Bangalore District Court
Madhu vs Hemanth Kumar Alias Hemanth on 27 February, 2025
KABC030571852019
Presented on : 08.08.2019
Registered on : 08.08.2019
Decided on : 27.02.2025
Duration : 05y/06m/19days
IN THE COURT OF XLI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 27th day of February 2025
C.C.No.18088/2019
COMPLAINANT : The State
by Sampigehalli Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Hemanth Kumar @ Hemanth
S/o. Krishnamurthy, Aged 35 years,
R/at.Rachenahalli Village,
S.R.K Nagar Post, Bengaluru.
2. Srinivas
S/o. Naryanappa, Aged 43 years,
R/at. SSV Cable Network,
Nagavara Village, Bengaluru.
3. Krishnamurthy
S/o. Channegowda, Aged 60 years,
R/at.Rachenahalli Village,
S.R.K Nagar Post, Bengaluru.
2 C.C.No.18088/2019
Date of Commission of 31.12.2018
offence
Date of report 31.12.20198
Date of arrest On 07.02.2023, the accused No.1 to 3
appeared before the Court and got
enlarged themselves on bail.
Name of the complainant Sri.Madhu
Date of commencement 09.08.2023
of recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 03.12.2024
Offences complained of U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of
IPC
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.S.Jayaprakash Narayan,Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 27.02.2025]
The P.S.I of Sampigehalli police station has filed charge
sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.341,
447, 504, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
The CW.5 is the owner of site No.180 & 181 in Sy.No.90/3,
old khatha No.762, new BBMP khatha No.762/90/3-180-181 and
site No.182 in Sy.No.90/3, old khatha No.762, new BBMP khatha
3 C.C.No.18088/2019No.762/182 measuring 1200 feet property, situated at
Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram hobli, Bengaluru. The CW.5
entered into a building construction agreement with CW.1 on
24.12.2018 to demolish the old sheet houses situated therein and
construct new houses. Accordingly, on 26.12.2018 at 10.30a.m.,
when the CW.1 with the help of CW.2 and other workers
demolished the old houses and started digging, the accused in
furtherance of common intention, illegally trespassed into the
property of CW.5, stopped CW.1 from doing his work, threatened
them with dire consequences and on 31.12.2018 at 2p.m., the
accused No.1 illegally trespassed into the property of CW.5,
wrongfully restrained CW.1, abused him in a filthy language and
threatened him with dire consequences, if he continues with the
construction work therein. On the basis of computerized typed
information given by CW.1, the Sampigehalli police have
registered this case in Cr.No.307/2018.
4 C.C.No.18088/2019
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the
accused. This Court has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable U/Sec. 341, 447, 504, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
4. In response to the service of summons on 07.02.2023, the
accused No.1 to 3 appeared before and got enlarged themselves
on bail. The Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and
furnished charge sheet copies to the accused.
5. The Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds
to discharge the accused, the Court framed charges for the
offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 447, 504, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
The accused did not plead guilty. They claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 6
witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11 documents.
The accused got marked Ex.D.1 to 3 by way of confrontation.
After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, this court
recorded the statements of the accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,
wherein, they denied the incriminating evidence led against them.
They did not choose to lead their defense evidence.
5 C.C.No.18088/2019
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri.SJN
Advocate.
8. On the basis of allegations made against the accused, the
following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1
to 3 in furtherance of common intention
illegally trespassed into the property of
CW.5 on 26.12.2018 at 10.30a.m., and on
31.12.2018 at 2p.m., which is situated at
new BBMP khatha No.762/90/3-180-181
and No.762/182 measuring 1200 feet of
Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram hobli,
Bengaluru and thereby they have
committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.447 r/w.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place the accused No.1 to 3
in furtherance of common intention
wrongfully restrained CW.1 from
6 C.C.No.18088/2019continuing with construction work and
thereby they have committed the offence
punishable U/Sec. 341 r/w.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place the accused No.1 to 3
in furtherance of common intention
abused CW.1 and his workers in a filthy
language and thereby they have
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.
