Bangalore District Court
G.Shobha Psi vs Sathish Puranik on 10 October, 2024
KABC030650032012
Presented on : 08-11-2012
Registered on : 08-11-2012
Decided on : 10-10-2024
Duration : 11 years, 11 months, 2 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 10th Day of October, 2024
C.C. No.22654/2012
State by High Grounds Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Sathish Puranik
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri Ramesh Puranik
R/at Embassy Hebitite,
Palace Road, Vasantha Nagara,
Bengaluru City.
KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
2. Smt. Prajaktha Mahendra
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Sri Jayan Rao,
R/at No.35, 3rd Cross,
Horamavu Road,
Banasawadi, Bengaluru-43.
3. Smt. Vankana
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Sri Siddesh Puranik,
R/at No.1302, Embassy Hebitite,
Palace Road, Vasantha Nagara,
Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(A2 Represented By Sri S.V.Srinivas, Advocate)
(A1, A3 Represented By M/s Tomy Sebastian
Associates' Advocates)
1. Date of commission of 07-08-2012
offence
2. Name of Complainant Smt Shobha.G. PSI,
High Grounds Police
Station
3. Offences complained Under Section 353, 504,
of 506 read with section 34
of IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
2
KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
5. Final Order Acquitted
6. Date of order 10-10-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of High Grounds Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 353, 504, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: On 07-08-2012 at 3.15 a.m. the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention were drinking alcohol and shouting in front of Mount Carmel College Road with their Car bearing Reg.No.KA 04 MF 7161, at that time CW1 Smt. G.Shobha, PSI of High Grounds Police Station along with his staff namely CW4 to CW8 who were on patrolling duty question their presence and told them to go to their houses for which the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention abused them with filthiest language and further stated that they have high influences and put life threat to them and the accused No.2 and 3 beaten CW1 with hands and accused No.3 torn the whistle guard on the left shoulder of CW1 and deterred her from discharging her public duty.
3KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1, CW9/PW5 Sri Lakshmaiah, the then HC of High Grounds PS registered a Crime No.217/2012 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 353, 506, 504 R/W Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P3, sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers, conducted mahazar in the presence of CW2 and CW3 at 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. as per Ex.P2 and seized 4 kingfisher beer bottles, one whistle guard, Chevrolet car bearing Reg.No.KA 04 MM 7161, one hockey stick, spine-of bottle as per MO1 to MO5 and handed over the case papers to CW11.
4. Investigation: On the receipt of case papers from CW9/PW5, CW11/PW8 Sri Iranna Balagurgi, the then PSI of High Grounds PS has recorded the statement of CW4 to CW8. After completion of investigation, PW8 submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences.
5. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused No.1 to 3 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 08- 08-2012.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
4KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused persons.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, the charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504, 504 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused persons 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 11 witnesses however examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents and MO1 to MO5. Despite due execution of proclamation, the examination of CW3, CW8 were dropped out by the order dated 11/11/2014 and 10/10/2018. On account of death of CW7, the examination of CW7 was given up by the order dated 16/11/2018.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 to 3 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.
5KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
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 06-08-2012 at 3.15 a.m. the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention drinking alcohol and shouting standing in front of Mount Carmel College Road with their Car bearing Reg.No.KA 04 MF 7161, at that time CW1 Smt. G.Shobha, PSI of High Grounds PS along with staff CW4 to CW8 who were on patrolling duty question about their presence for that accused No.1 to 3 with common intention abused them with filthiest language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 504 R/w sec.34 of IPC?
6KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, place and time in furtherance of common intention accused No.2 and 3 beaten CW1 with hands and accused No.3 torn the whistle guard on the left shoulder of CW1 and deter her from discharging her public duty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.353 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?`
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 to 3 threatened CW1 thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4. What order?
7KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 3: 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 has examined witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 Smt. Shobha.G., being Informant and the then WPSI of High Grounds PS examined as PW1 deposed that, on 06-08-2012 at 11 pm CW6, 8 and herself started night rounds in Hoysala at 3.15 a.m. CW4 has given a call stating that galata is taking place near Mount Carmal college and they went to the spot and 4 police personnel were also arrived. Then they noticed that the accused persons keeping liquor bottle on car bonnet were drinking, when she questioned their presence, the accused persons abused her in filthy language and accused No.2 and 3 assaulted her with hands and accused No.3 dragged her and removed the whistle guard and threatened 8 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 her. Thereafter accused brought to Bowring Hospital for examined them in the case of having drunk and after that produced them before SHO along with report as per Ex.P1, CW9 came to spot and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 between 7.00 to 8.00 a.m. and seized MO1 to MO5 i.e. Chevrolet Car, one hockey stick, Kingfisher bottle, one Vodka bottle and one empty red bull tin through Ex.P3 seizure mahazar.
