Bangalore District Court
The State Represented By vs A1: Sri. Ravikumar @ Dhanjaya on 14 December, 2016
1 C.C.No.48511/2010
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL., CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 14th December 2016
Present: Sri.S.T.Devaraja, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
C.C.No:48511/2010
Complainant : The State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Byatarayanapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Sr.APP, Bengaluru)
V/s
Accused: A1: Sri. Ravikumar @ Dhanjaya,
S/o Sri.Shankariah,
Aged about 23 yrs,
R/at:Behind Ganesh Lodge,
Malavalli.
2 C.C.No.48511/2010
Own R/at: House of
Chandrappanavar,
Kenchanakuppe village,
Bidadi Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
A2: Sri.Harish,
S/o.Sri. Giriyappa,
Aged about 21 yrs,
R/at:124, Hannuru Grama,
Kollegala Taluk,
Own R/at: House of
Chandrappanavar,
Kenchanakuppe village,
Bidadi Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(By Sri. CKR Adv., Bengaluru)
---
JUDGEMENT U/Sec.355 of Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C.No.48511/2010
Date of offence : 26/8/2010
3 C.C.No.48511/2010
Complainant : Sri.Venkataswamy, A.S.I
Accused : As detailed above
Offence : U/Sec.353, 332, 504 R/w
Sec.34 of IPC
Charge : Accused persons claimed
to be tried
Final order : Acquitted
Date of order : 14/12/2016
The brief statement
and the Reasons for the
decision : As follows
---
JUDGEMENT
The Inspector of Byatarayanapura Police have filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.353, 332, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:
4 C.C.No.48511/2010
It is the case of the prosecution that on 26/8/2010 at about 7-45 p.m. the CW1 was deputed to control the traffic at Satellite Bus Stand, Mysore Road and while discharging the duty a private bus came and stopped for which the CW1 directed to move further. It is also the case of the prosecution the accused No.2 was standing on the foot board and questioned the CW1, abused in filthy language, dragged the uniform. It is the case of the prosecution the inmate of the bus i.e. accused No.1 got down from the bus and all of a sudden assaulted CW1 and the metal ring came in contact with CW1 resulting in bleeding injury. It is the case of the prosecution the accused persons obstructed to discharge the duty of CW1. On the complaint of CW1 by name Sri.Venkataswamy - ASI the Byatarayanapura Police have registered a case in Crime No.300/2010 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 5 C.C.No.48511/2010 be tried. The prosecution has examined PW1 and relied upon documents as per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and material object as per MO.1. The 313 Cr.P.C., statement is recorded. No defence evidence adduced by the accused persons.
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.353, 332, 504 r/w 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 Sri.Venkataswamy-ASI as PW.1. By identifying the accused persons it is his evidence as per the contents of the complaint marked as per Ex.P1 and 6 C.C.No.48511/2010 identified the signature as per Ex.P1(a). It is also his evidence the PSI visited the place of incident and conducted seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 and identified the signature as per Ex.P2(a) and that he has produced the uniform raincoat as per MO. No.1. It is his evidence in view of the assault made by the accused persons he was treated at Gurushree Hitech Hospital and given the further statement on 27/8/2010.
8. By referring to the available oral and documentary evidence the learned Sr.APP prayed to convict the accused persons. As against the said submission it was the submission of the learned defence counsel the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused persons.
9. For want of material object the further chief examination was deferred. On consideration of the materials available on record the evidence of PW1 itself is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. It is 7 C.C.No.48511/2010 necessary to mention the evidence of PW1 is incomplete and the same does not survive for consideration. The other charge sheeted witnesses including the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet remained absent from appearing before the Court. Inspite of repeated issuance of summons and bailable warrant against the witnesses the same remained unexecuted. Hence, the prayer of the learned Sr.APP to issue summons to other witnesses rejected.
10. It is necessary to mention except Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 no other documents came to be marked on behalf of the prosecution. The stated treated Doctor also remained absent from appearing before the Court. The medical documents remained without proof. Thereby, there is utter failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Consequently, resulting in failure to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The available evidence is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Under the said circumstances, this Court has no option except to acquit the 8 C.C.No.48511/2010 accused persons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
11. 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.353, 332 and 504 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety 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 14/12/2016).
(S.T.Devaraja), III Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
9 C.C.No.48511/2010::ANNEXURE::
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri.Venkataswamy
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 :
MO1 : Rain Coat
4. Defence Evidence : NIL
---
III Addl., Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
10 C.C.No.48511/2010