504 r/w.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid
date, place and time, the accused No.1 to 3
in furtherance of common intention
threatened CW.1 with dire consequences
if, he continues with construction work
therein and thereby they have committed
the offence punishable U/Sec.506 r/w.34
of IPC?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
7 C.C.No.18088/2019Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : In Negative
Point No.5 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 to 4: As all these points are interrelated, I take all thefour points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the
accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention illegally
trespassed into the property of CW.5 on 26.12.2018 at 10.30a.m.,
and on 31.12.2018 at 2p.m., which is situated at new BBMP khatha
No.762/90/3-180-181 and No.762/182 measuring 1200 feet of
Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram hobli, Bengaluru, wrongfully
restrained CW.1 from continuing with construction work, abused
him and his workers in a filthy language and threatened him with
dire consequences if, he continues with construction work therein.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the
complainant/CW.1 as PW.1, eye witness/CW.2 as PW.2, alleged
owner of the property/CW.5 as PW.3, circumstantial
8 C.C.No.18088/2019
witness/CW.4 as PW.4, mahazer witness/CW.3 as PW.5 and
IO/CW.6 as PW.6 and got marked the first
information/complaint as Ex.P.1, spot mahazer as Ex.P.2,
photograph as Ex.P.3, portion of the statement of PW.2 as Ex.P.4,
portion of the statement of PW.5 as Ex.P.5, FIR as Ex.P.6, report
given by Prakash Bhajantri as Ex.P.7, police notice as Ex.P.8, copy
of building construction license as Ex.P.9, copy of NOC as Ex.P.10
and copy of electricity bill as Ex.P.11. By way of confrontation, the
accused got marked copies of notice dated: 21.01.2019, 06.02.2019
and 11.01.2019 issued by BBMP as Ex.D.1 to 3 and copy of
endorsement issued by Sampigehalli police as Ex.D.4.
12. CW.1/PW.1-Madhu, in his evidence has stated that, he is
acquainted with the accused. The CW.5 is the owner of 3 sites
situated at Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli village. He does not
remember the site numbers and khatha numbers. Its
measurement is 90 X 40. On 26.12.2018, the CW.5 entered into an
agreement with him to demolish 3 sheet rooms existing therein
and construct new house. On 26.12.2018 at 10a.m., the accused
9 C.C.No.18088/2019
No.1 came there and asked him not to proceed with the work. He
informed the same to CW.5. On 31.12.2018 at 2p.m., the accused
No.1 came to the site and asked him to stop the work and scolded
him. He informed the same to CW.5. Accordingly, they gave
Ex.P.1 complaint to the police. Ex.P.2 mahazer bears his signature.
He signed that document in the police station. He does not
remember the exact date, when he signed that document. He is
not aware of the contents of the same. On the 2nd day after
lodging complaint, the police visited the spot and inspected the
same. But, they did not take any action at the spot. He showed the
spot to the police. At that time, the CW.2 and 4 were present.
Ex.P.3 is the photograph of the spot.
13. CW.2/PW.2-Vijay Kumar, in his evidence has stated that,
the CW.1 does building contract work, where he was getting bar
bending work from him. When they were working in site No.180,
181 and 182 of Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli village, the police
visited the spot. Prior to that, someone asked them to stop the
work. The CW.1 informed the same to him. When police visited
10 C.C.No.18088/2019
the spot, the CW.1 told that, the quarrel took place in the same
spot. Ex.P.2 mahazer bears his signature. On 02.01.2019 he signed
that document, where he was working. The CW.1 showed the
spot to the police. The police did not draw any mahazer at the
spot. He has not given any statement to the police. He has
identified Ex.P.3 photograph.
14. CW.5/PW.3-Roopa Doddamani, in her evidence has stated
that, she is acquainted with the accused. The CW.1 is her
contractor. The CW.2 and 3 are bar bending workers. The CW.4 is
an electrical contractor. She owns site No.180, 181 and 182 at
Sy.No.90/3. She had purchased site No.180 and 181 from one
Murthy and site No.182 from Masood Ali. The khatha of all the 3
sites stands in her name. When they were putting up
construction of their house, all the three accused attacked on their
house. They stoped the workers from doing their work. The
accused No.1 abused CW.1 in a filthy language and threatened
him to kill. Subsequently, the CW.1 gave complaint to the police.
