Bangalore District Court
Jagajeevanram Nagar Ps vs A1 Divya Teja on 16 January, 2025
KABC010110062018
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67)
PRESENT
SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH A.
B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.(CCH-67)
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
S.C. NO. 671 of 2018
COMPLAINANT : State by Jagajeevanaram Nagar Police
Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor.)
/Vs/
ACCUSED : 1. Divya Teja,
S/o Suresh Babu,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.53, Tej Nivas,
Kasturiba Nagara, Pipeline,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
2. Suresh Babu,
S/o Narasimhalu,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.53, Tej Nivas,
Kasturiba Nagar, Pipeline,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
3. Roopesh,
S/o Chandra Shekar,
2 S.C.No. 671/2018
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.54, Tej Nivas,
Kasturiba Nagar, Pipeline,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
(By:Sri.DMK,Advocate)
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 17/12/2016
Commencement of trial : 25/06/2019
Closing of trial : 09/11/2023
Name of the complainant: Dr.Navneeth.
Offence alleged : Under Sections
341, 324, 504, 307 read with
34 of IPC
Opinion of the judge : Charge leveled against the
accused are not proved.
Sentence or order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Jagajeevanram Nagar Police have filed charge sheet
against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 324, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 07/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon accused Nos.1 and 2
had been to Sowbhagya Nursing Home situated at Mysore Road
3 S.C.No. 671/2018for the treatment of injury sustained by accused No.1. After
treatment, PW.1 Dr.Navneeth Krishna asked them to pay bill of
Rs.1500/-. Accused pesons asked for discount, therefore PW.1
asked them to pay a sum of Rs.1300/-. After payment of the bill
the accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the pharmacy and bought
medicines prescribed by PW-1. After purchasing medicines from
the medical store accused persons picked up quarrel with
Gangalakshmamma in respect of the payment of amount for
purchase of medicines. On hearing the quarrel PW.1 came out
from his chamber and asked as to why they are quarreling with
her. At that time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused PW.1 in filthy
words. Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with the help of the
helmet due to which PW.1 sustained injury on his right little
finger. In the mean time accused No.1 brought accused No.3
and picked up quarrel with PW.1 and abused him in filthy words.
Accused No.3 tried to assault PW.1 on his neck with the help of
long. But PW.1 escaped from the said blow and proceeded
towards medical store, at that time accused No.1 assaulted on
the right abdomen of PW.1 with the help of dagger due to which
PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries. When the persons who were
present in the hospital tried to resist, the accused persons went
away from the said place and thereafter PW.1 went to Shekar
Hospital and obtained treatment.
4 S.C.No. 671/2018
3. The Jagajeevanram Nagar police registered case against
the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the basis of the complaint lodged
by PW.1 in Cr.No.282/2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 324, 504, 307 read with 34 of IPC.
4. The Police took up the investigation on the basis of the
complaint given by the CW.1 and after completion of
investigation the Police have filed charge sheet against the
accused persons for the offence punishable under 341, 324,
504, 307 read with 34 of IPC before the learned Magistrate.
After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence and registered the case against the
accused for the above said offences. Thereafter case against
accused was committed to this court for trial. Accused are on
bail.
5. The copies of prosecution papers were furnished to
accused by the learned Magistrate and hence the learned
Magistrate has complied with the provisions of section 207 of
Cr.P.C. As the offence charged against the accused is
exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate acting
under section 209 of Cr.P.C has committed the case against
accused to this Court for trial. The matter is taken up before this
court for further proceedings accordingly.
5 S.C.No. 671/2018
6. In pursuance of summons issued by this Court accused
persons appeared through their counsel and got enlarged on
bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused and
Public Prosecutor and on considering the materials forthcoming
from the prosecution papers and from the materials on record
this Court has framed charge against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of
IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and thereby they
claimed to be tried for the above said offences.
7. In support of its case, prosecution cited as many as 13
witnesses in the charge sheet. The prosecution got examined
10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 in support of its case. The
prosecution has given up CW 11 and CW.9 is dropped. The
prosecution has produced the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P11
and the properties at MO.1 to 4. After closing the evidence of
prosecution witnesses accused were examined under section
313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied all the incriminating
materials appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.
The accused persons neither chosen to adduce any oral
evidence nor produced any documents in support of their
defence.
8. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and
also learned counsel for accused. Perused the oral and
6 S.C.No. 671/2018
documentary evidence forthcoming on record. On going through
the materials the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that accused
Nos.1 to 3 on 17/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon
near Soubhagya Nursing Home, Mysuru
Road, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of JJ
Nagar police in furtherance of their common
intrention on the background of financial
dispute regarding payment of bill, between
accused No.1 and CW1 insulted CW.1 in filthy
language as bolimagane, soolemagane and
thus committed an offence punishable under
Section 504 read with 34 of IPC?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said
date, time and place, in furtherance of their
common intrention accused No.2 assaulted
CW1 with helmet as a result CW.1 sustained
bleeding injury on his small finger and thus
committed an offence punishable under
Section 324 read with 34 of IPC?
(3) Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said
date time and place in furtherance of their
common intrention accused No.3 assaulted
PW1 with a long and when PW1 escape from
the blow accused No.1 assaulted PW1 with a
dagger as result PW1 sustained bleeding
injury on his abdomen and tried to murder
PW1 and thus committed an offence
punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of
IPC?
7 S.C.No. 671/2018
(4) What order?
9. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the
accused and learned Public Prosecutor and on perusal of oral as
well as documentary evidence placed on record, the above
points are as hereunder.
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Affirmative
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
10. Points No.1 to 3 :- Since these points are interconnected
with each other, to avoid repetition of facts, points No.1 to 4 are
taken together for common discussion .
11. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention abused
PW.1. in filthy words and accused No.2 voluntarily caused hurt
by assaulting PW.1 with helmet due to which he sustained injury
on his right little finger, the accused No.2 stabbed the PW.1 on
his right abdomen with the help of dagger. Accused No.3 tried to
assault on the neck of PW.1 with long, but PW.1 escaped from
8 S.C.No. 671/2018
the said blow. Thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 tried to commit
murder of PW.1.
12. In order to prove its case prosecution examined
Dr.Navneetha Krishna as PW.1. He is the injured eye witness.
During the examination in chief he has stated that on 7/12/2016
at about 11:45 to 12:00 noon accused Nos.1 and 2 came to
hospital for treatment of the injury sustained by the accused
No.1. After suturing and giving treatment he charged Rs.1500/-,
the accused persons requested for discount, therefore he asked
them to pay a sum of Rs.1300/-. Thereafter accused persons
went to get medicines from the medical store, and picked up
quarrel with the persons at the medical shop over the charges
pertaining to the medicines purchased by them. On hearing the
quarrel PW.1 went to the medical store and asked as to why
they are quarreling. At that time accused persons abused him in
filthy words by stating soolemagane and bolimagane. In the
heat of arguments accused No.2 assaulted him with the helmet
due to which he sustained injury over his right little finger.
Thereafter accused No.3 came along with accused No.1 to the
spot with long and dagger. Accused No.3 tried to assault on his
neck with long. When he tried to escape from the said blow and
proceeded towards medical store accused No.1 restrained him
and stabbed with dagger over the right side of abdomen due to
which he sustained bleeding injures and his shirt was blood
9 S.C.No. 671/2018
stained. Therefore he was taken to Shekar Hospital wherein
Dr.Atmaram treated him. He lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1.
On the same day at 6:00 p.m. police came to the spot and
prepared spot mahazar, he handed over blood stained shirt and
banian to the police. He has identified accused Nos.1 to 3
before the Court.
13. During the cross examination of PW.1 a suggestion has
been made to the effect that he prescribed below standard
medicine in collusion with the owner of the hospital and the
same was questioned by accused No.2. He has denied all other
suggestions put by counsel for accused. What could be
gathered from the evidence of PW.1 is that accused Nos.1 and 2
visited the hospital for the purpose of treatment to the injury
sustained by accused No.1. The said aspect has not been
denied or disputed by the accused persons. The evidence of
PW.1 indicates the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the
hospital on the date of alleged incident. The evidence of PW.1
clearly indicates the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the
spot of incident at the time of alleged assault. This aspect has
not been denied or disputed by the accused. Therefore,
presence of the accused in the spot as contended by the
prosecution stands proved by the prosecution. If the cross
examination of PW.1. is seen it can be said that the learned
defence counsel has elicited nothing worth mentioning here.
