Bangalore District Court
Sarvamangala L M vs Subramani on 21 January, 2026
KABC030614762014 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 04-09-2014
Registered on : 04-09-2014
Decided on : 21-01-2026
Duration : 11 years, 4 months, 17 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 21st Day of January, 2026
C. C. No.24439/2014
(Crime No.115/2014)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Subramani,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Sri Muniswamy,
2. Smt. Shanthamma,
Aged about 50 years,
W/o Sri Subramani,
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
Both are R/at No.38,
3rd Main Road, Amarjyothi
Badavane, Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru City.
3. Sri Subbarao.A.V.,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sri A.Janakirama Naidu,
4. Smt. Harini,
Aged about 35 years,
W/o Sri Subbarao,
Both are R/at No.118,
Jahnavi Cluster,
F-3, 6th Main, Postal Colony,
Sanjay Nagara, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Anand.N., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 01/05/2014 &
offence 03/05/2014
2. Date of FIR 20-05-2014
3. Date of Charge sheet 15-06-2014
4. Name of Complainant Smt. Sarvamangala.L.M.
2
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
5. Offences complained of Under Section 323, 341,
354, 427, 504 read with
Sec. 34 of IPC
6. Date of framing charge 02-12-2015
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 16-02-2018
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 20-01-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 21-01-2026
11. Final order Accused No.1 to 4 are
acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 341, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
2. Prosecution Case: CW1 namely Smt. Sarvamangala.L.M., is residing in Jahnavi Cluster Apartment, Postal Colony, RMV II Stage within the limits of Sanjay Nagara, Bengaluru City. On 03-05- 2014 at about 10 pm, the accused persons picked up quarrel with CW1 in respect of car parking and wrongfully restrained her from going to her Apartment and hence she went to police station to lodge the complaint orally. Then, Sanjay Nagara police have sent CW5 namely Sri Govindaraju, HC along with her to resolve the problem. When CW5 went along with CW1 to Flat No.F-2, wherein accused persons were residing, to inquire about the incident, the accused No.1 to 4 abruptly picked up quarrel with CW1, accused No.1 abused her in filthy language and touched her body, dragged her clothes and hair with an intention to outrage her modesty. Further the accused No.2 and 4 beaten her with hands and caused simple hurt to her and damaged her car's dickey-door and loss her to the tune of Rs.6749/-, thereby accused persons have committed alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW9/PW6 Sri Nagarajaiah, ASI registered Crime No.115/2014 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 504 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P45 and sent the same to the Court.
4KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
4. Investigation: Thereafter he drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P4 from 12.5 pm to 1.30 pm in the presence of CW2 Sri Manjunath and CW3 Sri Sunil Joshi and received documents, photos and wound certificate from CW1 and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P5 in respect of damage of vehicle bearing No.KA 04 MD 1832 from 2 pm to 2.30 pm in the presence of CW6 Sri Chandrashekar and CW7 Sri Shivanna, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 341, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused No.1 to 4 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 03-02-2015.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 4.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 and 2.
5KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 to 4, charge for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 341, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses and examined 7 witness and exhibited 47 documents and closed their side. As per the application filed u/Sec.311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, Dr. Anilkumar.K.C., CMO has examined as PW7. The presence of CW6 and CW7 could not be secured despite due execution of proclamation and hence they were dropped out from examination by the order dated 09-02-2024. The proclamation was issued against him and was not issued after 09/02/2024 however considering the examination of CW5 is dispensed with as on the date of this judegment .
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
6KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
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 03-05-2014, at about 10 pm with common intention, the accused persons picked up quarrel with CW1 in respect of car parking in the Jahnavi Cluster Apartment, Postal Colony, RMV II stage within the limits of Sanjay Nagara, Bengaluru City, where CW1 namely Smt. Sarvamangala.L.M., was residing, had wrongfully restrained her to go to her apartment thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.341 read with Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, 7 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 place and time, in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 abused CW1 with filthiest language, knowingly such abusive words will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time, the accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention dragged CW1 being woman by grabbing her clothes and hairs, touched her body with an intention to outrage her modesty thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.354 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time, in furtherance 8 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 of common intention the accused No.2 and 4 voluntary beaten CW1 with their hands and caused simple hurt to her thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.323 read with Sec. 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 to 4 damaged the CW1's car dickey-door and caused a loss of Rs.6749/- to CW1 and thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.427 read with Sec. 34 of IPC?
6. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 5 : in the negative Point No.6 : As per final order 9 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 5: 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 the witnesses which are as follows:
i) CW1 namely Smt. Sarvamangala, being informant cum victim examined as PW1 deposed that, she resided in Flat No.F-11A and accused were resided at F3 above her house since April 2014 and they had enmity towards her as she had filed a complaint with the BBMP, 3 to 4 years ago regarding the illegal construction of the said flat F-3 and asked for cancellation and demolition. On 01-05-2014, she parked her car in the parking lot at night and when she saw the same on the next day, there was a dent on the back of her car and a boot mark on the car.
She went to the police station on 02-05-2014 and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. On 03-05-2014, the accused No.3 called to the police station and he was warned. On the same day at 10 pm, when she was going home, all the accused restrained her near the stairs and accused No. 2 told her to withdraw the complaint, then she went to the police station and 10 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 sought for protection, upon her request, CW5 Sri Govindaraju the Police Constable was sent to inquire, when CW5 questioned the accused, all the accused grabbed her hair and breasts and beaten on her private parts, then CW5 and his neighbours pacified the quarrel. Further deposed that on 04-05-2014 she filed a complaint as Ex.P2 however police did not take any action, she filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, the police received the complaint after the NHRC informed to DCP to take action, the copy of the said complaint was marked as Ex.P3. In furtherance, on 20-5-2014 the police filed FIR however no proper case was registered on the complaint lodged, on 20-5-2014 the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P4 and on 27-5-2014 mahazar was drawn on damage of her car as per Ex.P5. She had filed another complaint along with documents as Ex.P6 on 26-5-2014 stating that the accused had kicked her car and caused damage of Rs.7000/-. Later, the police registered two more cases and identified two photographs as ExP7, Ex. P. 8 and 35 documents as Ex.P9 to 43. She had submitted the OPD Medical Certificate issued by Bowring Hospital at the time of filing complaint however the registration was delayed due to the negligence of the police station, therefore, she met the police officials and filed a complaint as per Ex.P14, since her complaint was not accepted, she met the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and filed a 11 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 complaint, the said Commission addressed a letter to the Police authority and later the police registered an FIR by including sections 354 and 427 IPC. When she visited the police station on 04-05-2014, the date of crime was wrongly entered as 02-05-2014, and later the date was corrected as 03-05-2014. After she filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, they directed the DCP to register the complaint, thereafter DCP informed the ACP, the ACP directed the Sanjaynagar Police Station to register the complaint. She identified the said directions as Ex.18 to 20, 37, copy of correct date of assault as per Ex.P46. She has also filed an appeal against the complaint filed by the accused No.4 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and has attached a certified copy of the said appeal order as per Ex.47.
ii) CW2/PW2 A.R.Manjuanth, pancha witness deposed that on 03-05-2014 at 10 pm, whilst he was walking near the Jahnavi apartment, a group of people gathered therein and the accused were assaulting CW1. On 20-5-2014, the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P4 and obtained his signature.
iii) CW4/PW3 Divakar Nayak, deposed that on 05-05-2014 at 10 am, CW1 called him over phone and informed that the accused had abused and assaulted her and then he went to her house and 12 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 took her to Lady Curzon & Bowring Hospital for treatment.
iv) CW3/PW4 namely Sunil Joshi, pancha witness deposed that, on 03-05-2014, whilst returning home from his friend's house at 10 pm, he heard a galata near Jahnavi's apartment and found the accused on the II floor for abusing and assaulting a woman, whilst the police went there to pacify the quarrel. He knew about the incident from CW1. Later, on 20-05-2014, the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P4 and obtained his signature as per Ex.P4(c).
v) CW8 Sri Chandrahasa, the then HC examined as PW5 and deposed that, on 04-05-2014, CW1 filed written complaint, before that, on 02-05-2014, CW1 had filed a complaint that the accused had damaged her car, the then ASI Sri Ramakrishnaiah had received the said complaint. Further deposed that he registered NCR No.157/2014 and identified complaint given to ASI Ramakrishnaiah was as Ex.P1, the complaint received by him on 04-05-2014 as per Ex.P2 and the NCR was identified as Ex.P44.
vi) CW9/PW6 Sri T Nagarajaiah, the then ASI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW6 and deposed that, on 20-05-2014 he received complaint from the 13 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 ACP of JC Nagar Sub-Division, FIR as per Ex.P5 registered, a spot mahazar was conducted in the presence of CW2 and CW3 from 12-15 pm to 01-30 pm as per Ex.P4 and received some documents, photos and wound certificates from CW1 and on 27- 05-2014, the damage to the vehicle bearing No.KA- 04-MD-1832 was inspected at the parking Lot of Jahnavi Apartment, and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of CW6 and CW7 from 2 pm to 2-30 pm, recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted charge sheet against accused.