ii. CW4 Sri Mukunda, the then PC of High Grounds PS examined as PW2 deposed that he was working as police constable in High ground police station. On 06/08/2012 at 8.30 pm they were deputed in the night duty when they were patrolling in Cheeta vehicle, around 3.15 am at the Mount Carmel college road 6 people were drinking and were standing near the car bearing No.KA-04-MF-7164. They were talking loudly and standing near the car and hence asked them to leave the place for which they said that who is he to ask them and asked him to go to Shivajinagar for doing his duty and informed him to Hoysala. Thereafter Cw6 and CW8 came in the Hoysala to the spot. CW1 called up to enquire about the issues. On hearing the issues, CW1 along with CW5 and CW7 came to the spot. When CW1 enquired with the accused persons, the accused No.3 told her that who is she to ask them and beaten the CW1's shoulder and torn the whistle guard. Thereafter they 9 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 brought them to the Police Station and then medical examination. In this regard, he had given the statement to the police.
iii. CW2 Sri R. Ranganath examined as PW3 deposed that he identified his signature on Ex.P.2 and he signed to the mahazar which was drawn in the year 2012 at Mount Carmel College by High Ground Police from 8 am to 9 am and thereafter was a Chevrolet Car. He identified MO1 to MO5. His signature is marked as Ex. P.2B.
iv. CW6 Sri Srinivas Murthy examined as PW4 deposed that he was working as head constable from the year 2009 with High Ground Police Station. On 06/08/2012 he was deputed for Hoysala duty from 8.30 pm till 3.15 am. When they were patrolling at Vasanth Nagar 1st Main road, CW4 has received a call through wireless and asked them to come to the spot. We went to spot wherein 4 girls and 2 boys were drinking alcohols in Car bearing No. KA-04-7164 and were talking loudly and standing. There was a sticker Times of India press affixed behind the glass of car. At the same time, CW1 and her staff came to the spot. CW1 told them not to stand here and asked them to leave for which who is he to ask them and told him to go and do the duty at Shivajinagar and they are press people and hence abused them. CW1 told them not to stand here for which accused No.3 10 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 torn the whistle guard of CW1 and puller her hand and threatened them that they are press what they will do and abused her in filthiest language. The accused No.1 abused the CW1 with the filthiest language and obstructed to discharge of public duties. CW1 directed them to take all the 6 people in Hoysala vehicle for bringing them to Police Station. CW1 went along with him. He had given the statement before the police. He identified the accused No.1 and 3. There is no dispute with the regard to identification of accused No.2.
v. CW9 Sri Lakshmaiah examined as PW5 deposed that he was working as head constable from the year 2007 till 2013 with High Ground Police Station. On 06/08/2012, he was station house officer around 6 am, PSI CW1 had given written complaint and the same is already marked as Ex.P1 and his signature as Ex.P.1B. Based upon the summarization of complaint, crime No.217/2012 came to be registered. The FIR is marked as Ex.P3 and his signature as Ex.P3A. On the same day, the spot was identified by the CW1 in the presence of CW2 and CW3, mahazar as per Ex.P2 was drawn from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. He identified his signature on Ex.P2 and the same is marked as Ex.P.2C. They have seized 4 kingfisher beer bottles, one whistle guard, one hockey stick, Steen of bottle and the same is marked as MO1 to MO5. Except car, he identified all the material 11 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 objects before this court and handed over the case papers for further investigation to CW11.
v. CW10 Dr. Sheshan Kumar examined as PW6 deposed that he was working as doctor for last 10 years with Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital. On 07/08/2012 around 4.30 am, High Ground Police brought accused No.1 to 3 along with Chayan and Shruti Reddy to the hospital for examination of consumption of alcohol however accused No. 1 to 3 refused to give consent for medical examination and blood samples. Based upon the abnormal behavior and breathing smell, he could confirm that accused No. 3 was drunken and accused No.1 and 2 were not consume alcohol. They were treated as outpatient with card under the MLC register card and the same is marked as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and his signature as Ex.P4A to 6A.
vii. CW5 Sri Parasappa Doddamani, examined as PW7 deposed that he was working as head constable in High ground police station. On 06/08/2012 at 8.30 pm he and CW7 were deputed for the First beat duty. Around 3.15 am when they were patrolling at palace cross road, CW4 called up Hoysala to their wireless and directed them to come to Mount Carmel college. At that time, CW1 along with Hoysala personnel and he and CW7 went to Mount Carmel College wherein car bearing No.KA-04-MF-7164 was 12 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 parked and press Times of India sticker was affixed behind the glass of car. There were 4 girls and one boy was holding alcohol bottles and was screaming loudly. CW1 told them to go to home for which the accused No.3 told her that they are working for Times of India and have contacts with high influence people and told the CW1 to close her mouth and go and will see you and given threat consequences and beaten CW1 on her left shoulder and torn whistle guard. Accused No.1 too abused in filthy language and beaten her at the spine. Accused No.1 had scolded them as an idiot fool and they cannot do anything. They will give rape case and caused obstruction to their duty. They were all brought to the Police Station and in this regard, CW1 lodged a complaint.
viii. CW11 Sri Errana Balagurgi examined as PW8 deposed that he working as PSI with the High Grounds Police Station. On 07/08/2012 he received the case papers from CW9 for further investigation. He recorded the statement of CW4 to CW8 and produced the accused No.1 to 3 before the court on 07/089/2012. After completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
15. Before adverting into the factual matrix of the case, it is relevant to consider and analyze the necessary ingredients of Section 353 of IPC of IPC which reads as under:-
13KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Thus, the above Section makes it very clear that in order to attract the offence it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use of criminal force restraining public servant from performing his official duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty. In order to make out a case under section 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying 14 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 out his responsibilities or with the goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties.