10 S.C.No. 671/2018
Some suggestions have been made to the effect that a false
complaint is lodged against the accused persons but the same
was denied by the PW.1.
14. One Parameshwar is examined as PW.2. He is the eye
witness to the incident. What he has stated in the examination in
chief is that on 7/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon, when he was in
the medical store of the nursing home of PW.1, accused No.1
came to the said medical store after taking treatment from the
PW1. He picked up quarrel stating that he has been charged
more and he started quarreling with Smt.Gangalakshmamma in
respect of the same. At that time PW.1 came to the spot and
enquired about the quarrel. He has also stated that accused
No.1 assaulted PW.1 with helmet and accused Nos.1 and 2
abused him in filthy words and threatened him with dire
consequences. They went out and brought long and dagger. He
has stated that thereafter, he went away due to fear and not
witnessed the incident. He has further stated that on receipt of
the complaint police came to the spot and conducted mahazar
and he has signed mahazar as per Ex.P.2. The police have
seized blood stained cloths of PW.1 under mahazar. During the
cross examination it has been elicited that Smt.Ganga
Lakshmamma being the worker of the hospital walks around the
hospital and he was working in the medical store. He has
denied all other suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
11 S.C.No. 671/2018
15. One Arjun is examined as PW.3. He is the seizure
mahazar witness. The prosecution cited PW.3 as panch wintess
in order to prove the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.3. He has
deposed that on 7/12/2016 he had seen accused persons in the
nursing home. He has identified his signature in Ex.P.3
mahazar. He has stated that he signed the mahazar in the police
station and MO.3 and 4 were in the possession of the accused.
In the cross examination of PW.3 he has admitted the
suggestion to the effect that on 10/12/2016 the accused persons
produced MO.3 and 4 and police have seized the same under
Mahazar Ex.P.3 and he has signed the mahazar after contents
of the mahazar read over to him. He has denied all the
suggestions put by the counsel for accused to the effect that the
accused have not produced MO.3 and 4 in his presence.
16. One Smt.Shakuntala is examined as PW.4. She is the eye
witness to the incident. She has deposed that on 7/12/2017 in
the afternoon one patient along with two attendants came to the
hospital for the treatment of cut injury. PW.1 treated him.
Thereafter they stabbed PW.1 over his abdomen. She identified
accused No.1 before the Court. In the cross examination by
the learned Public Prosecutor she has admitted that accused
persons picked up quarrel in connection with payment of amount
towards medicines. When PW.1 enquired as to why they are
12 S.C.No. 671/2018
quarreling they abused him in filthy language and also assaulted
him. PW.4 has admitted the suggestion of the learned Public
Prosecutor to the effect that accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with
helmet due to which he sustained injuries over his fingers. She
has also admitted the suggestion to the effect that accused No.1
stabbed PW.1 with dagger on the right side of abdomen. During
the cross examination of PW.4 it has been elicited that the name
of the person who assaulted PW.1 is Divya Teja i.e., accused
No.1. She has denied all other suggestions put by the counsel
for the accused.
17. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, she has clearly stated
regarding the presence of the accused persons in the hospital
and also regarding the treatment given by PW.1. She has also
categorically stated regarding the abuse by the accused
persons and assault with helmet and dagger.
18. One Gangamma is examined as PW.5. She is eye witness
to the incident. In her examination in chief she has deposed to
the effect that on 7/12/2017 at 11:30 pm patient by name Divya
Teja along with his father came to the hospital for treatment of
the injuries sustained by Divya Teja. PW.1 treated him and
prescribed medicines. When bill was raised for the medicines
they started to quarrel and were about to leave the hospital
13 S.C.No. 671/2018
without paying the amount. She was collecting the bill on that
day. On hearing the quarrel, PW.1 came out and enquired. In
response to the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him in filthy
language and also assaulted him. Accused No.2 assaulted
PW.1 with helmet, accused No.1 went out and brought his friend
and both of them assaulted PW.1. She has denied all other
suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
19. One Smt.Amrutha is examined as PW.6. She is the eye
witness to the incident. She has stated that she was working as
nurse in Soubhagya Nursing Home. She has further deposed
that on 7/12/2016 at about 12:00 noon when she was in the
nursing home, accused No.1 came to the nursing home with a
cut injury. PW.1 treated him and sutured the injury. When bill
was raised, the accused No.2 picked up quarrel stating that bill
is on the higher side. He was quarreling with PW.5
Gangalakshmi. On hearing the quarrel, PW.1 came and
enquired, at that time accused No.2 abused him in filthy
language stating that bolimagane and soolemagane. Thereafter,
accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with helmet. Thereafter,
accused No.1 brought accused No.3 and assaulted PW.1 with
knife due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. She identified
the weapon at MO.4. She identified MO.3 stating that the same
was in possession of accused No.3. In the cross examination of
14 S.C.No. 671/2018
PW.6 by the counsel for accused nothing has been elicited so
as to discredit the evidence of PW.6. Nothing worth is elicited
during the cross examination of PW.6 except the suggestions.
