[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Ravi Kulal vs Vinay Alias Vinod Kumar on 16 July, 2025
KABC030046272020
Presented on : 20-01-2020
Registered on : 20-01-2020
Decided on : 16-07-2025
Duration : 5 years, 5 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 16th day of July-2025
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.1168/2020
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.
Date of Offence 04.09.2016
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station,
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Vinay @ Vinod Kumar
S/o. Late.Ramdev,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at. No.403, Aparchand
Judgment 2 C.C.No.1168/2020
Apartment, Srinivasapura
Cross. Rajarajeshwari
Nagara, Bengaluru City.
A2. Anil Kumar
S/o. Ramakrishna,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at. No.9, Lakshmi Nilaya,
Old Bank Colony,
Chuchaghatta Main Road,
Bengaluru City.
A3. Raghu @ Punith @ Burude
S/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at, No.904, Near
Vinayaka Takies,
Gottigere Main Road,
Kotthanur, Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s. 323, 341, 427, 504, 506 R/
w sec., 34 of IPC
Plea Recorded on: 11.01.2023 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.1168/2020
Examination U/sec., On 01.07.2025
313 of Cr.P.C recorded
on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 3 are
Acquitted.
Date of Order 16.07.2025
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused persons for the offences
punishable U/sec,. 323, 341, 427, 504, 506 R/ w sec., 34 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:-
It is alleged that, Cw.1 is the Cashier in Vinutha Bar and
Restaurant, situated within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura Police Station and on 04.09.2016 at about
11.30 pm, the accused persons drink the alcohol and eat food
in the above said bar and when the Cw.1 being the cashier in
Judgment 4 C.C.No.1168/2020the bar asked the bill amount with the accused persons.
For that, the accused persons restrained the Cw.1 from not
moving forward and picked up the quarrel with the Cw.1 by
saying they are the rowdies of this area and abused him in
filthy language and damaged the fridge which was kept in the
bar and caused loss to the Cw.1. Further, the accused persons
assaulted the Cw.1 with their hands and caused simple
injuries. Further, when the Cw.2 and 3 came to stop the
quarrel the accused persons assaulted them also and given life
threat to Cw.1 to 3 and thereby the accused persons have
committed the above said alleged offences which are offences
punishable U/sec,. 323, 341, 427, 504, 506 R/ w sec., 34 of
IPC.
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
offence punishable offences punishable U/sec,. 323, 341, 427,
504, 506 R/ w sec., 34 of IPC against the accused persons
and accused persons were released on bail. Copy of the
prosecution papers furnished to the accused persons as
required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has
been framed and read over to the accused persons language
known to them wherein they have denied the same and claim
to be tried.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.1168/2020
4. In order to secure the Cw.1 to 5 this court repeatedly
issued Summons and Proclamation, even though the sufficient
time given to the concerned police, they have failed to secure
these witnesses. Moreover, this case is 05 years old. Hence,
dropped the said witness respectively. In this regard relied on
the following Hon’ble High Court, full bench Judgment of the
Madras High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s
Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980
MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunity to
serve the summons or to produce the witnesses,
is the one that directly arises for determination
in these appeals. The second question which
arises for determination by us incidentally is
whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused
under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to any
of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not serve
the summons on the witnesses despite having
Judgment 6 C.C.No.1168/2020been granted sufficient opportunities to serve
the summons on the witnesses or to produce
the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
Judgment 7 C.C.No.1168/2020
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to produce
the witnesses, or ask the court to give them
time to do the same, or to issue fresh summons,
the court was not bound to fix another date.
The police has a duty towards the citizen.
When the accused is brought before the court
and the prosecuting department does not take
any steps it will be an abuse of the process of
the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person
before the court accusing him of some offence is
a serious matter and however petty the offence
may be, the prosecuting department, must do
its duty towards the accused as well as the
court. When once the accused is challaned
there is no privilege given to the police to remain
absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Judgment 8 C.C.No.1168/2020
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
Judgment 9 C.C.No.1168/2020
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v.
Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970
Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real
distinction between the two decisions is as to
whether there was remissness and want of
diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency
in producing the witnesses before the Court
and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case applied to the facts of
the case with which the Division Bench was
concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case, it was found on the
facts that the prosecution was not at all
diligent as the non-bailable warrants issued
to the witnesses had neither been served nor
returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
Judgment 10 C.C.No.1168/2020warrants on the witnesses and return the
same the Magistrate would be justified in
refusing to grant an adjournment and to
proceed to acquit the accused on the material
on record. We may note here that in State of
Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138
the Division Bench was dealing with a24.
After carefully considering all the aforesaid
decisions and the views expressed therein, we
are of the view that if the prosecution had
made an application for the issue of summons
to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or
254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is
the duty of the court to issue summons to the
prosecution witnesses and to secure the
witnesses by exercising all the powers given to
it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as
already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be
secured and the prosecution also either on
account of pronounced negligence or
recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses
after the Court had given it sufficient time and
opportunities to do so, then the Court, being
left with no other alternative would be
justified in acquitting the accused for want of
evidence to prove the prosecution case, under
Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of warrant
cases instituted on a police report and under
Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons cases,
and we answer the two questions referred to
us in the above terms.
