Bangalore District Court
State By Parappana Agrahara Police vs After Hearing On Charges on 1 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 1st day of April 2016
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 5293/2013
2.Date of offence 09-03-2012
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara Police
Station
4.Accused Munireddy
S/o. Obalareddy, aged 38 years,
Residing at No.534, Sadguru
Sainatha Scool Road, Kudlu,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 427 and 447 of IPC.
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 1-4-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused
2 C.C.No.5293/2013
for the offences punishable under sections 427 and 447 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
9-3-2012 at 9-00 p.m., in site Nos.12, 13, 20, 21, formed in
survey No.190/2, Koodlu village, Bangalore city within the
limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station belonged to
C.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6, the accused trespassed into the said sites
damaged the sheds windows compound wall constructed in
the said site and thereby cause of thousands of rupees to
the said C.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 and committed aforesaid offence.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet
copies, this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the
accused. After hearing on charges, this court has framed
the accusation for the offences punishable U/s.427 and 447
of IPC and read over to the accused person in the language
known to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the
accused person has examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5
and got marked six documents as per Exs.P1 to P6. Since
C.W.5 did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the
prayer of Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said
witness.
3 C.C.No.5293/2013
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused person
as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and
perused evidence on record.
7. The prosecution to prove guilt against accused has
examined six witnesses. P.W.1 S.Krishnegowda is the
Investigating Officer who conducted partial investigation.
P.W. 2 P.Kumar is the spot mahazar witness. P.W.3
K.Krishnamurty is the owner of the vacant site and victim
to the alleged incident. P.W.4 Somashekarreddy is the
another spot mahazar witness. P.W.5 K.Palani is another
owner of the site and victim to the alleged incident. P.W.6
Vishalakshi is the complainant. In spite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined C.W.5
another owner of the site where the alleged incident taken
place, C.W.7 the police constable who assisted Investigating
Officers in conducting investigation and C.W.9
K.Mahadevaiah is the Investigating Officer.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence on record.
The testimony of P.W.6 Vishalakshi the complainant
indicating that in the year 2004 she purchased one site
4 C.C.No.5293/2013
formed in survey No.190/2 of Koodlu village and
constructed the house. About three years back at 10-00
p.m., the accused damaged the house constructed by her
and caused loss to the extent of Rs.5 to 6 lakh. But the
accused has no right to her site. In this regard she lodged
complaint to the police as per Ex.P.1. But has not heard
that the accused has damaged her house and she has not
given any further statement to the police. Since P.W.6 not
fully supported the case of the prosecution, the learned
Sr.APP., treated this witness has hostile and further cross
examined. In the cross examination of P.W.1 has denied
the suggestion that after lodging of the complaint the police
visited the spot and prepared the mahazar in her presence
and she gave further statement to the Investigating Officer
as per Ex.P.6 in respect of delaying lodging the complaint.
9. The testimony of P.W.5 K.Palani the owner of the
site formed in survey No.190/2 indicating that he had
purchased sit in the said survey number one Govindappa
and constructed the shed. About three years back some
body damaged his shed but he did not know who actually
damaged the same. Since P.W.5 is not supported the case
of the prosecution, learned Sr.APP., treated this witness as
hostile and further cross examined. In the cross
examination P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that on
9-3-2012 at 9-00 p.m., he came to know from P.W.6 that
5 C.C.No.5293/2013
accused has damaged the shed constructed in his site. On
the next day he visited the spot and questioned the accused
but the accused not responded properly and he gave
statement to this effect as Ex.P.4. P.W.4 K.Krishnamurthy
another owner of the site indicating that about five years
back he purchased one site formed survey No.190/2 and
constructed the said. About two years back P.W.6 informed
him about damages to his shed but he did not know who
actually damaged the same. Since P.W.3 has also not
supported the case of the prosecution the learned Sr.APP.,
treated this witness as hostile and further cross examined.
In the cross examination P.W.3 has denied the suggestion
that he gave statement to the police as per Ex.P.3 that
accused has damaged his shed.
10. P.Ws.2 and P.W.4 deposed regarding preparing of
spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 by the Investigating Officer. In
my opinion, the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4 are formal one
and need not required detailed consideration. No doubt
from the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4 it is very much clear
that the mahazar was prepared there was damages tot he
shed and house constructed in the sites formed in survey
No.190/2.
11. P.W.1 S.Krishnegodwa the Investigating Officer
indicating that on 15-3-2012 he received the complaint and
6 C.C.No.5293/2013
registered the case. On the same day he prepared the
mahazar in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 4.
12. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the
accused trespassed into the site belonged to P.Ws.3, 5 and
6 without any rite and damaged the shed constructed in the
sites belonged to them. P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 not stated that the
accused has not damaged the said site. The prosecution
has not examined eyewitnesses to the incident who
witnessed the act of damaging the shed and other materials
existed in the sites belonged to P.Ws.3, 5 and 6. Moreover,
the prosecution has not marked the revenue documents
indicating the ownership of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 over their
respective sites. In the cross-examination P.W.6 has stated
that she has not witnessed the act of accused damaged her
shed constructed her vacant site. Even P.Ws.3 and 5 have
not stated that the accused has damaged their shed. It
appears, there from the suggestion to witnesses that there
is civil dispute between P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and others on one side
and the accused is the other side before Anekal Court and
also before High Court. The civil court has jurisdiction to
decide the ownership of respective sites. But the
prosecution has failed to establish that the accused
trespassed into the sites formed in survey No.190/2 of
Doddanagamangala Village belonged to P.Ws.3, 5, 6 and
others and damaged the structure in the said sites.
7 C.C.No.5293/2013
Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove guilt against accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for
benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 427 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above-referred offences.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1, S.Krishnegowda,
P.W.2, P.Kumar,
P.W.3, K.Krishmurth,
P.W.4, Somashekhar Reddy,
P.W.5, K.Palani,
8 C.C.No.5293/2013
P.W.6, Vishalakshi;
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1, Complaint, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P.1(b), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P2, Mahazar, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P.2(b), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P.2(c), Signature of P.W.4, Ex.P.2(d), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P.3, FIR, Ex.P.3(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P.4, Statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.5, Sale deed, Ex.P.6, Statement of P.W.6;
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil List of witnesses examined, documents & materials marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.