She has identified Ex.P.3 photo.
11 C.C.No.18088/2019
15. CW.4/PW.4-Venkatesh, in his evidence has stated that, the
PW.1 is his elder brother, who is doing civil construction work,
where he used to do electric work. On 26.12.2018, the PW.1 took
him to site No.180, 181 and 182 of Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli
village. It contained old sheet houses. The PW.1 told that, he got
the contract to construct new houses by demolishing existing
sheet houses. Hence, he asked him to remove electricity
connections given to those sheet houses. He had electricians by
name Sharan and Madhu with him for the said work. On that
day, when they were doing their work, 2-3 persons came there
and asked them not to do any work there. Hence, he informed the
same to his elder brother. The PW.1 asked whether
Krishnamurthy and Srinivas came there? After a lapse of 4 days,
they went to the spot to start their work. At 11 a.m., 3 persons
came and asked them to stop the work. He informed the same to
his elder brother. His brother talked to his owner and gave
complaint to the police. He had been to the station with PW.1. The
police visited the spot and inspected the same. Except this no
12 C.C.No.18088/2019
other incident took place. He is not sure whether, the accused
No.3 was present at the spot or not. He has identified accused
No.1 and 2.
16. CW.3/PW.5- Uday Kumar, in his evidence has stated that,
he is not acquainted with the accused and PW.1. The PW.2 is his
elder brother. He does not know anything about this case. He has
not witnessed any quarrel. Ex.P.2 bears his signature. One day in
the year 2018 or 2019, he had been behind IBM, Hebbala to call
PW.2, where he was working. At that time as per the sayings of
PW.2, he signed Ex.P.2. He is not aware of the contents of the
same. He does not know the reason as to why the police took his
signature to that document.
17. CW.6/PW.6-Shivappa M.Naikar, in his evidence has stated
that, when he was working as PSI at Sampigehalli police station,
on 31.12.2018 at 6.15p.m., the PW.1 came to the station and gave
Ex.P.1 complaint. On the basis of which, he registered Ex.P.6-FIR.
On the same day, he collected xerox copies of the orders passed in
O.S.No.9468/2018, agreement of building construction, Karnataka
13 C.C.No.18088/2019
gazette publication with respect to Sy.No.90 and 91, sketch,
sanction letter of electricity connection, sale deeds of site No.180,
181 and 182, tax receipts and RTC extracts of Sy.No.90 and 91. On
02.01.2019 at 10.30a.m., he visited the spot, which was showed by
PW.1 and drawn Ex.P.2 mahazer till 11.15am., in the presence of
PW.2 and 5. On the same day, he recorded the re-statement of
PW.1 and statements of PW.2 to 5. On 25.06.2019, he issued Ex.P.8
notice to accused No.1 and 3 U/Sec.91 of Cr.P.C., to co-operate for
the investigation of this case. Sri Prakash, the constable gave
Ex.P.7 report for having served the notices to the accused. By
completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the
accused.
18. On the basis of Ex.P.1-computerized typed
information/complaint given by PW.1 , the Sampigehalli Police
have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed charge
sheet against the accused. In Ex.P.1/complaint, the PW.1 alleged
that, Smt.Roopa Doddamani D/o. Retired S.P by name B.S.
Marthukar, entered into an agreement with him to demolish the
14 C.C.No.18088/2019
existing old houses in site No.180, 181, 182 in Sy.No.90/3 of
Rachenahalli Village and construct new house. Accordingly, he
demolished the existing old houses and started construction of
new houses. On 26.12.2018 at 10.30 a.m., when they were
preparing construction, the accused by name Hemanth Kumar
and Srinivas illegally trespassed into the said site and asked them
not to proceed with any work or else they have to face the
consequences. He informed the same to Roopa Doddamani.