PW.6 has denied the suggestions put by the counsel for the
accused.
20. One Sri.Gajendra, ASI, is examined as PW.7 who speaks
about the apprehending accused No.1 on 8/12/2016.
21. One Dr.Ameer Ali is examined as PW.8 who examined
PW.1 after the incident. It is his testimony that on 7/12/2016 at
12:21 pm, PW.1 came to their hospital with the history of assault
by Divya Teja at Soubhagya Nursing Home. He provided first
aid treatment to PW.1. On examination he found stab injury on
upper abdomen measuring 2x2x3 cms. And also fracture of right
little distal phalynx. He has opined that the above said injuries
are grievous in nature and issued wound certificate as per
Ex.P.6. He has testified to the effect that the above injuries are
possible to be sustained if a person is assaulted with MO.3 and
4. During the cross examination of PW.8 it is elicited that police
have not produced MO.3 and 4 before him for opinion. He has
denied the suggestion that he has not examined him on
7/12/2016. In his further cross examination it is elicited that no
person was accompanied PW.1 to the Hospital when he visited
the hospital for treatment. He has admitted that CW.10 treated
15 S.C.No. 671/2018
PW.1 and volunteered that he himself has sutured PW.1 and
other treatments were given by CW.10. He has also stated that
he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.6 on behalf of
Atmaram. It is also elicited that PW.1 was treated as an
outpatient and he was not admitted to the hospital. He has
categorically denied the suggestion that if a person falls on sharp
object there are chances of sustaining injuries as noted in the
wound certificate.
22. One Smt.Shantala is examined as PW.9. She is the owner
of the nursing home. She has stated that she heard about the
assault on PW.1. but she has not supported the case of the
prosecution and she has turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution in toto.
23. One Sri.Gangadharaiah is examined as PW.10. He has
given evidence with regard to the receiving of the complaint at
about 5:45 pm on 7.12.2016. He has identified the complaint at
Ex.P.1 received by him. He has also given evidence with regard
to conducting spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and also regarding
seizure of cotton white cloth. He has stated that accused No.1
has given voluntary statement to the effect that he would
produce the weapon used for offence if they accompany him as
per Ex.P.10. It is also stated that the accused No.1 produced
one dagger as per MO.4 and one iron long as per MO.3. The
16 S.C.No. 671/2018
said articles were seized by the police under mahazar. He has
stated having recorded the statement of the prosecution
witnesses. During the cross examination it is elicited that he did
not secure the local persons as panch witness. He has denied
all other suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
24. I have perused the oral testimony of prosecution
witnesses. On considering the evidence given by all these
witnesses it is possible to draw certain conclusions. Firstly, as
regards the presence of the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the
Soubhagya Nursing Home, the accused have not disputed their
presence at the alleged time of incident. Apart form the above
all the eye witnesses have categorically stated regarding the
presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 in the nursing home on the date
of alleged incident. In so for as the treatment given to accused
No.1 by PW.1. is also not in dispute. The accused persons
have not disputed the same during the cross examination. The
oral testimony of prosecution witnesses makes it clear that
accused were present in Soubhagya hospital i.e., the place of
incident on 7/12/2016 at 12:00 noon. This conclusion can be
drawn on the basis of the suggestion made by the counsel for
the accused during cross examination of PW.1 also. Therefore,
it is clear that the accused have not disputed their presence in
the spot of incident on 7/12/2016 at 12:00 pm.
