Bangalore District Court
R. Chandra Shekar vs Eshwari And 3 Others on 23 July, 2025
KABC030443392010
Presented on : 11-10-2010
Registered on : 11-10-2010
Decided on : 23-07-2025
Duration : 14 years, 9 months, 12 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 23rd day of July- 2025
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.43551/2010
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 09.08.2010
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Smt. Eashwari
W/o. Mohan( Split up)
Judgment 2 C.C.No.43551/2010
A2. Pandiyan,
S/o. Kariyappan,
Aged about 38 years,
A3. Balakrishna,
S/o. Kariyappan,
Aged about 36 years,
Both are R/at, Kamath
Compound, Nayakam Sweets
Selluru, Palam Station Road,
Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
A4. Karthik
S/o. Mohan ( Split up)
Offences U/s. 323, 324, 341 of R/w sec.,
34 of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 06.04.2024 and
accused No.2 and 3 are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 01.07.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Judgment 3 C.C.No.43551/2010
Final Oder Accused No.2 & 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order 23.07.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the
offences punishable U/s. 323, 324, 341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, about six months ago the Cw.1 got love
married to Tamil Nadu resident Surya and after the marriage
the Cw.1 and his wife were residing within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura Police Station, No.92. Gokula Nagar, 5 th
Judgment 4 C.C.No.43551/2010Main, Doddakallasandra. Further on 09.08.2010 at about
01.30 PM, when he was going to his house near Ruthish
Enterprises at that time, the accused persons illegally
restrained the Cw.1 from no moving forward and picked up the
quarrel with him by saying he had kidnapped their daughter
and assaulted the Cw.1 with a wicket on his body and caused
injuries to Cw.1. Further, when the Cw.4 came to stop the
quarrel between them, at that time the accused persons
assaulted the Cw.4 with their hands and caused simple
injuries to Cw.4 and thereby the accused persons have
committed the above said offences punishable U/s. 323, 323,
341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
03. During the pendency of the case, the case against
the accused No.1 and 4 are Split up. After filing the charge
sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/s. 323,
323, 341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC against the accused No.2 and 3.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.43551/2010
The accused No.2 and 3. were released on bail. Copy of the
prosecution papers furnished to the accused No.2 and 3 as
required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has
been framed and read over to the accused No.2 and 3 wherein
they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10
witnesses, continuously this court issued summons, NBW and
proclamation. In spite of that, the concerned police have failed
to secure the said witnesses. Moreover, this case is 15 years
old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after given
sufficient opportunities to prosecution. In this regard this
court 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:
Judgment 6 C.C.No.43551/2010
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
been 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
Judgment 7 C.C.No.43551/2010
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
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
Judgment 8 C.C.No.43551/2010
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
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Judgment 9 C.C.No.43551/2010
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.43551/2010
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
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
Judgment 11 C.C.No.43551/2010at 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
warrants 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
Judgment 12 C.C.No.43551/2010the 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.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.2,
3, 5 to 8 and 10 are dropped. In order to prove the guilt of the
accused No.2 and 3, the prosecution has examined 04
witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.4 and 03 documents are got marked
as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Mo.1 is got marked.
05. Thereafter examined the accused No.2 and 3 under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and recorded their statement, the accused
No.2 and 3 denied the incriminating evidence in the
prosecution case and not chosen to lead their side evidence.
No documents are got marked on their behalf.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.43551/2010
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, about
six months ago the Cw.1 got love married
to Tamil Nadu resident Surya and after
the marriage the Cw.1 and his wife were
residing within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura Police Station, No.92.
Gokula Nagar, 5th Main,
Doddakallasandra. Further on
09.08.2010 at about 01.30 PM, when he
was going to his house near Ruthish
Enterprises at that time, the accused
persons illegally restrained the Cw.1 from
no moving forward and thereby the
accused persons have committed an
Judgment 14 C.C.No.43551/2010offence punishable U/s.341 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons picked up the