Accordingly, they informed the same to the police. The police
called those persons to the station and advised them and as per
the directions of the owner, he started construction work. Inspite
of it, on 31.12.2018 at 2 p.m., the accused by name Hemanth,
Akram, Rajshekar and others illegally trespassed into the site and
abused them in a filthy language by stating that they had already
told them not to proceed with any work and threatened them to
kill. Those persons had no rights in the property. The said
property is situated in the private extension, which does not come
within the jurisdiction of BDA. The Owner of the property had
15 C.C.No.18088/2019
filed civil suit and obtained injunction against the accused. Inspite
of it, the accused are obstructing them from putting up
construction. By violating court orders, they have committed
crime. As the owner advised him to lodge complaint, he has
lodged complaint against Hemanth Kumar, Srinivas,
Krishnamurthy, Akram and Rajashekar.
19. In order to hold that, the accused illegally trespassed into
the property owned by PW.3/CW.5, the prosecution has to prove
that the PW.3 is the owner of site No.180, 181, 182 of Sy.No.90/3
of Rachenahalli Village. In the present case, the prosecution has
neither produced the certified copies of the original sale deeds of
Site No.180, 181, 182 of Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli Village nor
khatha extracts to show that PW.3 is the owner of those sites.
20. The PW.1 in his evidence has stated that, the CW.5/PW.3
entered into an agreement with him on 26.12.2018 to demolish 3
sheet rooms existing therein and construct new house and on the
same day at 10a.m., the accused No.1 came there and asked him
not to proceed with the work. But, the PW.1 did not mention the
16 C.C.No.18088/2019
exact date in Ex.P.1 complaint, on which he entered into an
agreement with PW.3. Surprisingly, the accused asked him to stop
the construction work on the day, when he entered into an
agreement. As per Ex.P.1, the accused No.1 and 2 asked him to
stop the work on 26.12.2018 at 10.30a.m. Hence, a question arises
in the mind of the Court, at what time the alleged agreement was
entered between PW.1 and PW.3.
21. The prosecution has not produced the copy of that
agreement before the court. In the present case, there is a recital
in Ex.P.1 stating that the PW.1 and PW.3 had lodged complaint
against Hemanth Kumar and Srinivas for the alleged incident
dated 26.12.2018. But the prosecution has not produced the copy
of so called complaint lodged by the PW.1 or PW.3 on 26.12.2018.
22. On the other hand, by way of confrontation, the accused
produced an endorsement dated 26.12.2018 issued by the PSI of
Sampigehalli police station, which is marked as Ex.D.4. As per
that document, a complaint was lodged by Krishnamurthy.C, the
17 C.C.No.18088/2019
accused No.3 herein, wherein, it is stated that ನನ ೆಂಡ ೕಮ
ರತ ಮರವರ ೆಸ ನ ರುವ ಾ ೇನಹ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ .91 ರ ನ 4 ಎಕ ೆ 4 ಗುಂ’ೆ
ಜ)ೕನು ಮತು* 10 ಗುಂ’ೆ ಕ ಾಬು ಜ)ೕ,ನ ಒಳ/ೆ 0ಾ ೋ ಆಪ 4ತ 5.6. ಾ7
ಾಗೂ 8ಾ9 ೕ: ಎಂಬುವವರು ಅ ಕಮ ಪ ೇಶ =ಾ5ದು?, ಅದನು ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀÝPÉÌ ತಮ/ೆ
Aೆದ Bೆ ಾಕು *ದು?, DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ಅವರನು CಾDೆ/ೆ ಕ ೆE ಸೂಕ* ಳFವ Bೆ
,ೕಕAೇBೆಂದು Bೊಟ9 ದೂರು ಇIಾJK. From the contents of that document,
it appears that unknown persons trespassed into the property
owned by the wife of accused No.3.
23. Ex.D.2 is the notice dated 06.02.2019 issued by Assistant
Executive Engineer, BDA. On the basis of complaint given by
Smt.Rathnamma wife of Krishnamurthy on 05.01.2019 and
31.01.2019, the AEE issued notice to Roopa Doddamani, the PW.3.
