Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PSI, Halsurgate P.S. has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of prosecution case are that on 9-10-2018 at 1.30 p.m. while C.W.1 had attended O.S.No.1754/2006 before Hon'ble CCH 7 th Court, City Civil Court complex, Bengaluru and when he was in corridor of said court, accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained him and picked up quarrel with him. Further accused No.1 to 3 abused him in filthy language with an intention to insult and provoke him for breach of public peace. Further accused No.1 pulled shirt of C.W.1 and assaulted him on his face and head with hands and his shoe. Further accused No.1 threatened C.W.1 with dire consequences. Thereafter on same day C.W.1 lodged first information before Halsurgate police, they registered the case in their P.S.Cr.No.237/2018 and issued FIR. After completion of investigation, I.O. filed charge sheet against accused persons for above offences.

4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1, in furtherance of common intention of all accused assaulted C.W.1 with his shoe with an intention to dishonour him and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 355 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?

5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that on date, place, time mentioned above, accused no.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention abused C.W.1 in filthy language with an intention to provoke him for breach of public peace and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence punishable under section 504 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?

16. Thus on perusal of entire evidence of prosecution, it shows that except evidence of official witnesses and P.WS.2 and 3 interested witnesses, absolutely there is nothing on record to prove that accused no.1 to 3 had abused, assaulted, insulted and threatened P.W.1. Further the evidence of P.W.1 is discarded as he is not tendered for cross- examination. Further P.W.2 and 3 who are admittedly closely acquainted with P.W.1 are shown as panchas of Ex.P2 and they have inconsistently stated that they signed Ex.P2 mahazar at police station itself. This inconsistent version and interested version of said witnesses makes their evidence doubtful. Further as already stated above the seizure M.O.1 shoe is not proved to the satisfaction of the Court and the sole independent witness i.e., P.W.8 has turned hostile. Hence the evidence adduced by prosecution does not inspire the confidence of the Court to believe that the accused have committed above offences. Hence, it is incumbent upon this court to hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused have wrongfully restrained, abused, assaulted, dishonoured and threatened C.W.1 and thereby they have committed offences punishable under Sec.341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence point no.1 to 6 are answered in the Negative.

17. Point No.7: -

For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 to 6 , following is:

ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused no.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.

The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused no.1 to 3 shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stand canceled automatically.