17 S.C.No. 671/2018
25. In so for as the assault on PW.1 is concerned, the
evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 are the clinching
evidence. PW.1 has categorically stated regarding assault by
accused No.2 with the help of a helmet. He has also stated
regarding the injury on his right little finger due to the assault by
accused No.2. The said evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by
the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6. The evidence of PW.1
which is corroborated by the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6
coupled with the medical evidence and wound certificate at
Ex.P.6 clearly indicates that PW.1 sustained fracture on right
little distal phalanx. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses
in so for as the assault by the accused No.2 is concerned, is not
shaken during the cross examination and nothing has been
elicited to discredit the oral testimony of injured and other eye
witnesses.
26. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons
abused PW.1 in filthy language. The abusive words used by the
accused Nos.1 and 2 is clearly stated in the first information
statement produced at Ex.P.1. PW.1 in his oral testimony has
categorically stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him
stating that bolimagane and soolemagane. He has also further
stated that they have also abused his mother and wife. The said
oral testimony of PW.1 has not been disputed or denied by the
18 S.C.No. 671/2018
accused during the cross examination of PW.1. The evidence
of PW.1 in so for as the use of abusive language by accused
Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, is corroborated by the oral testimony
of eye witnesses i.e., PW.5 and PW.6. In her oral testimony
PW.6 has categorically stated the words used by the accused
Nos.1 and 2 to abuse PW.1 and the same corroborates with the
evidence of PW.1.
27. In so for as the injury sustained by PW.1 on his right
abdomen is concerned, it is categorically stated by the PW.1 that
A.3 came to the spot along with the chopper and A.1 came to the
spot with a dagger in his hand. When he tried to escape from
their blow and proceeded towards medical store, accused No.1
restrained him and stabbed him with the help of dagger over the
right side of abdomen due to which he sustained bleeding
injuries. The evidence of PW.2 can be believed to the extent
that he had seen accused No.2 and 3 with dagger and long in
the spot. PW.4 also spoken in respect of the assault on the
abdomen of PW.1. She has admitted the suggestion of learned
Public Prosecutor to the effect that accused No.1 stabbed PW.1
with dagger on the right side of abdomen. PW.5 also
categorically stated in her oral testimony to the effect that
accused No.1 stabbed PW.1 with knife over his abdomen. PW.6
19 S.C.No. 671/2018
has stated that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 with a weapon
like knife due to which he sustained bleeding injuries.
28. On perusal of oral testimony of injured eye witness and
other eye witnesses, their evidence is consistent in so for as
assault by accused No.1 on the right abdomen of PW.1 is
concerned. Though it is true that some of the witnesses have
stated that accused No.1 stabbed with knife, the same appears
to be a minor contradiction. The same may not render the case
of the prosecution unbelievable for the reason that all the
witnesses have categorically identified the weapon used by the
accused No.1 before the court.
29. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the
accused vehemently argued that the investigating officer has not
referred the alleged weapons used for the commission of offence
either to the doctor or to the expert and measurement of the
injury is not properly mentioned in the wound certificate. It is
also contended that the shape and direction of the wound is not
mentioned in the wound certificate. Though I find some force in
the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused it is to
be noted in so for as the stab injury caused by the accused No.1
is concerned, absolutely there is no scope for any doubt
because of the material witnesses including the injured witness
20 S.C.No. 671/2018
have categorically stated regarding the assault by the accused
No.1 on the right abdomen of PW.1. At this juncture it is
necessary to go through the wound certificate wherein it is
clearly mentioned that PW.1 visited the hospital with the history
of assault by one Divya Teja at Sowbhagya Nursing Home and
the injuries are shown as;
i) Stab wound in right hypocondyle region measuring
2x2x2 cms.
ii) Fracture of right little distal phalanx
30. During the cross examination of PW.8 Doctor, the counsel
for the accused has not questioned him regarding the direction
of the injury. He has also not referred the cloths and the weapon
during the cross examination in order to elicit the said aspect.
Therefore, merely because the investigating officer has not
referred the weapon either to the doctor or to the expert, the
evidence of the doctor cannot be discarded. The doctor has
categorically stated that the above said injuries could be possible
with long and dagger at MO.3 and 4 shown to him.
