Bangalore District Court
Noori vs Shek Imran Alias Imran on 24 June, 2025
KABC030277772022
Presented on : 07-04-2022
Registered on : 07-04-2022
Decided on : 24-06-2025
Duration : 3 years, 2 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 24thday of June-2025
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.10773/2022
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 19.10.2021
Complainant State by Konanakunte Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Sheik Imran
@ Imran,
S/o. Sheik Babu,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.10773/2022
Aged about 31 years,
R/at. Behind Katereamma
Temple, Kateramma Layout,
Kothanur, J.P.Nagar,
8th Phase, Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s.323, 324, 448, 504 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 20.04.2023 and
accused is Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 24.06.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 24.06.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Konanakunte Police Station
has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable U/s.323, 324, 448, 504 of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.10773/2022
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, on 19.10.2021 at about 07.00 PM, the
accused came to the house of Cw.1 and 2 situated within the
jurisdiction of Konanakunte police station, Narayanappa
Vatara, Kateramma Layout, Kottanur Dinne and illegally
entered the Cw.1 and 2 house and without any reasons the
accused pickup the quarrel with the Cw.1 and 2 and abused
them in filthy language. Further the accused assaulted the
Cw.1 with his hand on her nose and further assaulted the
Cw.1 with a iron rod on her head and caused bleeding injuries
to Cw.1 and thereby the accused has committed the above
offences punishable U/s.323, 324, 448, 504 of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
offence punishable U/s.323, 324, 448, 504 of IPC against the
accused. The accused was released on bail. Copy of the
Judgment 4 C.C.No.10773/2022
prosecution papers furnished to the accused as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been
framed and read over to the accused, wherein he has denied
the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.2 to 5 and Cw.7 to 9
witnesses, this court so many times issued Summons, NBW
and Proclamation, even given sufficient time to the concerned
police, the police have failed to secure these witnesses. In this
regard I 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
Judgment 5 C.C.No.10773/2022summons 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
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
Judgment 6 C.C.No.10773/2022in 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
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
Judgment 7 C.C.No.10773/2022
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.
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.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.10773/2022
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
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
Judgment 9 C.C.No.10773/2022
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.10773/2022prosecution 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 the Court, being left with no other
alternative would be justified in acquitting the
accused for want of evidence to prove the
Judgment 11 C.C.No.10773/2022prosecution 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.
Accordingly, Cw.2 to 5 and Cw.7 to 9 are dropped. In
order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined 04 witnesses as Pw.1 to 4 and 05 documents got
marked as Ex.P.1 to P.5.
05. Thereafter examination of accused under Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C. is recorded, accused has denied the incriminating
evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead his
side evidence. No documents are got marked on his behalf.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.10773/2022
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, on
19.10.2021 at about 07.00 PM, the
accused came to the house of Cw.1 and 2
situated within the jurisdiction of
Konanakunte police station, Narayanappa
Vatara, Kateramma Layout, Kottanur
Dinne and illegally entered the Cw.1 and
2 house on 19.10.2021 at about 07.00
PM, the accused came to the house of
Cw.1 and 2 situated within the
jurisdiction of Konanakunte police
station, Narayanappa Vatara, Kateramma
Layout, Kottanur Dinne and illegally
entered the Cw.1 and 2 house and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec., 448 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused picked up the quarrel with Cw.1
Judgment 13 C.C.No.10773/2022and 2 and abused the Cw.1 in filthy
language and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec., 4504 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused assaulted the Cw.1 with his
hands on her face and caused simple
injuries to Cw.1 and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/sec., 323 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the
accused assaulted the Cw.1 with a iron
rod on her head and caused bleeding
injuries to Cw.1 and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/sec., 324 of
IPC?
5. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Judgment 14 C.C.No.10773/2022
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 : As per final order
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4 : 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 perused 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 PW.1 Smt. Noori, who is the complainant/injured
witness to the case, she had deposed in her evidence before
the court that, she did not seen the accused present before the
Judgment 15 C.C.No.10773/2022court and further she reiterated the contents of the Ex.P1
complaint in her chief examination and further she do not
remember which hospital she had taken the treatment.
Further, the learned Sr. APP has treated this witness as
partly hostile to the case and her evidence is not helpful to the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
11. The PW.2.Peeru @ Syed Husain, who is the incident
witness to the case, he had deposed in his evidence before the
court that, Cw. 1 is his wife. Cw 2 is his daughter, he knows
the accused before the court. Two years ago, one day at 7.30
pm, when he returned home from work, his wife told him that,
the accused before the court had come to our house drunk
and had hit his wife on the left side of the nose with his hand
and on the left side of the head with a rod, causing injuries.
Then he took Cw. 1 to the hospital near Konanakunte Cross
Judgment 16 C.C.No.10773/2022and gave her treatment. Then Cw. 1 filed a complaint at the
police station against the accused regarding the said incident.
Further this witness evidence is hearsay evidence and
the oral evidence must be direct as per Sec., 61 of Indian
Evidence Act. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
12. The PW.3. Santosh, who is the mahazar witness to
the case, he had deposed in his evidence before the court that,
he was called by the police on 20-10-2021 at Kothanur Dinne
Kateramma Layout and they took his signature on a document
near a house there. On the said document, they made a
panchanama regarding the altercation with Sheikhi Imran and
his relatives on 19-10-2021. On the said occasion, they seized
2 very long iron rods. Then they took my signature on the said
panchanama,
Judgment 17 C.C.No.10773/2022Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in he stated that, the police
told his about the incident and the police had not given him
any notice, further he did not told anything to Ex.P2 and
further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned
counsel for the accused.