quarrel with Cw.1 by saying he had
kidnapped their daughter and assaulted
the Cw.1 with a wicket on his body and
caused injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the
accused persons have committed an
offence punishable U/s.324 R/w sec., 34
of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further,
when the Cw.4 came to stop the quarrel
between them, at that time the accused
persons assaulted the Cw.4 with their
hands and caused simple injuries to Cw.4
and thereby the accused persons have
Judgment 15 C.C.No.43551/2010committed an offence punishable
U/s.323 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
4. What order.?
08. 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 : As per final order
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 3 : These points are inter connected to
each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the
prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this
judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to
appreciate the evidence on records. Further, I have carefully
Judgment 16 C.C.No.43551/2010perused the oral and documentary evidence on records, in my
humble opinion, some portion of the evidence is irrelevant,
hence without wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy
this court proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
10. The Cw.9 Smt. Shilaja examined as Pw.1 who is the
doctor witness in this case, in her evidence she deposed before
the court, on 09.08.2010 at about 07.30 the Cw.1 due to
assault he came to the hospital for treatment and when the
Cw.1 had been examined she found that, blood clot wound
under the right eye. Blood clot wound on the back of the right
thigh. Blood clot wound on the right hand ring finger and left
thumb and she had given the wound certificate regarding the
same.
Then the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 had
cross examined the said witness, where in she denied the said
counsel’s suggestions.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.43551/2010
11. The Cw.12, S.Manjunath, who is examined as Pw.2
IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, On 11-08-2010, he received the case file from Cw-
10 and conducted further investigation. Then on the same day,
he recorded the statements of Cw-4 to 8. On 18-08-2010, he
attached the injury certificate of Cw-1 from Cw-9 to the file.
Then, since the accused 1 to 4 are from outside the state and
have absconded, he had submitted the final report to the
Honorable Court and the superiors as the charges against the
accused 1 to 4 are prima facie proven.
Further the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3
had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that,
he had investigated regarding the Cw.1 had taken his wife
without her concent but, he had not placed any documents
before the court and further he had denied the rest of the
Judgment 18 C.C.No.43551/2010suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.2
and 3.
12. The Cw.1 Chandrashekar who is examined as Pw.3
and he is the complainant/victim in this case, he deposed in
his evidence before the court that, On 09-08-2010, he and his
wife had received medical treatment of his wife Surya at Apollo
Hospital and had returned to our house at 01-30 pm. When
we were about 100 feet away from the house where we lived,
the accused persons stopped us near Drutish Enterprises
shop on his Star City two-wheeler No. KA-03-EV-7636,
snatched the keys of the vehicle and the two mobile phones
that he had, among them the accused No.2 assaulted him on
his hands, legs and eyes with a wicket. Further, the accused
No.3 started his vehicle and forcibly took his wife away. The
accused persons restrained him from not moving forward and
assault him with their hands. Later, when Cw-4 came to stop
Judgment 19 C.C.No.43551/2010the quarrel, the accused persons assaulted the Cw.4 also with
their hands.. Later, after going to Victoria Hospital for
treatment, he went to Subramanyapura Police Station on 10-
08-2010 and filed a complaint against the accused persons.
Then, 2 days after filing the complaint, the police conducted a
panchanama at the place shown by him from 08:30 to 09:30 in
the morning, in the presence of the accused persons.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3
had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that,
as mentioned in the complaint he and Surya had married but
not given any documents to the investigating officer, in this
regard further the police did not called the Surya for
investigation and the said Surya is did not living together with
him any more, further their was a criminal case against him
alleging that, he had kidnapped the said Surya, further in the
Ex.P2 complaint, not mentioned that he was on his two
Judgment 20 C.C.No.43551/2010wheeler before the quarrel, further he came to know, that the
accused persons had made quarrel with Cw.4, when he went
to house at about 06.30 PM, further when he went to give
complaint on the incident day, the PI was not at the police
station hence, he went next day and lodged the compliant
against the accused persons, further he went to Victoria
Hostile for treatment between 03.00 PM to 04.00 PM and
further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned
counsel for the accused No.2 and 3.
13. In such a case, the complaint will have to give
credible and compelling reasons as to why there is 01 day
delay in filing the complaint. However, in the absence of such
reasons and also in the light of the dispute between the Pw.3
and the accused No.2 and 3 and also absence of proving the
same with cogent evidence. It is suspected that, the complaint
is self-inflicted. It may be cited in this context that the Hon’ble
Judgment 21 C.C.No.43551/2010Supreme Court, in the following decided judgment, held that,
it is not possible to treat the allegations of an unsubstantiated
complaint without doubt and that such belated complaints are
afterthought complaints its held in:
1) (2003) 12 SCC 675 (DB) State of Madhya Pradesh V/s
Kariparam
2) (2007) 12 SCC 332 Vikram V/s State of Maharashtra.