vii) Dr. Anil Kumar.K.C. examined as PW7 deposed that, on 05-05-2014, CW1 came for treatment for a history of assault on 03-5-2014 at 10 pm, when he examined he found (1) abrasion over the left side of the neck measuring 3 cm x 3 cm, (2) contusion over the right arm on the posterior measuring 3 cm x 4 cm, (3) tenderness of the right and left shoulders and the injuries were simple in nature and hence he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P45. The said injuries are likely to have occurred if a person was beaten. CW1 had taken treatment in the outpatient department, and the relevant documentation was identified as Ex.P46. In furtherance, the date of Ex.P46 is 05-05-2014 and at the request of CW1, the date was corrected for giving the treatment as 04-05-2014 and issued Ex.P46A. According to Ex.P46A, CW1 received treatment on 04- 14 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 05-2014. The date of incident in Ex.P46A is wrongly entered as 02-05-2014, CW1 obtained the said wound certificate by paying a fee of Rs.250/-. He had issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P45, itself, in which it is written that the date of incident was 03- 05-2014 at 10 PM, the date of treatment in Ex.P46A is correct, but the date of treatment in Ex.P45 is wrongly entered.
15. This court raised the maintainability of case as prima faciely alleged for the offences punishable under section 323, 341, 504, of IPC which are non- cognizable offences and Section 155 of CRPC was not complied and the said Section 155 of CRPC was reiterated as under
Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
1. When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-
cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State 15 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate.
2. No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
3. Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
4. Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
Thus, it is clear that the maximum punishment is less than three years i.e., two years and the alleged offense are non-cognizable offences are generally bailable in nature. It appears from the record that IO/PW6 admitted that no permission has been 16 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 obtained for registeration of FIR and for proceeding with investigation as required under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that the Police have registered a case against the accused No. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 504 of IPC. The maximum punishment prescribed under the IPC for these offences are upto two years. As per Schedule II of Cr.P.C. any offences punishable under any other law with less than three years are non- cognizable offences. Admittedly, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., permission of the Magistrate is required for the purpose of investigation. On the direction of ACP the case was registration which does not cure the defect. When the non-cognizable is made out, permission under section 155(2) of CRPC is mandate and no permission is obtained and if any such proceedings are initiated without prior permission would render the entire case in nullity. However the prosecution with vehemence argued that the police authority refused to receive her complaint and was directing her to write the complaint as per their own requirements and hence section 354 of IPC, cognizable offence was not included though the alleged offences was taken place in the presence of one of police official namely CW5 Sri Govindaraju, Head Constable. The said provision of section 354 of IPC was included after the direction from the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission to DCP to ACP and from ACP to Jurisdictional Sanjay Nagar 17 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Police Station. It is the case of prosecution that on the fault of registering authority i.e., police authority, the litigant cannot made to suffer. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 argued that there is no ingredients for the offence under section 354 of IPC however the complaint as per Ex.P2 dated 04/05/2014 emerges that "started to abuse me and assault me physically in front of police Govindaraju, I was beaten, pulled my hair and they assaulted me and they threatened to kill if I pursue my complaints with the BBMP and Police".
16. Though the complaint was registered on 20/05/2014 in Crime No.115/2014 as per Ex.P45 that the Police authority did not register the offence punishable under section 354 and Section 427 of IPC. It ought to be seen that PW1 approached the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bangalore as per Ex.P19 on 09/05/2014 wherein Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bangalore has issued directions to include Section 354 and 427 of IPC if needed be, by filing additional charge sheet, as the FIR was already reached to the jurisdictional magistrate for registration of FIR after 20 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, 18 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 however no single recitation in the complaint lodged before the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission or before the court in her evidence that police authority was insisting her to write the complaint as per their requirements and such being the case, how she can shield herself for protection to overcome the Section 155 of CR.P.C. and there is no single recitation in the complaint that the accused persons has grabbed her shirt and touched her breast inappropriately and pulled her hair for outraging her modesty even in the complaint lodged to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission rather approaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate to file a complaint. In addition to which, there is no reference in the Ex.P46 and Ex.P46A depicts only pulling of hair and not mentioned in respect of beating on the private part.