31. The counsel for the accused also advanced his arguments
stating that the person who treated the PW.1 i.e. Dr.Atmaram
has not been examined before the Court. Just because the
prosecution did not examine the doctor who probably given
treatment to PW1, it cannot be stated that the prosecution case
21 S.C.No. 671/2018
is unbelievable. On perusal of the oral testimony of PW.8
doctor, it clearly indicates that he sutured the injury and he
treated PW.1 along with Dr.Atmaram. Therefore, it cannot be
stated that the evidence of PW8 is to be discarded only for the
reason that Dr.Atma Ram has not been examined.
32. As regards the seizure of weapons is concerned, it is the
case of the prosecution that based on the voluntary statement
given by the accused No.1, they were able to seize MO.3 and 4.
In order to prove the seizure of MO-3 and 4, prosecution has
examined PW-3 Arjun who is a seizure mahazar witness. During
the examination in chief he has stated that MO Nos.3 and 4 were
in the hands of the accused Nos.1 and 3 and he has signed
Ex.P.3 mahazar as per Ex.P.3(a). During the cross examination
by the learned Public Prosecutor PW-3 has categorically
admitted that on 10/12/2015 the accused produced MO Nos. 3
and 4 before him to the police and police conducted mahazar
and seized the same. PW.10 who is the investigating officer
during the examination in chief has categorically stated that
accused No.1 took them to a vacant space situated beside
Sowbhagya Nursing Home and produced one long and one
dagger as per MOs 3 and 4 and on the basis of the same he has
seized the said weapons. On perusal of the evidence of PW.10
it indicates that accused No.1 gave voluntary statement and that
accused No.1 himself led them to a place from where he
22 S.C.No. 671/2018
produced a long which is marked as MO.3 and dagger which is
marked as MO.4. He has stated that he recovered these two
weapons by writing a mahazar as per Ex.P.3, in the presence of
two witnesses. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of
PW.3 who is the seizure mahazar witness who has categorically
stated that the accused No.1 produced weapons in his presence
to the police and the police seized the same under a mahazar as
per Ex.P.3. Under these circumstances, the recovery of the
weapon cannot be disbelieved.
33. In so for as the seizure of the cloths worn by PW.1 during
the incident, the police have seized the same as per Ex.P.2 and
PW.2 who is the mahazar witness has categorically stated
regarding the seizure. Therefore, the seizure of the MOs 1 and
2 also cannot be disbelieved.
34. Therefore, on considering the evidence as regards the
incident and recovery of cloths as well as the witnesses, what
that emerges to the point is an assault made by all the three
accused on PW.1 Dr.Navaneeth Krishna. There are no reasons
to discard the evidence placed by the prosecution before the
Court, since the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
material witnesses are consistent in so for as the assault and
abuse by the accused persons is concerned. On perusal of the
consistent evidence given by the material witnesses, it is
23 S.C.No. 671/2018
possible to place reliance on the testimony of PW.1, PW.4, PW.5
and PW6, as regards the incident, abuse and the injuries
sustained by PW.1 is concerned. It is well settled law that being
the injured witness, presence of PW.1 at the scene of
occurrence cannot be doubted and being the victim himself
PW.1 would not leave out the real assailants and substitute them
with innocent persons. Moreover, the evidence given by PW.1
and other eye witnesses are corroborated by medical evidence.
35. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to a ruling reported
in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 1113 in the case of
Bonkya @ Bharat Shivaji Mane and Others Vs State of
Maharashtra, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
” Criminal trial – witnesses – injured
witnesses – their presence at the scene of
occurrence cannot be doubted and being
the victims themselves they would not
leave out the real assailants and substitute
them with innocent persons.”
Therefore, applying the above principles to the facts of the case,
it is to be held that the prosecution has proved the incident.
