Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka New Town vs Smt.Ranjitha on 3 November, 2022
Digitally
signed by I
KABC030275682020 IP P NAIK
Date:
NAIK 2022.11.03
15:49:32
+0530
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 3rd day of November, 2022
:Present: Sri. I.P.Naik, B.A., LL.B.(Spl),
30th ACMM, Bengaluru
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.
C.C.No. 6141/2020
Date of Offence 01.04.2020
Complainant State by Yelahanka New Town,
Police Station.
V/s.
Accused Smt.Ranjitha,
S/o.Ambarish,
Aged about 23 years
R/at.No.109, LBS Nagar,
Near NES,
Yelahanka Upa Nagara,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s.353, 504 of IPC.,
Plea Recorded on13.12.2021 and
accused Pleaded not guilty.
2 C.C.6141/2020
313 Statement recorded On 28.06.2022
on:
Final Oder Accused is acquitted
Date of Order 03-11-2022
*****
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka New Town, Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/s. 353, 504 of IPC.,
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, 01.04.2020 at about 8.00am CW1 and CW4 at house No.109, 1st Cross, LBS Nagara Yelahanka New Town, within the territorial limits of Yelahanka New Town, Police Station, when CW1 and CW4 came to clean the street, at that time, they requested the accused to shift the two wheeler, accused picked up quarrel, abused CW1 and CW1 in filthy language so as to cause breach of public peace and insult them and has obstructed CW1 and CW4 from doing public work, when CW1 requested the accused to dis placed the said vehicle without heeding to the request of the 3 C.C.6141/2020 CW1, accused picked up quarrel with CW1 Lakshmi CW4- Ramanamma and abused them in filthy language and also pushed them and obstructed to discharge their public duty. Further, accused also abused CW1 Smt.Nethravathi, who is in charge on CW1 and CW4. Hence, accused are charge sheeted.
3. In this case, Cw1 lodged the complaint before the CW6-PSI Rajanna. Based on the said first information statement CW6 registered the case against the accused persons in Cr.No.59/2020 and forwarded the FIR to this court . On the same day rushed to the spot and conducted SO mahazar in the presence of panchas as placed by the CW1 further, he called the accused for interrogation and not arrested the accused due to COVID-19 on 20.9.2020, he has collected the certificate from the BBMP sub division, Yelahanka. After that, he has recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the accused. 4 C.C.6141/2020
4. By considering the charge sheet and other materials this court taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.353, 504 of IPC and ordered for register this case against the accused register-III.
5. After receipt of the summons, accused appeared before through her counsel and got enlarged and regular bail.
6. Thereafter, charge has been framed and read over to the accused, accused pleaded not guilt claims to be tried. Hence, case is posted for evidence.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and 5 documents are got marked as Ex.P.1 to P.5. In order to secure other witnesses issued Summons, NBW and Proclamation. But the concerned police failed to secure these witnesses. Finally this court opined that there is no meaning in reissuing of Summons, NBW and Proclamation. Accordingly, prayer of learned Sr.APP is rejected and other remaining witnesses are dropped. (In this case, 2 documents 5 C.C.6141/2020 is got marked at Ex.P.4, the statement of the PW4 Smt.Rathnamma hereinafter considered as Ex.P.5).
8. Thereafter, statement of the accused person recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused has denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution evidence. Accused has not chosen to lead his side evidence and no documents are marked on their behalf.
9. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
10. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, 01.04.2020 at about 8.00am CW1 and CW4 at house No.109, 1st Cross, LBS Nagara Yelahanka New Town, within the territorial limits of Yelahanka New Town, Police Station, when CW1 and CW4 came to clean the street, at that time, they requested the 6 C.C.6141/2020 accused to shift the two wheeler, accused picked up quarrel, abused CW1 and CW1 in filthy language so as to cause breach of public peace and insult them and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, within my cognizance .?
2. Further, you accused persons on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, has obstructed CW1 and CW4 from doing public work and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, within my cognizance .?
3. What order.?
11. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3 : As per final order
7 C.C.6141/2020
......................... for the following.., REASONS
12. Point No.1 & 2 :- The learned Sr.APP urged that, in this case prosecution proved the guilt of the accused person based on the oral and documentary evidence. Hence, prays convict the accused in accordance with law.
13. As against this, the learned counsel for the accused urged that, in this case, prosecution not proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. There is lot of contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which creates serious doubt in the prosecution case. Hence, prays to acquit the accused by granting benefit of doubt.
14. In this case, PW2 Smt.Lakshmi is complainant and victim of this case. PW1 is not aware about Kannada language and English language, she is well acquainted with Tamil language. Therefore, her evidence if recorded through the help of the 8 C.C.6141/2020 translator who is having good acquaintance with the Tamil language.
