Bangalore District Court
Ravishankar vs N Mukundappa on 20 March, 2025
KABC030738342015
Presented on : 09-11-2015
Registered on : 09-11-2015
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Duration : 9 years, 4 months, 11 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 20th Day of March, 2025
C.C. No.26364/2015
(Crime No.106/2015)
State by Jalayahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri N.Mukundappa,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Sri Late Narayanappa,
R/at No.19, K.H.B. Colony,
Building No.1, Kengeri
Upanagara, Benglauru-60. ... Accused
(Party in person)
KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
1. Date of commission of 05-08-2015 at 6 pm
offence
2. Date of FIR 13-08-2015
3. Date of Charge sheet 09-09-2015
4. Name of Complainant Sri Ravishankar
5. Offences complained of Under Section 341, 504,
355, 506, 511 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 19-03-2021
charges
7.Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 27-07-2021
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 20/03/2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 20/03/2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
2
KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 355, 506, 511 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: On 05-08-2015 at around 6.10 pm in front of receptionist's room of Central Institute Coastal Engineering for Fishery Department situated opposite ISRO residential building, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, CW1 by name Sri Ravi Shankar, the Deputy Director of office standing therein after finishing his work, at that time the accused was working as a clerk in the same office with old enmity had wrongfully restrained CW1 and showed his slippers on the face of CW1, abused him with filthiest language, threatened with dire consequences and tried to insult him by hitting CW1 with his slipper. When CW2 namely N.Venkatesh Prasad questioned the act of accused, he threatened him also.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1 namely Sri Ravishankar, CW8/PW6 Smt Devikadevi, PSI of Jalahalli PS registered Crime No.106/2015 against the accused for the offences punishable under 3 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 Section 511, 506, 341, 504, 355 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P4, sent the same to the Court and to his Superior Officers.
4. Investigation: After registration of case, she conducted mahazar on 14-08-2015 in the presence of CW6 namely Sri T.Ramamurthy and CW7 Sri Maruti Bavanashi from 10 am to 11 a.m. as per Ex.P2 and received the documents as per Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences.
5. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 18-07-2017.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, the charge for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 504, 355, 506, 511 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 8 witnesses however examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents and closed their side. The examination of CW7 was given up by the order dated 18-06-2022 as he reported to be dead. During the cross examination of PW2 and PW5, the accused got marked Ex.D1 to
19.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and led any rebuttal evidence by examining him as DW1 and got marked Ex.D20 and Ex.D21 documents.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 05-08-2015 at 5 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 around 6.10 pm, in front of receptionist's room of Central Institute Coastal Engineering for Fishery Department situated opposite ISRO residential building, within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, the accused wrongfully restrained CW1 namely Sri Ravi Shankar thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.341 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place accused abused CW1 with filthiest language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.504 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above 6 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 said date, time and place accused tried to insult CW1 by hitting him with his slipper with intention to dishonour him thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.355 read with Sec.511 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused threatened CW1 and CW2 namely N.Venkatesh Prasad with dire consequence thus criminal intimidation, thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC?
5. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order 7 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 4: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 by name Sri Ravishankar, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that, he was working as Deputy Director in Central Institute of Coastal Engineer For Fishery, Jalahalli from the year 2008 and accused was working as Lower Division Clerk. On 07-07-2015 at 2.00 p.m. the accused threatened Deputy Director of their institution and he was a witness in that case. On account of old enmity on 05-08-2015 at about 6.00 p.m. the accused abused and threatened him by showing his left leg slipper to him. At that time, CW2, CW3 and CW5 were present and CW2 questioned about the act of accused, he abused and threatened him also. As he was on leave for two days, he filed complaint on 13- 08-2015 as per Ex.P1 and police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 from 10 to 11 a.m. He identified his signature as per Ex.P1(a) and 2(a).
8KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 ii. CW2 by name Sri Venkatesh Prasad, eye witness examined as PW2 and CW4 Sri Lingaiah, security guard examined as PW3 and they deposed the same version of PW1.
iii. CW6 by name Sri T.Ramamurthy, Panch witness examined as PW4 deposed that on 14-08- 2015 Jalahalli police have conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in respect of alleged incident and he affixed his signature on the said document as per Ex.P2(b).
iv. CW5 Sri Prabhakar, driver examined as PW5 deposed that about 6 years ago, at 6 pm, while CW1 was coming down from the 1st floor at that time accused told CW1 that he spare him because he was a Brahmin. Apart from that, he does not know anything about the incident. He did not give a statement to the police that the accused had taken his slippers, abused and threatened CW1. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before the police marked at Ex.P3.
9KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 v. CW8 Smt. Devikadevi, the then PSI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW6 and deposed that on 13-08-2015 he received Ex.P1 (complaint) from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P4, conducted spot mahazar on 14-08-2015 as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW6 and CW7 from 10 am to 11 a.m., and recorded the statements of requisite witnesses and he collected the documents as per Ex.P5 to Ex. P. 8 from the concerned and submitted charge sheet against the accused.
