Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. As per cross of PW1 on the said date the accused was tied with handcuff and chain, he further deposed that, as number of persons were going here and there in the corridor of NIMHANS hospital, in such a case it is very difficulty for any accused to escape from the custody of the police. As per the evidence of PW1, 25 CAR staffs were escorting convicted prisoners to the hospital. When such being the case no one person can escape from the CAR police. As per the Evidence of PW1 when the accused is tied with handcuff then he may not tried to escape from the said place, even prosecution has not explained from where the accused has got the MO3 and MO6. It is burden on the prosecution to prove that, the accused have poured the chilly powder and assaulted with MO6.

39. On the other hand PW1 who is material witness and victim in this case, in examination in chief he deposed that he has not identified the accused person. He further deposed that he can't identify the material object i.e., MO3. He deposed that in the examination in chief that " ನನಗರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡದ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ನರರನಡದರರ ಗುರುತಸುತರತನನರ. ನಯದಯಯಲಯದಲಲ ಹಯಜರದದ ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ನರರನಡದ ನಬತರ ಸಯಕಕಯು ಆತನರನ ನನಗರ ಹಲರಲ ಮಯಡದ ವದಕತ ಎಬದು ನನಗನಗ ಗುರುತಸಲು ಆಗುವವದಲಲ ಎನುನತಯತರರ". As per evidence of PW1 he has not identified the accused person and he has not identified the MO3. He deposed that the accused tried to escape from their custody. He further deposed that the accused has assaulted on left cheek and nose, apart from this he has not at all stated that the accused assaulted on the left side forehead. On the other hand PW2 deposed that the PW1 sustained injuries on left and right side of the face. PW2 has not stated the PW1 has sustained injury on the left side of cheek and nose. PW2 nowhere stated that PW1 sustained injuries on nose. PW2 deposed in the evidence that "ನಬತರ ನಯನು ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ಸರಪಳಯಬದ ಎಳರದು ತಬದು ಚಯ,ಸಯ1 ರವರ ವಶರರಕ ನನಡದರನು". As per evidence of PW2 that the accused was tied with hand cuff and chain, when the person is tied with handcuff and chain then the accused cannot assault on PW1 with knife as stated by the prosecution. PW1, 4, 6, 7 have not stated in their evidence that on 11/04/2015 then went in jeep bearing No. KA 05 G

12. PW1 deposed in the evidence that "ಆರರರನಪಯನುನ ತರಗರದುರರರಬಡು ಹರರನಗುವಯಗ ಆರರರನಪಗರ ರರವರರರಳ ತರರಡಸಲಯಗತುತ ಎಬದರರ ಸರ". As per evidence of PW1 and 2 that the accused was tied with handcuff and chain, then he cannot assault on the PW1. PW4 who is the official witness and eye-witness to the incident he has not supported the prosecution case. PW6 is the another eye-witness to the incident he deposed in the examination in chief that the accused is intended to kill the PW1, assaulted with knife on left side of nose and neck. PW6 nowhere stated in the evidence that accused assaulted with MO3 and with left side of cheek and nose. Even he deposed in the cross-examination and examination in chief that before taking the convicted prisoner from the central prison authorities will check bodysearch(ಅಬಗಶರರನಧನರ) even he has not at all stated from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. PW7 who is the official witness and eye-witness to the incident in the examination in chief nor in the cross-examination he has not at all stated that "on 11/04/2015 he along with 25 CAR staff and 11 convicted prisoners were taken to NIMHAN hospital". On the other hand he deposed on 12/04/2015 they have taken 11 prisoners in the CAR Van, therefore from the evidence of this witness, prosecution has failed to prove its case.

41. On perusal of the evidence of the above said witness that they have not stated that from where the accused has got MO3 and MO6. PW11 and 12 have not at all collected the documents nor CCTV camera footage about body search of the accused from Parappana agrahara Central prison, in this regard the prosecution has not produced from where the accused has got MO3 and 6. PW1 deposed that he was taken for treatment in the NIMHANS Hospital, thereafter took to Mallya Hospital and there he was inpatient for 7 days took treatment in the said hospital. In this regard the prosecution has not at all produced any document to show that the PW1 was taken treatment in the Mallya Hospital as he was in Mallya hospital as in-patient. In this regard the prosecution has not produced the relevant documents nor evidence. Prosecution has not secured any of the independent witness who were presented in the incident on 11/04/2015 that to prove that the accused has assaulted on PW1. As PW2 deposed in his evidence that the accused was tied with handcuff and chain and there are many number of people were going here and there in the corridor of NIMHAN hospital, in such a case it is very difficulty for any accused to escape from the custody of the police. The prosecution ought to produce independent witness, but he has not produced an independent witness. PW 3 and PW5 deposed that they did not know the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 deposed that he has signed the Ex.P3 in the police station. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses prosecution has failed to prove the spot mahazer. When the convicted prisoner were taken from the central prison and handing over the convicted prisoner then the authorities will verify and do physical body search of the convicted prisoner then they will take the convicted prisoner. In this case CCTV camera footage and other documents are not produced regarding assault made by the accused and also having MO3 and 6 with him. Therefore for the above said reason, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Without sufficient and cogent evidence, the Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offence. Accordingly, I answer Points No.1 to 4 in the 'Negative'.