Bangalore District Court
State By Hebbala Police Station vs Mohaseen Althaf on 25 January, 2022
1
S.C.No.1418/2018
KABC010231142018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU
Dated this 25th day of January, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1418/2018
COMPLAINANT:- State by Hebbala Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED : Mohaseen Althaf,
S/o. Shahir Althaf,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at.No.41/1, 7th A Cross,
Kanakanagar, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru-32.
2
S.C.No.1418/2018
1. Date of commission of offence : 09.01.2017
2. Date of report of offence : 10.01.2017
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : 11.01.2017
4. Name of the complainant : Mohammed Saleem
5. Date of recording evidence : 03.10.2019
6. Date of closing evidence : 01.10.2021
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.448, 450, 341, 504,
506, 323, 324,307
of I.P.C.,
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence against
Accused not proved
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. Syed Siraz, Adv.
JUDGMENT
In the present case accused stands charged for offences punishable U/s.448, 450, 341, 504, 506, 323, 324, 307 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.8/2017 of Hebbala police station, Bengaluru.
2. There is no undisputed facts in this case.
3S.C.No.1418/2018
3. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows;
On 9.1.2017 night at 1.30 a.m., in order to commit offence armed with knife accused gained wrongful entry into the house of Cw.1/Mohammed Saleem bearing No.4/2 situated at 7 th A Cross, Kanakanagar, within the jurisdiction of Hebbala police station wrongfully restrained Cw.2/ Mohammed Khaleem, abused Cw.1 and Cw.2 in filthy language. By giving life threat to Cw.2, accused caused assault on the lips of Cw.1 by using fist. Accused caused assault on the right hand finger of Smt. Shah Taj by using knife resulted bleeding injury. In order to murder Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem, accused stabbed on the left side of his wrist thereby committed offences punishable U/s.448, 450, 341, 504, 506, 323, 324, 307 of I.P.C. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Cw.1/Mohammed Saleem, this case came to be registered.
4. Charge being read over and explained to the accused as per Section 228 of Cr.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the personal examination U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., accused denied all incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution side evidence.
5. Heard arguments submitted by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused as per Section 234 of Cr.P.C.
4S.C.No.1418/2018
6. Now, the points arising for determination are follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, on 9.1.2017 at 1.30 a.m., in order to commit offence armed with knife accused gained wrongful entry into the house of Cw.1/Mohammed Saleem bearing No.4/2 situated at 7th A Cross, Kanakanagar, within the jurisdiction of Hebbala police station and thereby committed offences punishable under Sec.448 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code as alleged in the charge sheet?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused wrongfully restrained Cw.2/ Mohammed Khaleem and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.341 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused with an intention to insult Cw.1 and Cw.2 abused them in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.504 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused had given life threat to Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, 5 S.C.No.1418/2018 accused accused picked up a quarrel with Cw.1, and with an intention to cause hurt to him, accused assaulted him with hands on the lips of Cw.1, causing bleeding injury and thereby accused has committed offence of voluntarily causing hurt U/s. 323 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused accused committed offence of voluntarily causing hurt on Cw.3/ Smt. Shah Taj with deadly weapon like knife on her right finger causing bleeding injury and thereby committed offence punishable U/s.324 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused with an intention to murder, attempted to cause assault on Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem by using knife stabbed on the left side of wrist thereby committed offence punishable U/s.307 of I.P.C., as alleged in the charge sheet?
8. What Order ?
7. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
6
S.C.No.1418/2018
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINTS NO.1 to 7:- These points are taken together for consideration to avoid repeated discussions.
9. Reasons for determination:- Cardinal principle of the criminal trial is that the accused shall be presumed to be innocent, till guilty is proved. As per Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, burden of proof to prove ingredients of the charges framed against accused beyond any reasonable doubts is on the prosecution. To determine whether prosecution succeeded to discharge burden of proof casts U/s.102 of Indian Evidence Act, it is just and necessary to assess evidence adduced, documents produced on behalf of the prosecution.
10. Cw.1/Mohammed Saleem is examined as Pw.1. In his evidence Pw.1 has deposed that around 2 - 3 years ago, when he was at his home during night at 10.00 to 11.00 p.m., he heard voice of galata near his house. Somebody told him that some one is quarreling with his brother Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem. When he 7 S.C.No.1418/2018 went to the spot, he saw injury on the back of his brother Cw.2/ Mohammed Khaleem. He admitted his brother to Ambedkar hospital for treatment. Hebbala police came to the hospital. He had given complaint to the police. Pw.1 identified his signature on Ex.P.1/complaint. Further Pw.1 has identified his signature on Ex.P.2/ spot mahazar. However, Pw.1 has stated that he had given complaint that some unknown person who assaulted on his brother. Further, no seizure of any materials are made under the cover of Ex.P.2. Pw.1 specifically has deposed that the accused present before the court and did not assaulted his brother Cw.2/ Mohammed Khaleem. Pw.1 is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has sought permission to question Pw.1 by treating him as hostile witness as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. During cross-examination, no such admissions are elicited to show that Pw.1 has deposed false. No such admissions are elicited to prove the fact that Pw.1 is won over by the accused.
11. Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem who is injured in this case is examined as Pw.2. In his evidence, Pw.2 has deposed that around 3 years ago when he was in his house, night at 10.00 p.m., there was a function near his house. As there was crowd somebody pushed him and he fell down. He sustained injury on his back. His brother Cw.1/ admitted him to Ambedkar hospital for treatment. Accused 8 S.C.No.1418/2018 present before the court did not caused assault on him in order to commit his murder. He had not given any statement to the police. Pw.2 is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has sought permission to question Pw.2 by treating him as hostile witness as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. During cross-examination, no such admissions are elicited to show that Pw.2 has deposed false. No such admissions are elicited to prove the fact that Pw.2 is won over by the accused.
12. Cw.3/Shah Taj who is injured in the incident is examined as Pw.3. In her evidence, Pw.3 has deposed that she do not know the accused present before the court. Cw.1 and Cw.2 are her children. Around 2 years ago when she was at her house night at 10-00 to 11.00 p.m., she heard voice of galata. Somebody told her that some one is making galata with her son Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem. When she went to the spot, Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem sustained injury on his back. He was admitted to Ambedkar hospital for treatment. She had not given any statement before the police alleging that accused present before the court assaulted on Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem. Pw.3 is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State sought permission to question Pw.3 by treating her as hostile witness as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. No such 9 S.C.No.1418/2018 admissions are elicited to show that Pw.3 has deposed false. No such admissions are elicited to prove the fact that Pw.3 is won over by the accused.
13. Cw.7/ Abdhul is examined as Pw.4. Cw.8/Mohammed Nayaz is examined as Pw.5. Pw.4 and Pw.5 are signatories for Ex.P.2/spot mahazar. In their evidence, Pw.4 and Pw.5 have deposed that around 2 - 3 years ago, they signed Ex.P.2. They do not know the contents mentioned in Ex.P.2. Police did not prepare any panchanama in their present. Police did not seized any articles in their present. Pw.4 and Pw.5 are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution side. Pw.4 and 5 are treating as hostile witnesses as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even in the cross- examination, no such admissions are elicited to show that Pw.4 and Pw.5 have deposed false. No such admissions are elicited to prove the fact that Pw.4 and Pw.5 are won over by the accused side.
14. Cw.13/S.Narasimhaiah Investigation Officer in this case is examined as Pw.6. In his evidence, Pw.6 has deposed that on 3.6.2017 he had taken the records of the case for further investigation from Ashwattha Gowda police inspector. On 11.06.2017 he collected wound certificate of Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem, Cw.1/Mohammed Saleem, Cw.3/Shah Taj from Ambedkar hospital, Bengaluru. He recorded statement of Cw.4 on 20.06.2017.
10S.C.No.1418/2018 After completion of investigation, he had filed charge sheet against the accused. Pw.6 stands unrebutted in the cross-examination.
15. Cw.6/Syed Parvej is examined as Pw.7. Pw.7 is an eyewitness to the incident. In his evidence Pw.7 has deposed that he do not know the accused present before the court. He did not know Mohammed Pyar. He had not seen the incident. He had not given any statement to the police. Pw.7 is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has sought permission to question Pw.7 by treating him as hostile witness as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even in the cross-examination, no such admissions are elicited to show that Pw.7 has deposed false. No such admissions are elicited to prove the fact that Pw.7 is won over by the accused.
16. Cw.9/ Krishna V. Investigation Officer in part is examined as Pw.8. In his evidence Pw.8 has deposed that he was deputed to trace the accused in this case. Accordingly he produced the accused on 11.1.2017, before Police Inspector along with report at Ex.P.9. Pw.8 identified the accused before the court. Pw.8 stands unrebutted in the cross-examination.