In order to appreciate the evidence led by the witnesses in proper
manner, it is necessary to know the contents of Ex.D.2, wherein it
is stated that ಾ ೇನಹ /ಾಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.91 ರ ಒಟು9 LE*ೕಣ 4 ಎಕ ೆ 4
18 C.C.No.18088/2019
ಗುಂ’ೆ ಾಗೂ ಖ ಾಬು 10 ಗುಂ’ೆ LE*ೕಣ ಅBಾವ ಬOಾವDೆ/ೆ
ಭೂ8ಾQRೕನಪ5EBೊಂಡು BಾಯBಾ ನTೆಯಂIೆ ಬOಾವDೆಯನು ,=ಾಣ
=ಾಡUಾVರುತ*W.ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು ಸದ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ 91 ರ ಪಕXದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.90/3
ರ ಜ)ೕ,ನ [ಾಸV =ಾ ೕಕರು ಬOಾವDೆಯನು ,)EರುIಾ* ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ
,ೕವ^ ಸದ [ಾಸV ಬOಾವDೆಯ 180, 181 ಮತು* 182 ರ , ೇಶನದ ಕಟ9ಡ
,=ಾಣ =ಾಡು *ದು?, ಸದ , ೇಶನಗಳF ಸ
ೆ ನಂ.91 ರ aಾಗಶಃ LE*ೕಣದಲೂ
ಬರು *ರುವ^WಾV ದೂರುWಾರರು ದೂರನು ,ೕ5ರುIಾ* ೆ. ಈ dನ Uೆಯ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.90/3
ರ ಜ)ೕನು ಮತು* ಸ ೆ ನಂ.91ರ ಜ)ೕನುಗಳ ಹದು?ಬಸ*ನು ಪುನ
=ಾ5BೊಳAೇBಾVದು?. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ Aೆಂಗಳeರು ಅfವೃK? hಾRBಾರದ ಭೂ8ಾQRೕನ
iಾ[ೆಯ ಭೂ=ಾಪಕKಂದ ಸದ Bಾಯವನು Bೈ/ೊಳಲು ಪತ
ವJವಹ ಸUಾಗು *ದು? , ಅ ಯವ ೆ/ೆ ,ೕವ^ ಸದ , ೇಶನಗಳ ,ವdಸು *ರುವ ಕಟ9ಡ
Bಾಮ/ಾ ಯನು ಸkVತ/ೊ ಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸUಾVWೆ. In continuation of
19 C.C.No.18088/2019
that notice, it is stated that, ಸದ ಗ5ಯನು ,ಖರ ಾV ಗು Eದ ನಂತರ
Bಾಮ/ಾ ಯನು ಮುಂದುವ ೆಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಮIೊ*l EWೆ ಾಗೂ ಸ ೆ
ನಂ.91 ರ ಭೂ =ಾ ೕಕರು ಸಹ Bಾಮ/ಾ ಮುಂದುವ ೆEರುವ ಬ/ೆm ಈ ಕnೇ /ೆ
ದೂರು ಸ Eರುವ dನ Uೆಯ ಈ ಕೂಡUೇ Bಾಮ/ಾ ಯನು ಸkVತ/ೊ ಸಲು
ಸUಾVWೆ, ತopದ? , Bಾನೂನು ೕತJ ಕಮBೈ/ೊಳUಾಗುವ^ದು. The same
ingredients are mentioned in Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.3.
24. If we read the contents of Ex.P.1 in comparison with Ex.D. 1
to 3, then it appears that, there is a dispute regarding the location
of site No.180, 181 and 182 of Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli Village.
Though the PW.1 contends that he had entered into an agreement
with PW.3 regarding construction of new building by
demolishing the existing old building, the prosecution has not
produced a single document to show that, the disputed property
consisted of 3 old sheet houses.
20 C.C.No.18088/2019
25. How the PW.1 being a contractor can say that the accused
have no right in the property and that property does not come
within the purview of BDA. According to the PW.1, the owner of
the property had obtained Injunction order from the civil court
and the accused have violated the court orders and committed
crime. The prosecution has not produced the copy of so-called
injunction order passed by the Civil Court.
26. It is pertinent to note here that, the PW.1 is not an owner of
any property in Sy.No.90/3 or adjacent land in Sy.No.91. He is
just an alleged contractor of doing civil work. Surprisingly, he
says that, the accused have no right over the property.