3) (2014) 9 SCC 365 Ramaiah V/s State of Karnataka.
” 16. We are conscious of the fact that in such cases,
sometimes there may be delay in lodging the FIR for various
valid reasons. However, it is important that those reasons
come on record. is no explanation worth the name given by
the complainant as to why the complainant maintained
stoic silence. In this backdrop, the testimony of these witness
alleging dowry demand has to be tested more stringently
and with some caution. On that touchstone, when we
analyse the statements, we find the contradictions therein, as
pointed out by the learned trial court, become very
appealing and meaningful. ”
25. ” We may hasten to add here that many times in such
type of cases, there can be reasons for keeping quiet at the
given time and not reporting the matter immediately.
Therefore, we are conscious of the legal position that delay
Judgment 22 C.C.No.43551/2010
per se may not render prosecution case doubtful as there
may be various reasons for lodging the Fir with some delay
(see Sahebrao V. Sate of Maharashtra.) Thus, there is no
hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would
automatically render the prosecution case doubtful.
However, what is emphasised is that if that was so, it was
necessary for the prosecution to at least come forward with
the the explanation as to why the complainant kept quiet
and why he did not report the matter to the police
immediately. No such explanation is coming forward in the
present case. Moreover, in the instant case, the delay is seen
as fatal when examined in juxtaposition with other material
that has come on record and discussed above, which shakes
the veracity of the prosecution case, bringing it within the
four corners of doubtful prosecution story. ”
(2008) 15 SC 582 State of Andhra Pradesh N
Madhusudan Rao. In the said judgment also it may be
noted that the learned Court has mentioned as follows
“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt
lodging of the first information report has been highlighted.
Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than
not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a
creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account
of the incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps. In casting a
Judgment 23 C.C.No.43551/2010
serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the
delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.
31. In the present case, as noted supra, the first information
report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19.04.1996 was
lodged on 22.05.1996. Admittedly, after her discharge from
the hospital on 22.04.1996, the complainant went to her
parents house and resided there. In her testimony, the
complainant has deposed that since no one from the family
of the accused came to en-quire about her welfare, she
decided to lodge the first information report. No explanation
worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the
police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this
circumstance raised considerable doubt regarding the
genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence
of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3) rendering it
unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it.
Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the
complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution
case has to be reject in its entirely.”
14. Thus, as analyzed by the Hon’ble Court in the
aforesaid judgments, even in the present case, Pw.3 has not
given adequate and credible reasons for lodging the complaint
01 day late and under the conflicting and overwhelming
testimony of other relevant evidences in the said case. It is
clear that a lot of doubt has been raised about the complaint
Judgment 24 C.C.No.43551/2010
lodged after thinking and about the points in the said
complaint and the inconsistency evidences of the Pw.3 also
lends sufficient support to the said suspicion.
15. The Cw.4 Smt. Eashwari, who is examined as Pw.4
and she is the eye/incident witness to the case, she has
deposed in her evidence before the court that, on 09-08-2010,
while she was at home, Cw-1 and his wife Surya left the house
at 07-00 AM for the hospital. Later, Cw-1 and his wife Surya
were coming near Drutish Enterprises shop on a two-wheeler
at 01-30 PM when accused persons blocked them and all the
accused persons assaulted the Cw.1 from the wicket. Then,
she immediately went to the place where the fight was going on
and when she went to settle the fight, the accused persons
also assaulted me with their hands. Then the accused No.1
took away Chasa-1’s wife awaay and regarding the same she
had given her statment before the police.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.43551/2010
Further the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3
had cross examined the said witness, where in she stated that,
she did told in her statment that, Cw.1 is her brother, when
the incident heppend she was at home, on the date of incident,
the said Surya age is 20 years and her bother age is 35 years,
further their was a case in Madurai alleging that, the Pw.3 had
kidnapped the Surya and further denied the rest of the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.2
and 3.
16. I carefully perused the oral evidence of Pw.4, who is
the sister of Pw.3/complainant, admittedly she deposed that,
at the time of incident she was in her house, as such she is
not a eye witness in this case. It is well settled principal of law
is oral evidence must be direct, it is clearly stated in Indian
Evidence Act U/sec., 60. Moreover, the above said witness is
close relation and family member of the Pw.3/complainant.