15. Defence of accused persons: The following defences were culled out from cross examination of prosecution witnesses namely i. There was a previous animosity of PW1 with the accused in respect of billing the traveling and other allowance.
ii. Material evidence is contrary to the prosecution case.
16. It is relevant to rely upon decision in the case of High Court of Karnataka Vs Syed Mohammed Ibrahim reported in 2015(1) KCCR 513(DB) wherein it was held that The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of 10 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 charges against the accused persons lies on prosecution as every man is presumed to be innocent. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defense. The weakness of the defense can only be called as additional link to aid the prosecution. It is not the law that the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a court. The accused merely has to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case to be acquitted. The prosecution cannot derive any advantage from the falsity or other infirmities of the defence version, so long as, it does not discharge its initial burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt or any evidence in defence is produced, the silence of accused being of no consequence. In criminal cases, the main burden i.e., of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt always rests on the prosecution and never shifts even though any statute provides for 11 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 drawing of some presumption against the accused in certain cases. The burden of proving guilty intention or knowledge is on the prosecution and the burden is not on the accused of showing absence of knowledge. It is the duty of the public prosecutor to call every witness who can throw any light on the enquiry whether they support the prosecution theory or defense theory.
Thus, the burden of proving essentiality to the establishment of charges is upon the prosecution against the accused. With the background of the decisions, let me examine the evidence on record with the charges framed in this case.
17. As per section 399 of Indian Penal Code, wrongful restraint is defined as "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." in the Indian Penal Code.
12KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 Whereas section 341 of Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for wrongful restraint which is as follows;
'Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Thus, the main reason behind the formation of section 341 IPC and section 399 is to ensure the freedom of individuals and to protect them against wrongful restraint in their movement.
18. To comprise the wrongdoing of carrying out unjust restrictions, the individual who was denied their freedom should confront a deterrent as per section 341 IPC and section 339 IPC.
Other than that, the individual who confronted the block should feel that they are denied or not given admittance to continue towards the heading they wanted to continue in any case as per section 341 IPC and section 339 IPC.
13KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 The last and principal part, which is expected for it to be known as wrongdoing, is that the casualty should reserve the option to continue towards the ideal heading in any case as per section 341 IPC and section 339 IPC.
19. The another accusation is that Section 355 of IPC which reads as under
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonor that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
To constitute an offense under IPC Section 355, the following essential elements must be present;
i. The offender must have committed an act of assault or used criminal force against another person. Assault, under IPC, refers to an attempt or threat 14 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 to inflict physical harm, while criminal force involves the use of unlawful physical power.
ii. The most critical element of this section is the offender's intent to dishonor the victim.
Dishonor can take various forms, including causing shame, disrespect, or public humiliation.
iii. The act must not have been carried out in response to a grave and sudden provocation by the victim. If the offender was provoked, the offense may fall under a different provision, and the degree of punishment may be reduced.
iv. Unlike certain other sections of the IPC that are gender-specific, Section 355 applies to acts committed against any person, regardless of gender. Both men and women are equally protected under this provision.
15KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
20. The another offence is Section 511 of IPC which reads as under
Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.-Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both 16 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 The complaint or the narration in the charge sheet against the accused would not mean that the accused has indulged in commission of any crime that would become offence punishable for life imprisonment or any other imprisonment, for that to be pressed into service, Section 341, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC is required to be proved. If the offences Section 341, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC itself was not proved, there can hardly be any circumstance of Section 511 of IPC to be laid against the accused.
21. With the background of aforesaid section, the present case is taken up. It appears from the record i.e., Ex.D1 biometrics attendence of employee of Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery, Jalahalli wherein the alleged incident of showing the left leg slipper to the PW1 by the accused and left him without beating with the slipper only for the reason that he is a Brahmin on 05/08/2015 at 6.10 pm in the reception area however from the Ex.D1 depicts that the PW1 had given out punch in biometrics at 18.09:49 (06.09:49 Pm) and within a span of 1 second, how could have reached to the reception area.
17KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
22. IO did not furnish the distance of the area office to the reception area to corroborate that there are all possibility to reach the ground floor
23. Added to which as per Ex.D1, it appears that the accused had given out punch at 18.00.53 i.e., 6.00.53 pm. PW1 deposed that ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಕಚೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ನಿಪಿ. 8 ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ, ಪಂಚಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡಿ 10 ನಿಮಿಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿಂದ ಹೊರಗೆ ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಘಟನೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಘಟನೆಯು ಸ್ವಾಗತಗಾರರ ಕೊಠಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸ್ವಾಗತಗಾರರ ಕೊಠಡಿಯಿಂದ ಕಾಂಪೌಂಡ್ ಗೇಟ್ 60 ಅಡಿ ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
Thus, the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 05/08/2015 at 6.10 pm and he was reported to the duty on 06/08/2015 and 07/08/2015 and was on leave subsequently from 08/08/2015 till 12/08/2015. Though he was very much present in the office what prevented him to lodge the complaint that too a person who was in designation who was 18 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 reporting to him has dishonored him by showing the slipper to him. The non-reaction immediately to the situation of PW1 and lodged complaint after 8 days raises the doubt about the alleged incident. No documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution for having approached by the PW1 or PW2 about the alleged incident dated 05/08/2015 to accept the delay in lodging the complaint from the prosecution though he was very present in the office on 06/08/2015 and 07/08/2015.
24. The accused/DW1 has cross examined the IO/PW6 who in turn deposed that ಸಿಸಿ ಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮಾರವನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು 2015ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮಾರ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈಗ ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಿ. 13-07-2021 ರ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಐ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡ ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ದಿ. 07- 07-2015 ರಂದು ನಡೆದಿರುವ ಘಟನೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಡಿಸಿಪ್ಲಿನರಿ ಆಕ್ಷನ್ ತೆೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಚಾಸಾ 1ರವರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹಿಂಬರಹ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ 19 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 ನಾನು ಏನು ಹೇಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
The version of PW6(IO) is contrary to the Ex.D21 as Central Institute of Coastal Engineering For Fishery on 10/11/2015 had given reply that there was 8 CC cameras installed in CICEF footage for period from 27/07/2015 till 07/08/2015 which is evidence for disciplinary Proceedings contemplated against me (accused) for which it was replied that The maximum period of storage of recordings of CCTV is only for 7 days. After 7 days, the first recording of CCTV Cameras is automatically replaced by the 8th day recording. Hence the requested information not available Thus, it is clear that there was CCTV footage but the PW6 did not visit the alleged spot to ascertain the availability of evidence and hence the question of drawing the panchanama at the spot also raises the doubt in mind of Court.
20KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
25. The best evidence was available in the office of the PW1 but IO(PW6) did not make any attempt to secure the same and did not send the CCTV footage for retrieving the incident dated 05/08/2015 if it was replaced with the new one.
26. PW1 to PW4 could have informed about the availability of evidence to the PW6 (IO) for supporting the prosecution case which itself leads to suspicion about the alleged incident could have taken place.
27. PW1 deposed that ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಹೋಮಟೌನ್ ಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಹೈದರಾಬಾದಗೆ ವಿಮಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಬಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೋಮಟೌನಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದು ಆದರೆ ಅಲೋವೆನ್ಸ ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಬಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಬಿಲ್ಲನ್ನು ನೀಡಿ ಅಲೋವೆನ್ಸನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಬಿಲ್ಲ ಗೆ ನಾನು ಆಬ್ಜೆಕ್ಷನ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಬೇರೆ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಬಿಲ್ಲನ್ನು ಮೇಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಅದನ್ನು ಅನುಮೋದನೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ನಂತರ ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಆಡಿಟ್ ನ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಡಿಟರ್ ಆಬ್ಜೆಕ್ಷನ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಂತರ ಸದರಿ ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಬಿಲ್ಲಿನ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಸಂಬಳದಿಂದ ಕಟಾವು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ 21 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಸದರಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಡಿ.ಡಿ.ಓ ಆಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಬಿಲ್ಲಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಟಿ.ಎ. ಮತ್ತು ಎಲ್.ಟಿ.ಸಿ ರೂಲ್ಸ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಾನು ಖಾಸಗಿ ಬಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಯಣಿಸಬಾರದು ಎಂಬ ವಿಚಾರ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹಾ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಬಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಯಾಣಿಸಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಬಸ್ ನ ಟಿಕೇಟ್ ನ್ನು ನೀಡಿ ಟಿ.ಎ. ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಮಾಡಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಮೋಸ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ದಿನ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಬಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಯಾಣಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಟ್ರಾವೆಲ್ ಏಜೆಂಟ್ ನೀಡಿದ ಟಿಕೇಟ್ನ್ನು ಕ್ಲೇಮ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
2013 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಚಾಸಾ-2 ಸಿ.ಟಿ ಬೆಟಗೇರಿ ಎನ್ನುವವರು ಟೂರ್ ಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ವಿಮಾನ ನಿಲ್ದಾಣಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಟ್ಯಾಕ್ಸಿಯ ಬಿಲ್ಲನ್ನು ನೀಡಿ ಟಿ.ಎ ಕ್ಲೇಮ ನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇೆನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ನನ್ನಿಂದ ತಪ್ಪಾಗಿದ್ದು ಆಡಿಟ್ ಆದನಂತರ ಸದರಿ ಟಿ. ಎ ಹಣ ದಂಡದೊಂದಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಸಂಬಂಳದಿಂದ ಕಟಾವು ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
22KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 Thus, it is clear that there was a previous enmity between the PW1 and the accused person with regard to the allowance bills raised by the PW1 and the same was not approved by the accused and the relationship between the accused and the PW1 and other staffs seems to be have not cordial on account of raising of objection by the accused in billing the allowance. The Senior APP was trying to elicit from DW1 that there was an animosity and hence the said incident had taken place and if such incident has taken place, the CCTV footage was very available and merely the accused was facing Disciplinary proceedings in his Department, the alleged incident could have taken place. It ought to be seen that CCTV was available and such being the case if such incident could have immediately produced before the IO but that was not done by the PW1 and PW2 to support their version and hence the benefit of doubt had to be accorded to the accused.
