Bangalore District CourtState By Yelahanka Police Station vs No. : 1. Upendra Kumar on 16 July, 2018IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
             MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU

   Dated: This the 16th day of JULY 2018

                      :Present:
              Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
                44th ACMM, Bengaluru

                   C.C.No.35934/2011

Complainant    :    State by Yelahanka Police station

                                (By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)

                          -V/s-

Accused No.         : 1. Upendra Kumar,
                     S/o Krishnappa,
                     R/at Janatha colony,
                     Hunasamaranahalli,
                     Yelahanka, Bengaluru.

                     2. Smt. Akkayamma,
                     W/o Krishnappa,
                     Aged about 56 years,
                     R/at Ramanjaneya Layout,
                     Janatha colony,
                     Hunasamaranahalli,
                     Yelahanka, Bengaluru.

                     3. Smt. Vijayalakshmi,
                     W/o Krishnappa,
                     Aged about 35 years,
                     R/at Ramanjaneya Layout,
                     Janatha colony,
                     Hunasamaranahalli,
                     Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
                                   2                   C.C.No.35934/2011




                      4. Smt. Preethi
                      (Case against accused No.4 is split up)

                            (By Sri.Ramesh, advocate )

                      JUDGMENTThe PSI of Yelahanka      Police Station has filed charge sheet

against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.143,

448, 323, 504, 506, 354 r/w 149 ofIPC.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:It is alleged that, on 16/09/2011 at about 8.30 a.m. in the

morning, accused persons along with other 10-15 persons, in

furtherance of common object, illegally trespassed into the house of

C.W. 1 Smt. Shymala and C.W. 4 Sri. Narayanappa, situated at

Shivanna Master Building, Hunasamaranahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru,

within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, picked up quarrel with

C.W. 1 and 4, abused them in filthy language, accused No.1 pulled

the hair of C.W. 1 Smt. Shymala, assaulted her by his hands, torn her

Sari and Blouse, tried to outrage her modesty, accused No.2 also

assaulted C.W. 1 by her hands, voluntarily caused hurt,           all the

accused persons along with 10-15 person belonging to Karnataka3                  C.C.No.35934/2011Rakshana Vedike posed threat to their lives with dire consequences

and thereby committed aforesaid offences.         Therefore, C.W.1

Smt. Shyamala has lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police.As such, this case came to be registered against accused persons.Thereafter, I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar,

recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained wound certificates

from the concerned medical authorities and      after completion of

investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the

aforesaid offences.3. The accused No.1 to 3 are on bail and they are represented

through their counsel.    Inspite of sufficient efforts, accused No.4

has not been secured before this court. Hence, case against accused

No.4 is split up.4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished

to accused No.1 to 3 as required underSec.207of Cr.P.C.          The

cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 143, 448, 323, 504,

506, 354 r/w 149 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read

over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to4                  C.C.No.35934/2011them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the

prosecution is called upon to prove its case.6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined

three witnesses as P.W. 1 to 3 and got marked 03 documents at

Ex.P.1 to P.3.7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of

accused persons as required underSection 313of Cr.P.C. has been

recorded, wherein they have denied the incriminating evidence

adduced against them and they have not chosen to lead their side

defense evidence. Hence, the case is posted for arguments.8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on

record.9. The following points would arise for my consideration:1. Whether the prosecution proves
            beyond reasonable doubt that, on 16/09/2011
            at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning, accused
            persons along with other 10-15 persons, in
            furtherance of common object, picked up
            quarrel with C.W. 1 Smt. Shyamala and
            C.W. 4 Sri. M. Narayanappa, at their house
            situated at Shivanna Master Building,
            Hunasamaranahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru,
            within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station,
            formed an unlawful assembly and thereby5                   C.C.No.35934/2011committed an offence punishable U/s.143 r/w
149 ofIPC?2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, on the
aforesaid date, time, place and under
aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in
furtherance of common object,         illegally
trespassed into the house of C.W. 1 Smt.
Shymala and C.W. 4 Sri. Narayanappa,
situated at Shivanna Master Building,
Hunasamaranahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru,
within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station
and thereby committed an offence punishable
underSection 448r/w 149 ofIPC?3.  Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, on the
aforesaid date, time, place and under
aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in
furtherance of common object, picked up
quarrel with C.W. 1 and 4, abused them in
filthy language and thereby committed an
offence punishable underSection 504r/w 149
ofIPC?4. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that, on the
aforesaid date, time, place and under
aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in
furtherance of common object, accused No.1
pulled the hair of C.W. 1 Smt. Shymala,
assaulted her by his hands, torn her Sari and
Blouse, tried to outrage her modesty and
thereby committed an offence punishable
underSection 354r/w 149 ofIPC?6                  C.C.No.35934/20115. Whether the prosecution proves
           beyond reasonable doubt that, on the
           aforesaid date, time, place and under
           aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in
           furtherance of common object, accused No.2
           also assaulted C.W. 1 by her hands,
           voluntarily   caused    hurt and    thereby
           committed an offence punishable underSection 323r/w 149 ofIPC?6.   Whether the prosecution proves
           beyond reasonable doubt that, on the
           aforesaid date, time, place and under
           aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in
           furtherance of common object along with 10-
           15 person belonging to Karnataka Rakshana
           Vedike posed threat to the lives of C.W. 1 and
           4    with dire consequences and thereby
           committed an offence punishable underSection 506r/w 149 ofIPC?7. What Order?10.My findings on the above points are as follows: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