Ex.P.1/complaint is given as though the PW.1 has seen the
incident personally. As per Ex.P.1, the accused trespassed into
the property, abused PW.1 in a filthy language and threatened
him to kill, if he continues with the construction work. But the
contents of Ex.P.1 are contrary to the oral evidence led by PW.4,
who is the younger brother of PW.1.
21 C.C.No.18088/2019
27. The PW.4 in his chief examination has stated that, he along
with Sharan and Madhu were removing the electric connection to
the existing old houses on 26.12.2018 and at 10.30 am, 2-3 persons
came there and asked them to go out of the property and stop the
work. He informed the same to his elder brother. In continuation
of his evidence, he has stated that, after a lapse of 4 days, again
when they visited the site and continued with his work, the same
3 persons came at 11 a.m., and asked him not to do any work.
Accordingly, he informed the same to his elder brother. In turn,
his elder brother informed the same to the owner and
subsequently, they lodged the complaint.
28. It means that, the PW.1 was not present at the spot as on
26.12.2018 at 10.30 a.m., and subsequently after 4 days at 11 a.m.
The PW.6 is the investigation officer of the case. The PW.6 in his
cross examination has stated that, the PW.1 had come to the
station by getting the complaint typed and he had furnished
xerox copies of the building contract agreement, gazette
notification of Sy.No.90 and 91 of Rachenahalli village, sketch,
22 C.C.No.18088/2019
order for issuing electric connection, sale deeds of site No.1820,
181, 182, tax paid receipts and RTC extracts of Sy.No.91, 91 and
the orders passed in O.S.No.9468/2018, while lodging Ex.P.1
complaint. But there is no reference in Ex.P.1 stating that, the
complaint was enclosed with those documents.
29. During the course of cross examination, the PW.6 stated
that, the PW.1 did not give any complaint on 26.12.2018. He
admits that the property in Sy.No.91 and 90/3 of Rachenahalli
village are adjacent to each other. He admits that, the property in
Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli village was acquired by BDA for the
formation of Arkavathi Layout and he has seen those documents.
30. Surprisingly, the PW.6 in his cross examination has stated
that, ಸ ೆ ನಂ.91 ಮತು* 90/3 ರ ಸQತು*ಗಳF ಒಂದBೊXಂದು ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀÄ
ಇರುವ^ದ ಂದ hಾ8ಾ.3 ರವರು ಆ ೋoತರ ಸQತ*ನು ಒತು*ವ =ಾ5BೊಂqÀÄ 8ೈq
ನಂ.180, 181 ಮತು* 182 ರ ಕಟ9ಡ Bಾಮ/ಾ =ಾಡಲು hಾರಂfEWಾಗ ಅದನು
, ಸುವಂIೆ ಆ ೋoತರು ೇ ದ ಬ/ೆm rಾನು ದುBೊಂ5Wೆ?ೕrೆ. 8ೈq ನಂ.180, 181
23 C.C.No.18088/2019
ಾಗೂ 182 ಸ ೆ ನಂ.91ರ ಬರುತ*Ws
ೆ ೕ ಅಥ ಾ 90/3ರ ಬರುತ*Wೆsೕ ಎಂದು
ನನ/ೆ ೇಳಲು ಆಗುವ^Kಲ. When the IO himself does not know exactly
where site No.180, 181 and 182 are located, how he can say that
the accused have trespassed into the property owned by
CW.5/PW.3.
30. In continuation of his cross examination, the PW.6 admits
that, the accused had lodged complaint on 26.12.2018 alleging that
the PW.3 and other are started construction work by encroaching
their property. The PW.6 pleaded ignorance, when he was
suggested that the BDA had issued notice to PW.3 on the
allegation that she has started construction work by encroaching
the property of the accused.
31. In this case, the prosecution has produced the copies of
house construction license, NOC issued by the Secretary of
Dasarahalli Village Panchayath and receipt for having paid the
electricity bill, which are marked as Ex.P.9 to 11 respectively.
Ex.P.9 building license was issued in the name of M.Murthy on
24 C.C.No.18088/2019
30.01.2003 permitting him to put up construction in the property
bearing No.927/762/180-181. Likewise Ex.P.10 – NOC was issued
in favor of M.Murthy S/o. Muniswamy on 30.01.2003 to get
electricity connection to the property bearing khaneshumari
No.927/762-180-181 of Rachenahalli Village. Ex.P.11 is the
electricity bill issued in the name Murthy on 21.05.2005.