Judgment 26 C.C.No.43551/2010
Under such circumstance, in the absence of independent and
beliable evidnece, the court could not be consider the above
said witness evidence is proved with beyond all reasonable
doubt. In this regared I relied on the below decision as under:
17. AIR 1984 SC 1622 – Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s
State of Maharashtra –
In the said judgment, it has been held that the evidence
of the acquaintanc i.e. the trustworthy witness should be
scrutinized very carefully because in the absence of such
proximate or interested evidence i.e., the possibility of giving
evidence in favor of the complaint, even if one does not know
the fact of whose negligence the incident took place, has to be
observed. On the other hand, the Pw.4 evidence is create the
doubt that, with the intrest of his brother Pw.3/complainant,
she may be deposed with fasely implications and also in the
light of the dispute regarding kidnapping case as admitted in
her oral evidence.
Judgment 27 C.C.No.43551/2010
18. Under such circumstances, it is the paramount duty
of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused No.2
and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is
established beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused No.2 and
3 can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
19. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8
and 10 respectively this court repeatedly issued summons,
NBW and proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to
the police, they have failed to secure these witnesses since
long time. Hence, Cw.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10 are dropped after
giving sufficient opportunities. In the present case material
witness such as i.e Pw.3 who is the complainant/material
witness to the case, admitted in his cross examination there
was a criminal case against him in Madurai court regarding
kidnapping the Surya who said to be his wife but he had not
placed any documents before the court to prove the same,
Judgment 28 C.C.No.43551/2010
further he had told in his cross examination that, after the
incident he went to Victoria Hospital between 03.00 PM to
04.00 for the treatment, but in the Ex.P1 wound certificate the
time is mentioned as 07.30 PM and there is a lot of
improvements and inconsistency in the evidence of the Pw.3.
Under such circumstance, the court can to considered the
evidence of Pw.3 to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3.
Further the Pw.1 who is the doctor witness to the case, she
has deposed as per the treatment and given wound certificate
of Pw.3. Further the Pw.2 who is the IO in this case, he has
deposed as per his investigation and submitted the charge
sheet before the court. Further, the Pw.4 who is the
eye/incident witness and sister of the complainant ie., Pw.3,
she admitted in her cross examination that, at the time of
incident she was in her home. Hence, she is the hearsay
witness, as per Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act., the oral
Judgment 29 C.C.No.43551/2010
evidence must be direct. Hence, her evidence is not supported
the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and
3 beyond all reasonable doubt as discussed supra. Under such
circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the the
Pw.1 to 4 regarding the offences committed by the accused
No.2 and 3 as alleged by the Pw.3.Further, as discussed supra
inconsistency evidence of Pw.3 is clearly arise the doubt
regarding the allegations of complaint Ex.P2. Moreover, in the
non availability of the evidence of independent witness and
also regarding spot mahazar, it is not safe to rely on the
evidence of Pw.2 to 4 in proving the guilt of the accused No.2
and 3 without any corroborative and material evidence with
chain link as discussed supra. As such, in the absence of
proving the allegation against the accused No.2 and 3, they are
certainly would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, regarding
Judgment 30 C.C.No.43551/2010
the allegations made by the prosecution. Regarding this I have
relied on the following Judgment.
20. 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.”
Judgment 31 C.C.No.43551/2010
21. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and the accused No.2 and 3
are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. In the
present case, it is important to note that the material witness,
eye witness and the IO witness have not proved the alleged
commission of the offences by the accused No.2 and 3 with
corroborative evidence. As such the accused No.2 and 3 have
certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no
corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused
No.2 and 3 to prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused
No.2 and 3 are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt.
By considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed
to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 3
in the Negative.
Judgment 32 C.C.No.43551/2010
21. Point No.4: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The Powers Confirmed upon me
U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 & 3 are
hereby Acquitted for the offences punishable
U/s.323, 324, 341, R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.2 & 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.
The property seized by the IO in
P.F.No.122/2010, One Wicket, is being
worthless, is hereby order to be destroy
the same, after the appeal period is over,
in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 23rd day of July-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
Judgment 33 C.C.No.43551/2010
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Dr. Shilaja
P.W.2 : Sri. Manjunath.S
P.W.3 : Sri. R. Chandrashekar
P.W.4 : Smt. Eashwari
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Digitally
signed by
Mo.1 : One Wicket THIMMAIAH
THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.07.29
17:16:03
+0530(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 34 C.C.No.43551/2010
Judgment 35 C.C.No.43551/2010