT MAYO HALL UNIT.
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore City.
Present: Sri. P.SRINIVASA, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XI A.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
Dated: This the 11th day of March 2015.
C.C.No.53019/2013
COMPLAINANT :: State by - K. G. Halli Police
Station
(State represented by Sr.APP)
Vs.
ACCUSED :: 1. Imtiyaz Ahmed
S/o.Late Ansar Ahmed,
61 years,
No.221,
1st Main, 1st Block,
Bangalore
2. Shefiq Ahmed
S/o Imtiyaz Ahmed
30 years,
No.221,
1st Main, 1st Block,
Bangalore.
(Accused 1&2 represented by
Advocate Sri.Vijayashankara Gowda
*****
1. Date of commission of the offence :: 10-09-2012
2. Date of report of offence :: 10-09-2012
3. Arrest of the accused : ::
Judgement
CC.No.53019/2013
a) Date of arrest of accused :: 29.01.2012
b) Release of accused on bail :: 26-06-2014
4. Name of the Complainant :: G. Prakash
5. Date of recording evidence :: 31-01-2015
6. Date of closing evidence :: 31-01-2015
7. Offences complained of :: Ss.341, 427, 447, 506
R/w 34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge :: Accused No.1 &
2 found not
guilty.
XI A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
JUDGEMENT
The PSI, of K.G.Halli Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 427, 447 & 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows; On 11.09.2012, at 1.00 PM, the accused 1 & 2 herein trespassed into the complainant's land and picked up quarrel with the complainant's men alleging that site belongs to them and restrained the complainant's men and demolished the Judgement CC.No.53019/2013 constructed wall and caused loss to the complainant herein. The accused threatened the complainant that they will kill them if they tried to put up construction in the said land. Hence, complainant has filed the above complaint before the jurisdictional police.
3. On 29.01.2012 accused No.1 & 2 herein appeared before this Court and later they were enlarged on bail. After filing of the charge sheet against the accused herein, cognizance of the offences was taken by this Court. Copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers were furnished to the accused No.1 & 2 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charges were framed and readover and explained to the accused No.1 & 2. The accused No.1 & 2 pleaded not guilty. Hence, case was posted for trial. To bring the guilt of the accused, prosecution got examined PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 & 5. Complainant has turned hostile, hence no purpose will be served if remaining witnesses are examined. Hence, CW-2 to 10 were dropped. No incriminating evidence adduced against the accused No.1 & 2 herein hence recording of accused statement is dispensed with.
4. Heard arguments.
Judgement CC.No.53019/2013
5. After analysing oral evidence and materials available on records, points for my determination are as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10.09.2012 at 1.00 PM the accused 1 & 2 herein with common intention trespassed into the complainant's land and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.447 R/w 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 & 2 herein with common intention trespassed into the complainant's land and demolished the constructed wall and caused loss of Rs.One lakh to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.427 R/w 34 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 & 2 herein with common intention restrained the complainant's men and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.341 R/w 34 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 & 2 herein with common intention threatened the complainant with dire Judgement CC.No.53019/2013 consequences and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 R/w 34 of IPC ?
5. What order ?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows;
POINT NOs-1 to 4 :: In Negative
POINT NO-5 :: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT Nos-1 TO 4 :: The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused herein committed the offences punishable U/s.341, 427, 447 & 506 R/w 34 of IPC. In support of the prosecution case, complainant is examined before this Court. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that On 10.09.2012, at 1.00 PM the accused 1 & 2 herein trespassed into the complainant's land and restrained the complainant's men, demolished the wall constructed by the complainant and caused loss to the complainant herein. The accused also threatened the complainant. Per contra, the complainant in his evidence has stated that the accused has not trespassed into his land, restrained him and not demolished the wall. He also stated that the accused has not caused loss to him. Further, has stated that Judgement CC.No.53019/2013 he was not threatened by the accused No.1 & 2 herein. Further, PW-1 has stated that he has not lodged any complaint against accused No.1 & 2. Further has stated that there was petty quarrel between himself and accused persons. At that time, when he went to police station, the police obtained his signatures on two documents i.e., Ex.P-1 & 2. But he does not know the contents of the same. Further has stated that the police have not prepared any mahazar in his presence. The evidence of complainant is contrary to Ex.P-1. PW-1 was treated as hostile witness. Opportunity was given to the prosecution to cross- examine PW-1. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the accused trespassed into his site, demolished the wall and caused loss to him. He further denied the suggestion that he was threatened by the accused herein. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 herein. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 is not helpful to the prosecution case.
8. CW-2 to 10 are remaining witnesses. The complainant has turned hostile. No purpose will be served if the remaining witnesses are examined. Hence, CW-2 to 9 are dropped. The prosecution has failed to produce sufficient evidence before the Judgement CC.No.53019/2013 Court to show that the accused No.1 & 2 herein wrongfully restrained the complainant, trespassed into his site, demolished the wall constructed by him and caused loss to him and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused No.1 & 2 herein. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused No.1 & 2 herein. Hence, I answer Point Nos.1 to 4 in Negative.
9. POINT NO-5 :: In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 427, 447 & 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 & 2 shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, the transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of March 2015.) (P.SRINIVASA) XI A.C.M.M., Mayo hall, Bangalore.
Judgement CC.No.53019/2013 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION ::
PW-1 :: Syed Irfan
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION ::
Ex.P-1 :: Complaint
Ex.P-1(a) :: Signature of complainant
Ex.P-2 :: Spot mahazar
Ex.P-2 (a) :: Signature of PW-1
Ex.P3 :: Statement of PW1
Ex.p3(a) :: Signature of PW1
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED ::
NIL DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED ::
NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION ::
NIL (P.SRINIVASA) XI A.C.M.M., Mayo hall, Bangalore.
Judgement