15. PW2 deposed that, 4 years back, at 8.00am herself and PW4 Smt.Ramanama, were engage din cleaning work. At that time, some unknown lady abused and assaulted on them. She requested to the said unknown lady to give respect by considering her age. Inspite of that, she has abused them in filthy language. Immediately, she had contacted with the PW1, PW1 rushed to the spot along with maestri.
16. Further, PW1 stated that, if she stated that, accused threatened to kill her if she informed to police. Further, she has identified the accused before this court. Further, she stated that, after lodging the complaint, police came to the spot and conducted SO mahazar.
17. PW4 victim of this case, she stated that, 2 years back, at morning herslef and Pw2 were engaed in the cleaning at SN Nagar, 9 C.C.6141/2020 at that time, accused picked up quarrel with PW1. Further,she has submitted the prosecution inrespect of abusing PW1 and obstructed to work. In this regard, the learned APP has cross-examined this witnesses, she has not supported the prosecution case.
18. PW5 is most important witnesses and witnesses to SO mahazar he stated that, accused picked up quarrel with PW2 and PW4 at LBS Nagar. In this regard, police came to the spot and conducted SO mahazar.
19. P ward No.4, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of BBMP Sub Division, Yelahanka. She deposed that, on 01.4.2020 at about 8.30am PW2 and PW4 are engaged in cleaning at LBS Nagar. One Ranjitha, who is parked her two wheeler in front of her house. In this regard, PW2 and PW4 requested to park the said vehicle other side at that time, accused picked up quarrel with PW2 and PW4. Immediately, she rushed the spot and saw that, PW2 is weeping and explained the incident 10 C.C.6141/2020 accused assaulted on her. In this case, she also questioned the accused, at that time, accused not responded properly.
20. PW3 PSI-Ramanamma Inspector of this case has received the complaint from CW2 and registered the case against the accused. Thereafter, he rushed to the spot and conducted SO mahazar Ex.P.2 thereafter, interrogated the accused, accused as well as witnesses. After collecting certificate Ex.P.4 he submitted charge sheet against the accused.
21. By considering rival submission of both the parties I have examined and Annalysed the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 to PW5. During cross-examination PW2 stated that, there is no hard and fast rule that one Maestri has been taken attendance. After she is unable to depose in respect of exact address of the house number due to she is elder. Further, she stated that, she was unable to speak regarding vehicle belonged to accused and also she has not identified the color of the vehicle. Further, stated that, place 11 C.C.6141/2020 of incident is one and half kilometer away from the Police Station. She herself orally dictated to police recording her complaint.
22. Further, during remaining execution of the learned Counsel for the accused denying the incident by suggestions. The said suggestions are denied by the PW2. Further, she is unable to said about the boundaries cited in the mahazar, exact place of incident.
23. PW4 is most important witnesses, she has not supported the prosecution case. PW5 deposed that, police have drawn the mahazar between 2.00pm to 3.00pm it is quite contrary to the recitals and time mentioned in Ex.P.2. Further, he pleaded ignorance in respect of the contents of Ex.P.2 Further, he stated that he has put his signature at the Police Station. PW1 is important witnesses according to charge sheet accused abused the PW1 also but she never stated inrespect of accused abusing her. Further, he stated that she rushed to the spot within the half kilometer. Further, he is unable to depose about the registration 12 C.C.6141/2020 number of the two wheeler. There is bio metric attendance in BBMP office. Further, rest of the cross-examination is denial by suggestions. The said suggestions is denied.
24. By considering the oral testimony of PW1 it reveals that, she is not supported the inrespect of which are the words used by the accused, further it is not specific case of the prosecution accused assaulted Pw2 and further, it is specific case of the prosecution that accused assaulted on Pw2. Further, it is specific case of the prosecution that these two witnesses have not deposed in respect criminal intimidation. By considering all these aspects, it is held that, prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.1 & 2 is answered in the Negative.
25. Point No.3: In view of the Negative findings on the above point No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:- 13 C.C.6141/2020
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s. 353, 504 of IPC., The bail bond of accused persons and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. is declined.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3 rd day of November, 2022).
(I.P Naik.) 30 A.C.M.M., B'lore.
th ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Smt. Nethravathi
P.W. 2 : Smt. Lakshmi
P.W. 3 : Rajanna
P.W. 4 : Smt. Ramanmma
P.W. 5 : Anjaneyalu
14 C.C.6141/2020
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Ex.P.4 : document
Ex.P.5 : Complaint
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (I.P.Naik) 30th Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
15 C.C.6141/2020Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER The Powers confirmed upon me U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted of the alleged offences punishable U/s. 353, 504 of IPC., The bail bond of accused persons and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
The prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, hence, granting of compensation of U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. is declined.
(I.P.Naik) 30th Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.16 C.C.6141/2020