13. The PW.4. Vinay.K.L who is the IO to the case, he
had deposed in his evidence before the court that, On
20.10.2021 at 10-10 am, on the basis of a written complaint
filed by Cw-1, he had registered a case as Police Station Crime
No. 229/2021, prepared a preliminary report and submitted it
to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Later on the same
day, from 03-00 to 03-45 pm, in the presence of five Cw.6 and
7, he had seized the iron rod presented by Cw-1 at the place
shown by the C-1 and attached it in the Police Station P.F.No.
149/2021, Later on the same day, he obtained the statements
Judgment 18 C.C.No.10773/2022of Cw2 to 5. On the same day, Cw-9 found the accused,
brought him to the police station, presented him before me
and gave a report. Later, he took action against the accused
and obtained his voluntary statement. He had obtained the
injury certificate of Cw-1 from Siddalinga Memorial Hospital
on 03.12.2021. He had obtained the re-statement of Cw-1 on
21.10.2021, after which, as the investigation has been
completed and prima facie charges have been found against
the accused, he had submitted the final report to the Hon’ble
Court.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused had cross
examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he had not
given any written notice to panchas further denied the rest of
the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.
Judgment 19 C.C.No.10773/2022
14. It is crucial to note that Pw.1 is the
complainant/injured witness to the case and she has not
supported to the prosecution case with regard to the
identification of the accused. The learned Senior APP made
several suggestions to the said witnesses during the cross-
examination, but the said witnesses have been denied the all
material suggestions, except mere suggestions and denials
nothing worth, was elicited in the cross-examination.
Regarding the value of suggestions during the cross-
examination and burden of proof concerned. The Hon’ble High
Court Gujarat in Legal Heirs of Umedmiya R Rathod Vs
State of Gujarat, in First Appeal NO. 5952 of 1995 held as
under:
“74. …. It is a settled position of law that mere
suggestions are not sufficient to dislodge or disprove the
case of the plaintiff. Suggestions in cross-examination
have no evidentiary value. In absence of any evidence,
nor any material traced in the cross examination in
Judgment 20 C.C.No.10773/2022support thereof, the findings so far could not have been
answered in the affirmative by the Trial Court as well
as by this Court in the First Appeal.
78. The expression “burden of proof” is used in two
senses, i.e. The burden of proving an issue or issues
sometimes termed the ‘legal burden’, and the burden of
proof as a matter of adducing evidence during the
various stages of the trial. What is called the burden of
proof on the pleading should not be confused with the
burden of adducing evidence which is described as
“shifting”. See, observations in Narayan v. Gopal [AIR
1960 SC 100]; Pickup v. Thames Insurance Co., [(1878)
3 QBD 594]; Lakshmana v. Venkateswarlu, [76 Ind APP
202 : (AIR 1949 PC 278); 15 Halsbury (Simond) 267];
HuytonwithRoby Urban District Council v. Hunter,
[(1955) 2 All E. R. 398 at p. 400] per Denning L. J.
These two aspects of the burden of proof are
enunciated in Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence
Act. Section 101 shows that the initial burden of
proving a prima facie case in his favor is on the
plaintiff. When he gives such evidence as will support a
prima facie case, the onus shifts on the defendant to
adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case made out
by the plaintiff. As the case continues to develop, the
onus may shift back again to the plaintiff.”
15. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.10773/2022
Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt,
the accused can not be held guilty of the alleged offenses.
16. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.2 to 5 and
Cw.7 to 9 respectively this court issued summons and
proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police,
the concerned police have failed to secure these witnesses and
Cw.2 to 5 and Cw.7 to 9 dropped. Further the Pw.2 who is the
husband of Pw.1 and he has not seen incident directly and his
can not be treated as believable one. Further, the Pw.3 who is
the spot mahazar witness, he had deposed only about his
signature on Ex.P2 and he do not know anything about the
incident. Further the IO evidence has not supported to the
prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, in
the non availability of the evidence of independent witness
regarding spot mahazar, it is not safe to rely on the evidence
of PW.1 to PW.4 in proving the guilt of the accused, without
Judgment 22 C.C.No.10773/2022
any corroborative and material evidence has not been proved
with any cogent and believable evidence as discussed supra.
As such the case against the accused is certainly would be
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
Judgment 23 C.C.No.10773/2022reasonable 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.”
17. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and in the present case, it is
important to note that the material witness and the IO
witnesses have not proved the alleged commission of the
offences by the accused with corroborative evidence. As such
the accused has certainly would be entitled to benefit of the
doubt, since no corroborative evidence of the witnesses against
the accused to prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused
is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. By
considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to
Judgment 24 C.C.No.10773/2022
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
18. Point No.6: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Point No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The Powers Confirmed U/s.248(1) of
Cr.P.C. The Accused is hereby Acquitted of
the offences punishable U/s.323, 324, 448,
504 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused 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.249/2021, Iron rod, is being
worthless, is hereby directed to destroy
Judgment 25 C.C.No.10773/2022
the same, after the appeal period 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 this the 24th day of June-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Noori
P.W.2 : Sri. Peeru @ Syed Hussain
P.W.3 : Sri. Santosh
P.W.4 : Sri.Vinay.K.L
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Judgment 26 C.C.No.10773/2022
Ex.P.4 : Report
Ex.P.5 : Wound Certificate
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Mo.1 : Iron Rod
Sd/-
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 27 C.C.No.10773/2022