24 S.C.No. 671/2018
36. Now, it is to be examined whether the accused can be held
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code. The learned defence counsel argued that there
was no motive to make an attempt on the life of PW.1. I find
some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
accused. In the background of the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, motive on the part of the accused to
make an attempt on the life of the PW.1 is difficult to be made
out. The treatment obtained by accused No.1 from PW.1 is not
disputed. There are materials on record to show that accused
No.1 picked up quarrel in connection with the payment of bill for
medicine. So, in this background what that can be stated is that
probably for making and putting pressure on PW.1, accused
No.1 accompanied with his father and friend i.e., accused Nos.2
and 3 might have taken recourse to assault PW.1, nothing more
can be made out from the materials placed on record. They
wanted PW.1 not to charge any money for the medicines
purchased by them since they had already paid the consultation
charges. The intention of the accused persons appears that
they did not wanted to pay money for the medicine after payment
of consultation charges, nothing more can be made out from the
materials placed on record by the prosecution. Further, it is to be
noted that accused No.1 inflicted only one blow to PW.1. If there
was an intention to commit murder, definitely there was
opportunity for accused Nos.1 and 3 to further assault PW.1.
25 S.C.No. 671/2018
But, no such attempt has been made by accused Nos.1 to 3.
Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the accused had an
intention either to kill or to make an attempt on the life of PW.1.
37. If the nature of the injuries is seen, it can be stated that
the act of the accused can be brought within the scope of the
definition of voluntarily causing hurt. PW.1 might have stated
that as a result of infliction of injury on his abdomen he sustained
bleeding injuries and due to the assault by accused No.2 he
sustained injury on the right little finger. PW.1 has not stated
that he sustained fracture due to the assault by accused No.2.
This aspect assumes much importance for the reason that PW.1
himself is a doctor. If at all he had sustained fracture he would
have stated the same. The medical certificate issued by PW.8
doctor does not disclose any x-ray being taken to detect fracture
of the right little finger of PW.1. It is also significant to note that
PW.1 was not treated as an inpatient. He was not admitted to
the hospital for the treatment of the injuries, but he was treated
as an out patient and on the same day he was sent home.
Under these circumstances, the injury appears to be not a fatal
injury. It is true that PW.8 has stated that injury No.1 and 2 are
grievous in nature, but he has not given any reason for giving his
opinion that these two injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore
merely for the reason that PW.8 has stated that these two
injuries are grievous in nature, it is not possible to hold that the
26 S.C.No. 671/2018
offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is also made
out. At this juncture it is necessary to go through Section 320 of
Indian Penal Code.
” Section 320 – Grievous hurt – The
following kinds of hurt only are designated
as “grievous” :
First - Emasculation.
Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of
either eye.
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of
either ear.
Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing
of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or
face.
Seventhly – Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly – Any hurt which endangers life or which
causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.
38. On perusal of the above, it indicates that the injuries
sustained by PW.1 cannot be brought within the ambit of Section
320 of Indian Penal Code. At the best under the facts and
27 S.C.No. 671/2018
circumstances, the offences can be brought within the scope of
the one punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.
39. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly indicates
the overt act of accused Nos.1 to 3 and their presence in the
spot with common intention. Participation of all the accused
implies presence of common intention in them. Hence, Section
34 of Indian Penal Code can also be invoked. Therefore, I come
to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove
the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal
Code, rather what stands proved is offence punishable under
Section 504, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, as
the accused have used dagger and long which are the
dangerous weapons being the instrument of stabbing or cutting
which used as weapon of offence is likely to cause death to
inflict injury on PW.1. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in
the Affirmative, point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative and
point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
40. Point No.4: The above discussions at point Nos.1 to 3
disclose that offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is
not proved, rather what is proved is the offence punishable
under Sections 504, 324 read with section 34 of IPC. Therefore,
accused Nos.1 to 3 are to be held guilty of the offences
28 S.C.No. 671/2018
punishable under Sections 504, 324 read with section 34 of IPC.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure accused
Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 307 of
Indian Penal Code.
Acting under section 235(1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, accused
No.1 by name Divya Teja, accused
No.2 by name Suresh Babu and
accused No.3 by name Roopesh are
convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 504, 324 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on
bail. The bail bonds and surety bonds
of the accused persons shall stand
canceled.
M.O.1/shirt and MO.2/banian
being worthless are ordered to be
destroyed. MO.3/long and
29 S.C.No. 671/2018MO.4/dagger are ordered to be
confiscated to the State.
The order relating to disposal of
these properties shall be implemented
after the appeal period is over.
Sentence will be passed after
hearing accused Nos.1 to 3.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I online, typed by him
directly, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this 16th day of January, 2025)(JAYAPRAKASH . A)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
-:ANNEXURE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Dr.Navaneeth Krishna
PW.2 Parameshwar
PW.3 Arjun.N.