           Point No.6 :     IN THE NEGATIVE7                   C.C.No.35934/2011Point No.7 :     As per final order for the following

                             REASONS

        11. Points No.1 to 6:        All these points involve similar set offacts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common

discussion.12. This case has been registered on the back ground of an

assault, abusal, outrage of modesty and threatening C.W. 1 and 4

with dire consequences by the accused persons.13. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has cited as

many as 14 witnesses and examined only three witnesses as P.W. 1

to 3.    The prosecution has examined the complainant has             P.W. 3,

wherein she has deposed as per her complaint averments. On the

contrary not subjected herself for cross-examination, sufficient

opportunities have been given. Therefore, cross-examination of P.W.

3 is taken as nil.     As such, the evidence of complainant becomes

incomplete, hence cannot be considered for any purpose.14.   On the other hand, the prosecution has examined the

husband of complainant as P.W. 1, wherein he has deposed as per

the complaint averments and at the same time, he has pleaded his8                  C.C.No.35934/2011ignorance by stating that, he is not aware of the names of 10-15

persons who had unlawfully trespassed into their house. Though this

witness speaks of alleged incident by stating that along with accused

persons, there were other 10-15 persons who had illegally entered

their house.   Per contra, those 10-15 persons are not made as

accused in this case. In view of incomplete evidence of complainant

and hostility of other material witness, the evidence of P.W. 1 is not

sufficient to hold the guilt of accused persons.15.   As aforesaid, one eye witness is examined as P.W. 2,

wherein he has turned hostile, not deposed anything against accused

persons and thereby not supported the prosecution case. As such,

nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination16.   More over, sufficient opportunity was given to secure

remaining witnesses. It is to be noted that, this court has issued

summons, warrants and even proclamation in order to secure the

witnesses. Except C.W. 1, 4 and 5, none of the witnesses i.e. C.W. 2,

3, 6 to 10 and 12 to 14 have appeared before this court. Therefore,

prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons

beyond reasonable doubt.      Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be9                    C.C.No.35934/2011extended in favour of accused No.1 to 3. As a result, the prosecution

has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No.1 to 3

with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence.           Therefore,

above points No.1 to 6 are answered in the Negative.17.Point No.7: In view of the negative findings on the above

points No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-ORDER

      Acting U/s.248(1) ofCr.P.C., accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty
and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.143, 448, 323, 504, 506, 354
r/w 149 ofIPC.The bail & bail bond of accused No. 1 to 3 and sureties shall stands
cancelled.(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after
corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this the 16th day of July 2018).(Mala N.D)
                                           XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.10                 C.C.No.35934/2011ANNEXURE1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION

     P.W. 1: Narayanappa
     P.W. 2: Rajakumar
     P.W. 3: Smt. Shymala2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION

     Ex.P.1      :   Statement of P.W. 2
     Ex.P. 2     :   Complaint
     Ex.P.2(a)   :   Signature of P.W. 3
     Ex.P.3      :   Spot Mahazar
     Ex.P.3(a)   :   Signature of P.W. 33. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED
    FOR THE DEFENCE
                     NIL4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION
                      NIL


                                                 (Mala N.D)
                                           XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.11                    C.C.No.35934/2011Judgment pronounced in Open
      Court vide separate:-ORDER

      Acting U/s.248(1) ofCr.P.C., accused No.1
to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted of the
offences punishable U/s.143, 448, 323, 504, 506,
354 r/w 149 ofIPC.The bail & bail bond of accused No. 1 to 3and sureties shall stands cancelled.(Mala N.D)
                   XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.