32. The prosecution has not produced any documents before
the court to show that the village panchayath or any authority
had permitted PW.3 to put up construction of house by
demolishing old houses existing in property bearing
No.927/762/180-181. The PW.1 nowhere in his chief
examination has stated that, the accused illegally trespassed into
the sites situated in Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli Village. On the
other hand, he has stated that the accused No.1 came to the site on
26.12.2018 and directed him not to do any work therein and on
30.01.2012 at 2 p.m., the accused No.1 asked him not to do any
work and scolded him for putting up construction. Nowhere in
his chief examination, the PW.1 stated that the accused No.2 and
25 C.C.No.18088/2019
3 had accompanied accused No.1 on those 2 dates and they
illegally trespassed into the property, abused them in a filthy
language and threatened them with dire consequences.
33. Moreover, the PW.1 being the complainant has gone to the
extent of saying that, he has signed Ex.P.2 mahazar in the station
and the police have not taken any action in his presence at the
spot. Hence, Sr.APP sought permission of the court to treat PW.1
as hostile witness. At that time, he admitted that the accused
No.1 to 3 illegally trespassed into the property owned by CW.5,
abused them in a filthy language and threatened them to kill.
While leading evidence, the PW.1 got written the dates and times
on his hand and by seeing those writings, he was deposing, which
was noted by the court.
34. Though the PW.1 contends that, there was a building
construction agreement between himself and PW.3, that
document is not produced before the court to get marked as
exhibit of the prosecution. During the course of cross
examination, the PW.1 admits that, he does not know to read and
26 C.C.No.18088/2019
write Kannada language. According to PW.1, the police have
written the complaint. When the PW.1 does not know to read
and write Kannada language, how he can give Ex.P.1 complaint,
which is typed in Kannada language. This makes the court to
doubt the genuineness of this case.
35. The PW.2 is said to be the bar bending worker, who was
doing works, where the PW.1 was doing building construction
work. The PW.2 stated that, the police visited site No.180, 181,
182 of Sy.No.90/3 of Rachenahalli Village when they were
working and prior to that, somebody had come and asked them
to stop the work. He did not say that, the accused No.1 to 3
trespassed into the property and quarreled with them. The PW.2
clearly stated that, the police have not taken any action at the spot
in his presence.
36. In the first para of Ex.P.2 while describing the spot, the IO
did not mention the site number, where the alleged mahazar was
drawn. Actual place of occurrence is left blank in Ex.P.2. The
PW.3 claims to be the owner of site No.180, 181, 182 of Sy.No.90/3
27 C.C.No.18088/2019
of Rachenahalli Village. The PW.3 admits that a civil suit is
pending with respect to the sites. She too admits that, the
property in Sy.No.90/3 and 91 are adjacent lands. During the
course of cross examination, the PW.3 admits that, the BDA had
issued Ex.D.1/ notice to her and she was directed to stop the
construction work. She too admits that on 06.02.2019, BDA had
issued Ex.D.2 /notice to her and in that notice also she was
directed to stop the construction work. She too admits that, the
BDA had issued Ex.D.3 notice on 11.01.2019 wherein she was
directed to stop the construction work.
37. In continuation of her cross examination, the PW.3 admits
that, she did not put up any construction in site No.180, 181, 182
prior to lodging police complaint and filing of civil suit. She
volunteered that, now they have constructed a house. The PW.3
stated that she never visited the police station and her father is
retired police officer. The prosecution has not produced any
documents before the court to show that, the PW.3 has put up
construction in those sites by getting license from the authority.
28 C.C.No.18088/2019
38. By reading oral evidence of PW.1 and 3, the Court can
presume that, there was some understanding between them to
put up construction in the disputed sites, when there was no
license or permission in the name of PW.3 from the authority to
put up the construction work. During the course of cross
examination, the PW.4 admits that, the father of PW.3 is a retired
police officer. He pleaded ignorance when he was suggested that
PW.3 and accused No.3 have filed civil suits with respect to the
sites.