28 . The next allegation is that section 504 of IPC. The following ingredient of Section 504 of IPC comprises as follows;
(a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and 23 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
(c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
Thus, the intentional insult must be of such an extent that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the PW1 and PW2 is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC and the said principle is appreciated in the case of FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44.
29. It is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in order to a conclusion that there has been an 24 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a PW1 should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1 and PW2 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC who claims to be an victim and eyewitness. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out.
30. It is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in order to a conclusion that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC.
25KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
31. The another accusation was under section 506 of IPC. The ingredients of criminal intimidation was enumerated in Section 503 of IPC reads as under
"Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"503.Criminal intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section." A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property 26 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.'' On perusal of above provisions, it is clear that in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of PW1 and PW2 by the accused, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. If such act was exerted, then it could be punished under section 506 IPC for the offence of criminal intimidation.
32. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and it cannot 27 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sri T. P. Basavaraju Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2534. In the absence of any material evidence to corroborate the alleged offences levelled against the accused, this Court cannot presume that the accused was present at the scene and had committed the alleged offences thereby this court answer point No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
33. Point No.5:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 4 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 355, 504, 506, 511 of IPC.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.28
KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of March, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Ravishankar/Informant PW2 : Sri Venkatesh Prasad/Eye witness PW3 : Sri Lingaiah/Eye witness PW4 : Sri Ramamurthy/Mahazar witness PW5 : Sri Prabhakar/Driver PW6 : Smt.Devikadevi/IO 29 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint/PW1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar/PW1
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW5 /PW5
Ex.P4 : FIR/PW6
Ex.P5 : Letter dtd: 08-09-2015 addressed
to PSI, Jalahalli PS/PW6
Ex.P6 : Copy of Memorandum/PW6
Ex.P7 : Copy of Office order dated: 24-4-1994/
PW6
Ex.P8 : Attendance report/PW8
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: Nil Witnesses examined for the defence:
DW1 : Sri N.Mukundappa/accused Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : Certificate/PW2
Ex.D2 : Annexure 3.VIII -Addition to
Family (copy)/PW2
Ex.D3 : Copy of Index Card-CGHS/PW2
30
KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015
Ex.D4 : Copy of 2 cheques bearing
Nos.519352, 106476 drawn on
Syndicate Bank/PW2
Ex.D5 : Copy of Rent receipt/PW2
Ex.D6 : Copy of Letter dtd: 20-4-2015
/PW2
Ex.D7 : Copy of Letter dtd: 26-10-2015
/ PW2
Ex.D8 : Copy of Letter dtd: 30-04-2015
/PW2
Ex.D9 : Copy of Letter dtd: 11-05-2015
/PW2
Ex.D10 : Paper publication dtd: 4-9-2009
/PW2
Ex.D11 : Copy of Organization Chart/PW2
Ex.D12 : Copy of Reply dtd: 21-8-2015/
PW2
Ex.D13-15 : Biometric attendance/PW2
Ex.D16 : Complaint dtd: 07-07-2015 given
by M.B.Belliappa to the Director, CICEF, Bengaluru/PW2 Ex.D17 : Statement of CW1 Ravishankar/ PW2 Ex.D18 : Statement of Sri Nagaraj/PW2 Ex.D19 : Copy of Security Register /PW5 Ex.D20 : RTI information dtd: 13-07- 2021/DW1 31 KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 Ex.D21 : RTI information dtd: 10-11- 2015/DW1 Ex.D22 : Copy of Charge sheet in crime No.93/2017 of Yeshwanthpura PS /DW1 Ex.D23 : Copy of Charge sheet in crime No.92/2017 of Yeshwanthpura PS /DW1 Ex.D24 : C/C of Judgment passed in Spl.C.No.03/2018/DW1 Ex.D25 : C/C of Judgment passed in Spl.C.No.10/2018/DW1 VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.32
KABC030738342015 CC No.26364/2015 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 355, 504, 506, 511 of IPC.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 33