17. The Police authority proceeded with registration of FIR and proceeded with investigation without the permission of jurisdictional magistrate is against Under Section 155(2) of CRPC and the entire investigation renders in nullity. Admittedly, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., permission of the Magistrate is required for the purpose of investigation. It is relevant to place reliance upon decisions in the case of Keshav lal Thakur vs State of Bihar reported in (1996) 11 SCC 557, MOIN BASHA KURNOOLI VS STATE OF KARNATAKAREPORTED IN 19 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 (2014) 4 KCCR 3355 and in the matter of Nagaraj Varadappa and ano vs State reported in 2017 (2) AKR 609 and in the case of Babasab Kutbuddin Nadaf and Others - vs- State of Karnataka reported in 2018(4) AKR 417 and in the case of Mohammed Sameem Vs State by Sub-inspector police in Crl R P. 773/2011 dated 29/01/2020 wherein it was held that the criminal proceedings for not obtaining the permission of jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of FIR and Investigation as required under Section 155(2) of CRPC is quashed. When the non-cognizable is made out, permission under section 155(2) of CRPC is mandate and no permission is obtained and if any such proceedings are initiated without prior permission would render the entire case in nullity.
18. The First charge is the accused persons wrongfully restrained the PW1 and the relevant provision of law is that Section 341 IPC-
Punishment for wrongful restraint.-- 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 20 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 the wrongful restraint has been defined under Section 339 of IPC which reads as under
"Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed, is said to wrongfully to restrain that person."
To constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC, a person must have wrongfully restrained another person from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits. In the instant case, there is no allegation or material on record that the accused No.1 to 4 restrained the PW1 from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the PW1 from going to her flat. The Ex.P2 complaint dated 04/05/2014 does not reflect that she was prevented from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits however the PW1 claims that she was prevented by the accused No.1 wife namely Accused No.2 has obstructed her way from going to her flat on 03/05/2014 at 10 pm with her hands and hence she went to police station to lodge the complaint however the said complaint given after 24 21 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 days from the date of alleged incident as per Ex.P6 on 26/05/2014 which is an afterthought.
19. Added to which, the statement of eye witnesses though the prosecution has relied upon his statement being a police official to prove their offence under section 354 of IPC which has been extracted as under "ಸದರಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರ ತನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಸರ್ವಮಂಗಳ ರವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಅವರ ಜೊತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದು ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಸಹ ಸರ್ವಮಂಗಳರವರನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗದಂತೆ ಯಾರು ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ" of course it is pertinent note here that CW-5 further he given statement before the PW-6 "ಯಾರು ಸಹ ಸರ್ವಮಂಗಳರವರನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗದಂತೆ ಯಾರು ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲ ಸರ್ವಮಂಗಳರವರನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ನಂತರ ಮೇಲ್ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಸುಬ್ಬರಾವ್ರವರ ಪತ್ನಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಾರದೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ್ಗೆ ಆಗ
-------------------------------
ಸರ್ವಮಂಗಳರವರ ತಲೆಯ ಜುಟ್ಟನ್ನು
22
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
ಸುಬಬರಾವ್ರವರ ಪತ್ನಿ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಾಗ ನಾನು ಅವರುಗಳನ್ನು ಬಿಡಿಸಿ ಸಮಾಧಾನಪಡಿಸಿ ಅವರವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳದಂತೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ"
Thus, it is emerges that the accused No.1 to 4 have not prevented the PW1 from proceeding beyond her circumstantial limits either on 03/05/2014 before the visit of CW5 Sri Govindaraju to the apartment or at the time of the visit of CW5 Sri Govindaraju, HC and the said principle is appreciated in the case of SYED ESA IBRAHIM and another vs STATE BY CHANNAPATNA EAST PS and another reported in NC: 2023:KHC:38832 vide CRL.P No. 10483 of 2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 02/11/2023 thereby the Point No.1 is answered in negative.
20. The next charge is under Section 504 of IPC which reads as under
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other 23 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Thus, it emerges that 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 attracted. 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 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.
21. 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 24 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 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 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 of the PW1 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC who claims to be an victim. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out and proved and hence this court answers the Point No.2 in the negative.
22. The next charge framed under section 354 of IPC. Whether the act of accused persons falls within the mischief under Section 354 of IPC. As per Section 354 of IPC-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished.
25KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC are:-
a) That the assault must be on a woman.
b) That the accused must have used criminal force on PW1.
c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage the modesty of PW1.
The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from the birth of PW1, they possess the modesty which is the attribute of their sex. From the test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman and the said principle is appreciated in case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC 194.
23. The word 'modesty' has not been defined in the IPC, and according to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.) modesty is the quality of being 26 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 modest and in relation to a woman means "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". It is well settled principle of law that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the Court.