Judgment 11 C.C.No.1168/2020
Hence, the present case on hand, this court also dropped
the Cw.1 to 5 who are not secured since long time. Further,
the Cw.6 is given as prayed by the learned Sr. APP. In order to
prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has
examined 05 witnesses as Pw.1 & Pw.2 and 03 documents
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
5. Thereafter examination of the accused persons
U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused persons have
denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and
not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available
on record.
7. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides
and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points
arise for consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, Cw.1 is the
Cashier in Vinutha Bar and Restaurant,
situated within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura Police Station and on
04.09.2016 at about 11.30 pm, the
accused persons drink the alcohol and eat
food in the above said bar and when the
Cw.1 being the cashier in the bar asked the
bill amount with the accused persons.
For that, the accused persons restrained
Judgment 12 C.C.No.1168/2020
the Cw.1 from not moving forward and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,340 R/w sec., 34 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, the accused
persons picked up the quarrel with the
Cw.1 by saying they are the rowdies of this
area and abused him in filthy language
and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.,504 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, further the
accused persons damaged the fridge which
was kept in the bar and caused loss to the
Cw.1 and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.,427 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, further the
accused persons assaulted the Cw.1 with
their hands and caused simple injuries.
Further, when the Cw.2 and 3 came to stop
the quarrel the accused persons assaulted
them also and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec.,323 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, further the
accused persons given life threat to Cw.1 to
3 if they ask any bill with them, they will
kill all of them and thereby committed an
Judgment 13 C.C.No.1168/2020
offence punishable U/sec.,506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
6. What order.?
8. My findings to the above points are:
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 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 TO 5: These points are inter
connected to each other and have taken for discussion in
common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. Further,
I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the entire case of
the complaint here also, since I have already narrated the
same at the inception of this judgment.
10. The Pw.1 Nandish, who is the incident witness to
the case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that,
On 07.09.2016, he reported to the police station as usual and
Cw-8 verbally ordered him and Cw-6 to find out the accused
and produce the accused in Police Station Crime No.
543/2016. Accordingly, we contacted the informant on the
Judgment 14 C.C.No.1168/2020
same day and as per the information, on the same day at
03:00 PM while he was on patrol duty in Konanakunte, the
informant called and informed him, that the accused we were
tracking were in New Bank Colony. Then we immediately went
to the place where the information came and found 3 people
standing there. We went and surrounded them and asked
them for their names and addresses. They told us that they
were Vinay S/o Vinod Kumar, Anil alias Raghu, and Puneet
alias Burude. After getting information that the said people
were the ones needed in the case, we produced them before
Cw-8 and gave a statement regarding the same.
11. The Pw.2.Krishnappa, who is the IO to the case, he
has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On
05.09.2016, when he was in charge of the police station, he
received the written complaint given by Cw-1 and registered a
case in Police Station Crime No. 541/2016 and submitted the
report to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Later on the
same day, he asked Cw-4 and 5 to be as panchas and he
conducted the Panchnama in the presence of the Pancha’s at
the place shown by the Cw-1 from 08-00 to 09-00 in the
evening. Later on the same day, he had recorded the statement
of Cw-2 and 3. Later on the same day, he had sent our police
station staff Cw-6 and 7 to find out the accused, and
accordingly, they found the accused and produced them before
Judgment 15 C.C.No.1168/2020
him at the police station on 07.09.2016 at 04:00 PM, further
he had recorded the statement of Cw-6 and 7 in this regard.
Later on the same day, he had interrogated the accused on the
same day, taken action for arrest and released them on
appropriate bail. Later, since the investigation was completed,
he had submitted a final report to the honorable court and the
superiors, as the charges against the accused were prima facie
proven.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons,
had cross examined the said witness in length but, nothing
worthy was elicited from him and further denied the rest of the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
12. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused persons can not be held guilty
of the alleged offenses.
13. Further, in order to secure the Cw.1 to 5 witnesses
this court repeatedly issued Summons and Proclamation, even
though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they
have failed to secure these witnesses. Moreover, non
examination of the material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. As such the accused persons are certainly would be
Judgment 16 C.C.No.1168/2020
entitled to benefit of the doubt. Regarding this relied on the
following Judgment.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC
4581 in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion
however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that
the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge
cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ”may be
true”’ but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of
”must be true”. In a criminal prosecution, the court has
a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do
not take the place of legal proof and in a situation
where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the
backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent
miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended
to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be
reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or
non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial,
prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone
of reason and common sense. It is also a primary
postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views
are possible on the evidence available one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
14. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has opt to
the present case on hand and the accused persons are entitled
to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. Moreover, non
examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. The prosecution has not able to prove the alleged
offences against the accused persons beyond all reasonable
Judgment 17 C.C.No.1168/2020
doubt. Therefore, I Answer to the Points No.1 to 5 in the
Negative.
15. POINT NO.6: In view of the above findings on Point
No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
The Powers Conferred upon me U/s. 248(1) of
Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby
Acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec.,323,
341, 427, 504, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 3 and surety
extended for further 6 months in order to comply
Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond
automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections
made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16 th day of
July-2025).
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 18 C.C.No.1168/2020
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Sri.Nandish
P.W. 2 : Sri.Krishnappa
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : FIR Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
-NIL-
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION
Digitally
signed by
-NIL- THIMMAIAH
THIMMAIAH
G
G Date:
2025.07.23
16:08:03
+0530(Thimmaiah G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 19 C.C.No.1168/2020
[ad_2]
Source link