17. Cw.12/Shivakumar, the then Station House Officer of Hebbal police station is examined as Pw.9. Pw.9 has deposed in 11 S.C.No.1418/2018 respect of registration of F.I.R. on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant Mohammed Saleem as per Ex.P.1 and registration of F.I.R. as per Ex.P.10. Pw.9 identified 3 M.L.C.Memos at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.13 received from Ambedkar hospital, Bengaluru. Further Pw.9 deposed in respect of preparation of spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2, seizure of bloodstained T-shirt, pant of the complainant Mohammed Saleem and one knife said to be used for commission of offence. Pw.9 identified Mo.1 and 2 pant and shirt and Mo.3/knife. Pw.9 further deposed in respect of arrest of both accused by his staff. Pw.9 identified accused present before the court. Pw.9 further deposed in respect of recording statement of injured and eyewitnesses. Pw.9 stands unrebutted in the cross-examination.
18. Complaint, Spot Mahazar, statements of Pw.2 and Pw.3, Wound certificate, Statement of Pw.7, Report, F.I.R. M.L.C. Memos, Property Form got marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. Track pant, T-Shirt, and knife got identified at Mo.1 to Mo.3.
19. Even though police officers, Investigation Officer and police staff who have participated in the investigation are deposed in support of the case of the prosecution, prime witnesss, complainant, injured, eyewitnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution. Self harming evidence adduced by the complainant Cw.1/ Pw.1/Mohammed Saleem, injured Cw.2/Pw.2/Mohammed 12 S.C.No.1418/2018 Khaleem, Cw.3/Pw.3/ Shah Taj are relevant as per Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act. Eyewitness to the incident Pw.7/Syed Parvej is also not supported the version of the prosecution case. Pw.4 and Pw.5 are seizure mahazar witnesses who signed Ex.P.2/ seizure panchanama have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Hostile evidence adduced by Pw.1 to 5 and Pw.7 proved fatal to the case of the prosecution only. On the basis of the evidence adduced by Station House Officer, Investigation Officer and police officer who assisted to arrest the accused, it is not possible to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that on 9.1.2017 night at 1.30 a.m., in order to commit offence, accused entered into the house of Cw.1/Mohammed Saleem bearing No.4/2 situated at 7th A Cross, Kanakanagar, within the jurisdiction of Hebbala police station wrongfully restrained Cw.2/ Mohammed Khaleem, armed with knife, abused Cw.1 and Cw.2 in filthy language and by giving life threat to Cw.2, accused caused assault on the lips of Cw.1 by using fist. Accused caused assault on the right hand finger of Smt. Shah Taj by using knife causing bleeding injury. In order to murder Cw.2/Mohammed Khaleem, accused stabbed on the left side of wrist thereby committed offences 13 S.C.No.1418/2018 punishable U/s.448, 450, 341, 504, 506, 323, 324, 307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, points No.1 to 7 are answered in the Negative.
21. POINT NO.8:- In view of the above findings on points No.1 to 7, accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.448, 450, 341, 504, 506, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C.
Accused is hereby directed to execute fresh bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is directed to take fresh bail bond of accused for Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Mo.1/pant and Mo.2/T-shirt are being worthless. Hence, the same are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
14S.C.No.1418/2018 Mo.3/knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 25 th day of January 2022.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Mohammed Saleem
Pw.2 Mohammed Khaleem
Pw.3 Shah Taj
Pw.4 Abdhul
Pw.5 Mohammed Nayaz
Pw.6 Narasimhaiah S.
Pw.7 Syed Parvej
Pw.8 Krishna V.
Pw.9 Shivakumar
15
S.C.No.1418/2018
II. For Defence:-
- Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.9
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of Pw.9
Ex.P.3 Statement of Pw.2
Ex.P.4 Statement of Pw.3
Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 Wound Certificates
Ex.P.5(a) -7(a) Signatures of Pw.6
Ex.P.8 Statement of Pw.7
Ex.P.9 Report
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of Pw.9
Ex.P.10 F.I.R.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.9
Ex.P.11 to 13 3 M.L.C. Memos
Ex.P.14 Property Form No.4/2017
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of Pw.9
IV. For Defence side:-
-Nil-
16
S.C.No.1418/2018
V. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Blue colour Track pant
Mo.2 Black colour half sleeves T-Shirt
Mo.3 Knife
Mo.1(a) to Mo.3(a) Signatures on the chits
Mo.1(b) &(c) to Signatures
Mo.3(b) & (c)
(RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 17 S.C.No.1418/2018 25.01.2022 Accused present.
Judgment pronounced in the open Court (Vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.448, 450, 341, 504, 506, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C.
Accused is hereby directed to execute fresh bail bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and the same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Office is directed to take fresh bail bond of accused for Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Mo.1/pant and Mo.2/T-shirt are being worthless. Hence, the same are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
18S.C.No.1418/2018 Mo.3/knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.