24. Looking to the complaint and evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and victim of Section 354 of IPC as per Ex.P2 that "they pulled her hair"
except which, PW1 has not stated anything about that the accused persons pulled her shirt and touched her breast inappropriately. Added to which, PW1 has not deposed that she was forced to write the complaint as per the requirements of police if such was so, PW1 neither given any statement before this court in her oral testimony on oath or before the Karnataka Human Rights Commission as per Ex.P19 and such being the case how this court could give credential or evidentiary value to to the contents of Ex. P. 6 as to the outraging the modesty and to her oral testimony and as under
ಆಗ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನ ಜುಟ್ಟನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿ ನನ್ನ ಮೈಕೈಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದು ನನ್ನ ಸ್ತನವನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿ ನನ್ನ ಗುಪ್ತಾಂಗಕ್ಕೆ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಚಾಸಾ.5 27 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 ರವರು ಗಲಾಟೆಯನ್ನು ಬಿಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ನನ್ನ ಕಿರುಚಾಟ ಕೇಳಿ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದ ಮನೆಯವರು ಬಂದು ಜಗಳ ಬಿಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. and even in the medical certificate as per Ex.P46 and Ex.P46A also appears that pulled her hair and no statement was given that they beaten her to private parts.
Thus, it is clear from the oral testimony of alleged victim i.e., PW1 given by her and the further complaint given on 26/05/2014 was said to have given after 22 days from the alleged incident leads to improvisation. The best evidence is CW5 Sri Govindraju (HC) who himself given the statement given on 24/05/2014 depicts that the accused No.2 was present and not the accused No.1, 3 and 4. His statement makes it very clear that accused No.2 pulled her hair during the process of quarrel and CW5 stopped the quarrel and thus makes it very clear the acts of accused No.2 was not with an intention to outrage modesty.
25. It is relevant to mention the decision in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC (Cri) 1059 in paragraph 17 and in the case of 28 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Vidhyadharan Vs state Of Kerala reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 260 in paragraph 14 held that
17. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being states of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case.
Since, however, in the instant case we are only at the incipient stage we have to ascertain, only prima facie, whether Mr Gill by slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior, in the background detailed by her in the FIR, intended to outrage or knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty, which is one of the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The sequence of events which we have detailed earlier indicates that the slapping was the finale to the earlier 29 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 overtures of Mr. Gill, which considered together, persuade us to hold that he had the requisite culpable intention. Even if we had presumed he had no such intention he must be attributed with such knowledge, as the alleged act was committed by him in the presence of a gathering comprising the elite of the society- as the names and designations of the people given in the FIR indicate. While on this point we may also mention that there is nothing in the FIR to indicate, even remotely, that the indecent act was committed by Mr Gill, accidentally or by mistake or it was a slip. For the reasons aforesaid, it must also be said that - apart from the offence under Section 354 IPC-an offence under section 509 of IPC has been made out on the allegations contained in the FIR as the words used and gestures made by Mr. Gill were intended to insult the modesty of Mrs. Bajaj."
30KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 and
10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected.
Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A Victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. xxxx In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence coupled with the aforesaid decisions, the accused No. 2 did not touch the PW1 inappropriately to outrage her modesty rather further complaint as per Ex.P6 31 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 has come into existence of first complaint lodged after 22 days. This Court is of opinion that the pulling the hair of PW1 by the accused No.2 during the heat of quarrel accidentally in a wrongful manner, the same cannot be said to be with an intention to outrage her modesty and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sumit Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal decided in CRR 3236 of 2014, decided on 22.04. 2014.
26. The further complaint dated 26/05/2014 as per Ex.P6 was given which is contrary to the statement of eye witness namely Sri Govindaraju (police official) given on 24/05/2014. Thus, it could be discerned that there was no assault or criminal force was used upon the PW1 intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that her act of pulling hair during the process of quarrel would result in outraging her modesty. The action of accused No.2 can be attributed to the fallout of a heated quarrel which culminated in the PW1 by pulling her. The informant may complain of outraging her modesty in her second complaint as per Ex.P6 dated 26/05/2014 but cannot complain of a definite apriori intention on the part of the accused No.2 to outrage the modesty of PW1 on 03/05/2014.
32KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
27. Moreover, the prosecutrix/PW1 has made material improvements during the time of investigation, such as allegations of being touched her inappropriately on to her breast, none of which form part of statement of CW5 to the Investigating Officer. PW2 is an hearsay witness to the incident. However PW4 claims to be eye witness in the chief in examination and PW6 Investigating officer deposed ದಿಃ 3-5-2014ರಂದು ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತನ ಮನೆಯಿಂದ ರಾತ್ರಿ 10 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಜಾಹ್ನವಿ ಕ್ಲಸ್ಟರ್ಸ್ ಬಿಲ್ಡಿಂಗ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಗಲಾಟೆಯ ಶಬ್ದ ಕೇಳಿ ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋದಾಗ ಸದರಿ ಬಿಲ್ಡಿಂಗ್ನ 2ನೇ ಮಹಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬ ಮಹಿಳೆಯನ್ನು 4 ಜನ ಅಂದರೆ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಗಂಡಸರು ಮತ್ತು ಇಬ್ಬರು ಹೆಂಗಳರು ಸದರಿ ಮಹಿಳೆಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ಯುತ್ತಾ ಆಕೆಯ ಕೂದಲನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.
