Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Police Inspector, Wilson Garden Police Station has filed this charge sheet against accused No.1 to 9 for offences punishable under Sections U/s.143, 146, 147, 341, 323, 355, 427, 448, 506 R/W sec.149 of I.P.C. and Sec.2 of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act-1981.

2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that:-

It is a case of the prosecution that, on 17.03.2016 between 03.00 to 03.30 accused persons who came in a group trespassed into Al-Ameen degree college situated in S. R. Nagara, the accused were scolded the Secretary Shuban Sharrif with filthy language and they were shouting that the scholar ship was not properly given. They also threw chappals at CW4 who went to speak to the accused persons and insulted him the accused persons trespassed into the college by preventing the security guard from performing his duty also they assaulted CW1 and 2 with their hands and broke the furnishers causing a loss of Rs.25,000/- and threatened to kill CW3 and 4 thereby accused No.1 to 9 have committed the offences punishable under sections U/s.143, 146, 147, 341, 323, 355, 427, 448, 506 R/W sec.149 of I.P.C. and Sec.2 of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act-1981.

4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of your common intention accused no.1 to 9 voluntarily caused simple hurt to CW4 by throwing slippers and also caused simple hurt to CW1 & 2 and thereby committed offence punishable under section 323 R/w Sec.149 of IPC?

5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of your common intention accused no.1 to 9 trespassed into the college campus of Al-ameen college and assaulted CW1, 2 and 4 with intent to dishonour CW1, 2 and 4 and other officials of college and thereby committed offence punishable under section 355 R/w Sec.149 of IPC?

7. The following are findings to above points.

Point No.1 to 8: In the Negative Point No.9: As per final order, for the following:

REA S ON S

8. Point No.1 to 8 : As these points are interlinked they are taken together for discussion. on 17.03.2016 between 03.00 to 03.30 accused persons who came in a group trespassed into Al-Ameen degree college situated in S. R. Nagara, the accused were scolded the Secretary Shuban Sharrif with filthy language and they were shouting that the scholar ship was not properly given. They also threw chappals at CW4 who went to speak to the accused persons and insulted him the accused persons trespassed into the college by preventing the security guard from performing his duty also they assaulted CW1 and 2 with their hands and broke the furnishers causing a loss of Rs.25,000/- and threatened to kill CW3 and 4 thereby accused No.1 to 9 have committed the offences punishable under sections U/s.143, 146, 147, 341, 323, 355, 427, 448, 506 R/W sec.149 of I.P.C. and Sec.2 of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act-1981.

16. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court it is pertinent to note that the complainant/PW1 even though has deposed about the incident in his examination in chief by the Ld. App. But his further cross- examination by the advocate for accused contradicts with his examination in chief and the complaint. He has stated that because of the compulsion of others he has signed the mahazar and complaint but does not know its contents. Similarly the further cross- examination of PW2 contradicts with his examination in chief wherein he has denied the incident. PW3 has turned hostile as such his evidence is not of any help to the prosecution. PW4 has deposed about the incident but his evidence is silent as to where he was present when the alleged incident had taken place. Further his evidence is inconsistent in nature same cannot be relied in nature. PW5 has stated that he has not seen the incident and only after hearing the sound he went downstairs. It is elicited that he does not know which of the accused had come to the college. On considering the oral and documentary evidence it is pertinent to note that the complainant and the injured have given contradictory evidence which cannot be relied upon to the prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the 5 photographs are marked Ex.P4 to 8 and the CD's are marked as 9 and 10. It can be seen that few people are trying to climb the gate and one person appears to be holding a material in his hand which is not clear as to whether it is a chappals or any other material. There are no photographs of the damaged chairs and tables. The I.O. conducted the investigation has failed to seize the material objects used to commit the offence of assault that is the chappals also he has failed to take the photographs or produced the broken chairs and tables. As such there is lacuna in the investigation carried out by the I.O. As discussed supra the evidence of the complainant and the injured persons are contradictory and inconsistent in nature. As such their evidence cannot be relied. In view of the inconsistency and lacuna in the investigation carried by the I.O. Also in the absence of conclusive or corroborative evidence before the court. As such it can be safely said the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 to 9 have committed offences punishable under sections 143, 146, 147, 341, 323, 355, 427, 448, 506 R/W sec.149 of I.P.C. and Sec.2 of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act-1981. Hence point No.1 to 8 are answered in the Negative.