PW.4 Shakuntala
PW.5 Gangamma
PW.6 Amrutha
PW.7 Gajendra
PW.8 Dr.Tanveer Ali
PW.9 Shantala
PW.10 Gangarangaiah
30 S.C.No. 671/2018
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:-
– None –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW10
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.3 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.4 : Statement of PW4
Ex.P.5 : Report of PW7
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW7
Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of PW10
Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW8
Ex.P.6(b) : Signature of PW10
Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW.9
Ex.P.8 : FIR
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.9 : PF Form No.153/2016
Ex.P.9(a)&(b): Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.10 : Voluntary statement of PW1
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P.10(b) : Signautre of PW10
31 S.C.No. 671/2018
Ex.P.11 : PF Form No.154/2016
Ex.P.11(a)&(b): Signature of PW10
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE:-
Nil
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
MO.1 Shirt
MO.2 Baniyan
MO.3 Chopper
MO.4 Dagger
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:-
– Nil –
(JAYAPRAKASH . A)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
32 S.C.No. 671/2018Pronounced vide separate judgment with
following operative portion:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure accused
Nos.1 to 3 are not found guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 307 of
Indian Penal Code.
Acting under section 235(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, accused No.1 by
name Divya Teja, accused No.2 by
name Suresh Babu and accused No.3
by name Roopesh are convicted for
the offences punishable under
33 S.C.No. 671/2018Sections 504, 324 read with section
34 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are on
bail. The bail bonds and surety bonds
of the accused persons shall stand
canceled.
M.O.1/shirt and
MO.2/banian being worthless are
ordered to be destroyed. MO.3/long
and MO.4/dagger are ordered to be
confiscated to the State.
The order relating to disposal of
these properties shall be implemented
after the appeal period is over.
Sentence will be passed after
hearing accused Nos.1 to 3.
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Heard accused Nos.1 to 3 on
quantum of sentence.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted
that they have nothing to say on the
sentence.
Heard the Counsel for the
accused. He has submitted that
34 S.C.No. 671/2018
accused No.2 is suffering from ill
health.
Accused No.1 and 3 are in their
prime youth. Taking into
consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and also
the background in which the incident
occurred, I am of the opinion that a
lenient view can be taken while
imposing sentence on the accused. If
a lenient view is not taken and
accused are sentenced for a longer
period of imprisonment, their future
prospects may be affected. Though
the offence under Section 324 of
Indian Penal Code provides for
sentencing the accused for a period of
3 years, in the circumstances of this
case it is just and proper to take a
lenient view. Besides this, fine should
also be imposed so that the injured is
suitably compensated. Therefore, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2)
Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 3 are
sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six
months for the offence punishable
under Sections 504 of IPC and shall
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are
sentenced to undergo simple
35 S.C.No. 671/2018imprisonment for a period of one year
for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC and to pay a fine of
Rs.15,000/- each.
In default to pay fine, accused
Nos.1 to 3 shall undergo further
simple imprisonment for a period of 3
months.
Out of the fine amount collected,
a sum of Rs.70,000/- shall be given to
PW.1/Dr.Navneeth Krishna towards
compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-
is defrayed to the State.
The detention undergone by
accused Nos.1 to 3 if any shall be
given set off as provided under
Section 428 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
of the offence punishable under
Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
Free copy of this judgment shall
be furnished to each of the accused
Nos.1 to 3 forthwith.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ Judge,
Bengaluru
Sri.K.S., Advocate files
power for accused Nos. 1 to 3 to
appear along with Sri.DMK,
advocate and files application
under Section 289(3) of Code of
36 S.C.No. 671/2018
Criminal Procedure along with to
suspend the sentence.
Perused the application.
Since the period of imprisonment is
for a period of one eyar, there is no
impediment to suspend the
sentence till the appeal period
subject to the condition that the
accused Nos.1 to 3 shall deposit
the fine amount. Therefore, the
following :
ORDER
The execution of sentence of
imprisonment is suspended for a
period of 30 days subject to deposit
of fine amount.
Further accused Nos.1 to 3
shall execute personal bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with
one surety for the likesum.
Counsel for accused prays
time. For deposit of amount and
furnish surety by 21/01/2025.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ Judge,
Bengaluru
[ad_1]
Source link