PW6 in his cross deposed that:
ಜಾಹ್ನವಿ ಕ್ಲಸ್ಟರ್ಸ್ ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಎಫ್ 2 ಪ್ಲಾಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಇರುವ ಎಫ್ 3 ಪ್ಲಾಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತ್ಯಕ್ಷ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರ ಚಾಸಾ.5 ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.33
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 PW4 and CW5 projected as an eyewitness to such assault , also did not state such facts before this court and added to which PW4 deposed that he has seen the PW1 and the accused persons in the second floor which is contrary to the statement of CW5 when the incident was taken place in F3 which belongs to the accused persons which reflects significant embellishment. No doubt, PW4 in his statement on 28/05/2014 stated about the outraging the modesty i.e.,after the further complaint given on 26/05/2014 and not prior to that which goes to show that he has been tutored and has not given any evidence before this court in corroboration with his statement dated 28/05/2014.
28. In fact the prosecution failed to cross examine the PW4 as to his hostility towards Section 354 of IPC. The accused persons has created a dent by way of cross examination in the prosecution case as far as the Section 354 of IPC is concerned. These inconsistencies are not minor omissions but substantive contradictions that cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecutrix version about Section 354 of IPC.
29. Furthermore, there is no surrounding circumstances exist to convince this Court that the PW1 was attacked with an intention to outrage her 34 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 modesty by the accused No. 2 or other accused persons. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove/establish that the accused persons has outraged the modesty of PW1 by using criminal force thereby the point No.3 is answered in negative.
30. The next charge is that the accused persons has beaten PW1 with their hands and hence charged for an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Section 321 of IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt"
i.e., voluntarily causing hurt is causing hurt with intention or knowledge. Thus, either the ingredient of intention or of knowledge must essentially be present to constitute an offence under the section. The acts which fall under Section 321 IPC are punishable under Section 323 IPC.
Section 323 in the Indian Penal Code which reads as under 35
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
To convict a person under Section 323 IPC, the following constituents must be present:
i. The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt to another person.
ii. The hurt caused must not be grave or life-threatening.
iii. The act must not have been committed in the heat of passion or in exercising the right of private defence.
If all of these constituents are present, then the accused can be charged with an offence under section 323 of the IPC and may be imprisoned for up to one year, with a fine, or with both. It is important to note that the punishment may vary depending on the 36 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 circumstances of the case and the severity of the hurt caused.
31. The prosecution has produced wound certificate as per Ex.P45 that she has taken the treatment from Lady curzon and Bowring Hospital and hurt was simple in nature however there was an error in the date of taking the treatment with history of assault and hence she has got corrected the wound certificate as per Ex.P45 and Ex.P46 through Ex.P46A as she has taken the treatment on 04/05/2014. The learned counsel for the accused persons with the vehemence argued that the wound/medical certificate is tampered to corroborate the case of PW1 as if she has taken treatment on 04/05/2014 for the incident was said to have taken place on 02/05/2014 as per Ex.P46A and the Ex.P45 and 46 depicts that she was taken treatment on 05/05/20214 for the incident said to have taken place on 03/05/2014. It appears from the evidence of PW7/doctor that no permission was accorded by him to correct the mistakes occurred in the wound certificate from his superior or any supporting document was produced to show that he committed the mistake during his evidence. Though the PW1 was said to have taken treatment on 04/05/2014 however the PW1/prosecution could have corroborated the date of taking treatment by 37 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 producing the receipt for having paid Rs. 10/- to infer that there was an error whilst mentioning the date of taking the treatment and the said defect/dent was not clarified by the prosecution.
32. The original copy of Ex.P46A has not been produced.
33. The Courts would normally expects that the treatment should be obtained from the Government Hospital for protecting the sanctity of records as they perform the public duties and has an authenticity towards documents given by the government sector hospital than the private sector hospital however the Ex.P46A was obtained that she has taken the treatment immediately on the next day of incident i.e., 04/05/2014 after the alleged incident dated 03/05/2014 to show that there was no gap in taking the treatment and the date of assault however the incident alleged to have occurred mentioned therein on 02/05/2014 which is again contrary to the prosecution case. The production of Ex.P46 and 46A by the PW1 appears that PW1 has an vindictive nature and has been created to give weight-age to complaint to the Ex.P2 dated 04/05/2014 38 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
34. Even for a moment for sake of argument to be assumed that the PW7 has committed a mistake about mentioning the date of taking treatment and the date of assault, how the computerized entry made by the computer operator could have committed the same mistake. Without any supporting document, the version of PW7 that he rendered the treatment on 04/05/2014 for date of assault on 03/05/2014 cannot be given any evidentiary value for correcting the errors.