39. By perusing Ex.P.3, we cannot presume that, the PW.3
was putting up construction by demolishing old existing houses.
From the photograph, it appears that, it was taken in vacant land.
Hence, it cannot be accepted that, the spot found in Ex.P.3 is the
disputed land. If we read the evidence led by the prosecution
witnesses in comparison with each other, then it appears that, the
IO is influenced by the status of the father of PW.3.
40. The prosecution has not produced any cogent evidence
before the court to show that the PW.3 is the owner of site No.180,
29 C.C.No.18088/2019
181 and 182 of Sy.No.190/3 of Rachenahalli Village. There is no
convincing evidence on record to hold that the accused No.1 to 3
illegally trespassed into those sites on 26.02.2018 at 10.30 a.m., and
on 31.12.2018 at 2 p.m., and they abused PW.1 in a filthy
language, wrongfully restrained him and threatened him with
dire consequences. The evidence led by PW.4 is contrary to the
contents of Ex.P.1 and the version of PW.1. Hence, there is no
cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged
crime.
41. From the oral evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, it
appears that, there are civil cases pending between the accused
No.3, his wife and PW.3 with respect to the disputed sites. It is the
specific defence of the accused that, the PW.3 intended to put up
construction of new house by encroaching the property owned
by Smt.Ratnamma, the wife of accused No.3. The chief
examination of PW.1 is contrary to his cross examination, which
was done by Sr.APP. In such circumstances, the evidence led by
PW.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the prosecution to hold the
30 C.C.No.18088/2019
accused guilty of the offences. From their evidence the charges
leveled against the accused are not proved.
42. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused
No.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention illegally trespassed
into the property of PW.3 on 26.12.2018 at 10.30a.m., and on
31.12.2018 at 2p.m., which is situated at new BBMP khatha
No.762/90/3-180-181 and No.762/182 measuring 1200 feet of
Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram hobli, Bengaluru, wrongfully
restrained PW.1 from continuing with construction work, abused
him and his workers in a filthy language and threatened him with
dire consequences if, he continues with construction work therein.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 to 4 in Negative.
Point No.5: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
By exercising the powers conferred
U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1
31 C.C.No.18088/2019to 3 are acquitted from the charges of
Sec.341, 447, 504, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the
accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled.
The bonds executed by the accused
No.1 to 3 U/Sec.437[A] of Cr.P.C., will be
in force for a period of 6 months.
TATTANDA Digitally signed by TATTANDA
DAMAYANTI SOMAIAH
DAMAYANTI Date: 2025.02.27 17:36:01
SOMAIAH +0530
27.02.2025 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI ACJM, BENGALURU
32 C.C.No.18088/2019
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Madhu PW.2 : Vijay Kumar PW.3 : Roopa Doddamani PW.4 : Venkatesh PW.5 : Uday Kumar PW.6 : Shivappa M Naikar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : First information/Complaint Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.1[b] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2[b] : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.2[c] : Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.2[d] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.3 : Photograph of the spot Ex.P.4 : Portion of the statement of PW.2 Ex.P.5 : Portion of the statement of PW.5 Ex.P.6 : FIR Ex.P.6[a] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.7 : Report given by Prakash Bajantri 33 C.C.No.18088/2019 Ex.P.7[a] : Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.8 : police notice U/Sec.91 of Cr.P.C Ex.P.9 : Copy of building permission Ex.P.10 : Copy of NOC to get electricity connection Ex.P.11 : Copy of receipt for having paid electricity bill LIST OF M.O's MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION : NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED : NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED : Ex.D.1 : Copy of notice issued by BDA to PW.3 Ex.D.2 : Copy of notice issued by BDA to PW.3 Ex.D.3 : Copy of notice issued by BDA to PW.3 Ex.D.4 : Copy of acknowledgment issued by Sampigehalli police
……………………………………………………………………………
Dictated on : 25.02.2025
Transcribed on : 25.02.2025
checked on : 27.02.2025
Signed on : 27.02.2025
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI A.C.J.M., BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app
“eCourts Services” from Android or iOS
[ad_1]
Source link