35. Added to which, the delay in taking the treatment i.e., more 38 hours again creates the doubt in the prosecution case about the alleged injuries was occurred on account of alleged beating of the accused No.2.
36. No doubt, the PW1 and PW4 has adduced the evidence to the extent of beating of PW1 by the accused persons however Section 155(2) of CRPC was not complied added to which negative document as per Ex.P46A was produced and hence this court was constrained to answer the point No. 4 in the negative.
37. The next charge is under section 427 of IPC which reads as under 39
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Sec. 427 of IPC. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.-- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Now coming to whether the ingredients of Section 427 of IPC are fulfilled. 425 of IPC defines mischief and the essential ingredients are as follows:1 (1)Whoever (2)with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause (3)Wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person (4)causes destruction of any property or any such change in the property which destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, is said to commit mischief. According to the PW1, the alleged incident was taken place on 01/05/2014 at late night i.e., 10.30 pm as per Ex.P1 and PW1 did not see the alleged incident except hearing the voices of accused No.3 and 4 who was coming to their house however in the cross examination deposed that she has seen that the car was dented and did not depose clearly who has dented the car. It is inappropriate to infer that 40 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 hearing of voice of accused No.3 and 4 that they could have dented the car on 01/05/2014 and the mahazar was drawn on 27/05/2014 i.e., after 26 days of lodging of complaint as per Ex.P1 dated 01/05/2014 that mahazar was drawn to show that car was dented and the Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 photograph was taken that the car was dented which was again after 26 days of the complaint.
38. It is the case of prosecution that the police officer namely Sri Mestri Nayak has taken photographs in his mobile however no certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was not supported with the same nor the author of Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 has spoken about the same that the Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 was taken immediately on the date of lodging the complaint i.e., 02/05/2014 or on 27/05/2014 on the date of drawing mahazar as per Ex.P5 and hence this court declines to give any evidentiary value to the Ex.P7 and Ex.P8.
39. Prosecution has not put forth any particulars of distance between the car parked and to the Flat of PW1 to ascertain was it possible to hear their voice of accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 from the parking place.
41KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
40. The car dented was repaired as per Ex.P28 and the estimated value of Rs.6,749/- was occurred to get the car set right.
41. In addition to which, Ex.P5 mahazar for the car dent drawn depicts that as such " ನಾನು ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಪಾರ್ಕಿಂಗ್ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಸಿಲ್ವರ್ ಬಣ್ಣದ KA -04 MD 1832 ನಂಬರಿನ ಆಲ್ಟೊ ಕಾರ್ ನ ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶೊ ಕಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒದ್ದಿದ ಮಾರ್ಕ್ ಇದ್ದು ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಡೆಂಟ್ ಆಗಿತ್ತು. ಸದರಿ ಸುಬ್ಬರಾವ್ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಮನೆಯವರೇ ಯಾರೋ ಈ ಕೃತ್ಯ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
Without any eye witnesses on record including the PW1 did not see the persons who has caused the dent to her car, this court cannot come infer or assume that the accused No. 3 and 4 has caused damaged to the car by making the PW1 to incur loss of Rs.6,749/- only on hearing of their voice thereby the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence under section 427 of IPC and hence the point No.5 is answered in negative.
42. This court appreciates the learned APP has taken lot of efforts to put forth the case in the written arguments however the documents are contrary to the prosecution case and hence this court could not 42 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 give any weight age to the written arguments and and the citations placed by the prosecution as there is a bar under section 155(2) of CRPC to accept the case of prosecution i.e., when the investigation itself is against the procedure under section 155(2) of CRPC.
43. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, thereby this court answer the above points No.1 to 5 in the negative.
44. Point No.6:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 5 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 354, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.43
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
(ii) Accused are is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21 st day of January, 2026) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. L.M.Sarvamangala Informant cum victim PW2 : Sri A.R.Manjuanth Pancha witness PW3 : Sri Divakar Nayak Hearsay witness PW4 : Sri Sunil Joshi Pancha witness PW5 : Sri Chandrahasa HC PW6 : Sri T.Nagarajaiah ASI/IO PW7 : Dr. Sri Anil Kumar.K.C. Doctor 44 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint dtd: 02-05-2014 PW1 Ex.P2: Complaint dtd: 04-05-2014 Ex.P3: Complaint dtd: 06-05-2014 Ex.P4: Spot mahazar dtd: 20-5-2014 ""
Ex.P5: Mahazar dtd : 27-05-2014
Ex.P6: Letter dtd: 26-05-2014
Ex.P7-8: Photographs
Ex.P9: Complaint to Joint Commissioner
BBMP on 09.05.2012
Ex.P10: Compliant dtd: 04.05.2014 addressed to Sanjay Nagar police station Ex.P11: Copy of OPD Report of Lady Bowring and Curzon Hospital dated 05-05-2014 Ex.P12: Copy of Wound Certificate dated 15-05-2014 of Lady Bowring and Curzon Hospital.
Ex.P13: Copy of Complaint dated 09-05-
2014 submitted to IGP, KSHRC, Bengaluru regarding Physical Assault and Criminal Trespass 45 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Ex.P14: Copy of Complaint dated 06-05- 2014 submitted to ACP, J.C Nagar Sub-division Ex.P15: Copy of endorsement of complaint forwarded to Sanjay Nagar Police Station for further action., dated 06-05-2014 Ex.P16: Copy of letter dated 30.06.2014 ""
issued by the KSHRC to submit opinion on Report HCR 2207/14 Ex.P17: Copy of the Reply dated 19-07- 2014 addressed to the Registrar, KSHRC, Bengaluru Ex.P18: Copy of letter dated 22-05-2014 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police by the KSHRC calling for action report Ex.P19: Copy of the order passed by KSHRC dated 28-10-2014 Ex.P20: Copy of the report dated 02-06- 2014 forwarded to the DCP, North Division from KSHRC, Bengaluru Ex.P21: Copy of Memorandum dtd: 31-05- 2014 issued by DCP 46 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Ex.P22: Copy of report dated 10-06-2014 by DCP, North Division addressed to KSHRC Ex.P23: Copy of endorsement dated 04-06- 2014 by ACP, JC Nagar, Sub Division to complainant Ex.P24: Copy compliant letter dated 15- 04-2014 to the Commissioner of Police.
Ex.P25: Copy of complaint dated 15-04- ""
2014 addressed to the Commissioner of Police.
Ex.P26: Copy of the Complaint letter dated 14-04-2014 addressed to Police Inspector, Sanjay Nagar PS Ex.P27: Copy of Photos of Damaged Car Ex.P28: Copy of the Job Estimate given by Mars Enteriprises (P) Ltd., dated 23-07-2014.
Ex.P29: Copy of complaint to Joint Commissioner, BBMP dated 05-04- 2014 Ex.P30: Copy of letter dated 20-04-2011 addressed to DCP, North Division Ex.P31: Copy of letter addressed to the Commissioner of Police 47 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Ex.P32: Copy of letter dated 12-01-2011 addressed to SP, Sanjaynagar Police Station by the Commissioner of Police Ex.P33: Copy of letter dated 11-01-2011 ""
addressed to SP, Sanjaynagar Police Station Ex.P34: Copy of letter addressed to SP, Sanjaynagar Police Station dated 3-09-2010 Ex.P35: Copy of letter dated 19-08-2011 to KSHRC Ex.P36: Copy of letter dated 13-02-2010 addressed to SP, Sanjay nagar Police Station Ex.P37: Copy of letter dated 07-09-2015 addressed to Police Commissioner seeking protection Ex.P38: Copy of letter dated 07-09-2015 addressed to Sanjaynagar Police Station seeking protection Ex.P39: Copy of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru - Order in Writ Petition No 46730/2015 Ex.P40: Estimation / Quotation for Crack Filings and Painting issued by 48 KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 Building Maintenance Works Ex.P41: Copy of Possession Notice issued by JM Financial Asset Co Pvt Ltd Ex.P42: Copy of Order Sheet, Order and ""
Application and list of documents along with affidavit in C.Miss No 8048/2015 Ex.P43: Copy of Debts Recovery Tribunal, PW1 Bengaluru, Appeal No. 16/2012 between B.Subramnyam VS State Bank of India Scrutiny list of objection, order sheet, Memo of withdrawal by the applicant (A1) and Appeal copy filed by the Appellant.
Ex.P44: NCR No.157/2014 PW5
Ex.P45: FIR/ PW6
Wound certificate PW7
Ex.P46: Documents of outpatient PW7
department
Ex.P46A: Copy of OPD certificate dated PW1
04.05.2014
Ex.P47: CC of order passed in PW1
Crl.A.No.351/2022
49
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.50
KABC030614762014 CC No.24439/2014 21-01-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 354, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused are is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
51