16. To establish as to whether the PW1 has assaulted the complainant or used any criminal force upon him, it is necessary to examine the definition of 'force', 'criminal force' and 'assault', which are defined in Sections 349, 350 and 351 of IPC which are as under:-
Section 349: Force-- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described: First.--By his own bodily power.
15
KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
Secondly.--By disposing any
substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly.--By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
A reading of above Section makes it clear that a person is said to use force in any of the three methods mentioned above. The exertion of energy or power that causes a movement or change in the external environment is known as force. The term "force" as defined in this Section refers to force exerted by a person on another human.
Section 350: Criminal force-- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he 16 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
From perusal of the above section, it is clear that the force that has been specified in Section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essential of Section 350 are satisfied. The essentials of Section 350 are intentional/deliberate use of force against any one; without consent, when the claimed assault involves illegal conduct and the force has to be utilized in order to conduct an offence or to cause hurt or fear to another person.
Section 351: Assault-- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.17
KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
With the background of this section, this court had gone through the complaint wherein it appears that "xxxx ಅದರಂತೆ ನಾನು ಹಾಗೂ ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ - ೦7, ಚೀತಾ - ೦4 ಮತ್ತು 1 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಬೀಟಿನ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಮೇಲೆಕಂಡ ವಾಹನ ಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿನಿಂತಿದ್ದಿ 6 ಜನ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು "ಏಕೆ ಇನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಂ ತಿ ದ್ದೀ ರಿ ?"
ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿ, ನಮ್ಮ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯನ್ನು
ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ವಂದನಾ
ಪುರಾಣಿಕ್ ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುಗಿ ನನಗೆ, ನೀನು ಯಾರು ಕೇಳುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಟೈಮ್ಸ್ ಆಫ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾ ಪ್ರೆಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾ ಡು ತ್ತಿ ದ್ದೇ ನೆ " ಎಂದು ಜೋರಾಗಿ ಕೂಗಾಡಿ, ನನ್ನ ಎಡ ಭುಜದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕೈ ಹಾಕಿ ನನ್ನ ವಿಷಲ್ ಗಾರ್ಡನ್ನು ಎಳೆದಳು. ಆಗ ಅದು ಕಿತ್ತು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಹಾಗೂ ಅದನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದಕ್ಕೆ, "ಏಯ್ , ನಿನ್ನ ಕೆಲಸ ನೀನು ಮಾಡು ಬಾಯಿ ಮುಚ್ಚಿಕೊಂಡು ಇರು, ನನಗೆ ಜೋರಾಗಿ 18 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 ಕೈಯಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದಳು. ನಂತರ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಇದ್ದ ಪ್ರಾಜಕ್ತಾ ಎಂಬುವವಳು ಬಂದು, ನೀನ್ಯಾರೇ ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಕೇ ಳಲು" ಎಂದು ಹಿಂದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ "ಆಫ್ ಕೌನ್ ಹೇ ಮುಜೆ ಪೂ ಚ್ನೆಕೇ ಳಿಯೇ " ಎಂದು ಬೈದು ನನ್ನ ಬೆನ್ನಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದಳು. ಆಗ ಅದೇ ಸಮಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಇದ್ದ ಸತೀಶ್ ಪುರಾಣಿಕ್ ಎಂಬಾತ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯವಾಗಿ "ಲೋಫರ್, ಈಡಿಯಟ್ ಪೊ ಲೀ ಸ ರು " ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಬೈಯ್ದಾಡುತ್ತಾ, ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ರೇಪ್ ಕೇಸ್ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ "ನೀವು ಯಾರು ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಏನು ಮಾ ಡಿ ಕೊಳ್ಳಕ್ಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾ ಗು ವು ದಿ" ಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಕಿರುಚುತ್ತಿದ್ದ. ಅವರ ಜೊತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದ ಚಯಾನ್, ಸತೀಶ್ ಪುರಾಣಿಕ್ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಜಕ್ತಾ ರವರು ಮೇಲ್ನೋಟಕ್ಕೆ ಮದ್ಯಪಾನ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದಿದ್ದು xxxxx 17. However counsel for the accused No. 1 and 3 has cross examined the PW1 wherein she deposed that "it is true to suggest that earlier and subsequent to this incident similar obstruction of public duty has been caused to me. Witness voluntarily says that she was doing night duty and such 19 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 incidents happens. I cannot say how many such incidents have taken. In some such similar cases I have taken them to police station and warned them and in some cases petty cases have been filed.
and in page 7 that It is true to suggest that the accused No. 3 is shorter than me and slimmer than me. I did not expect them of assaulting me and therefore I could not prevent them. As soon as accused No. 3 assaulted me I took her and made her to sit in the Hoysala.
Thus, it is clear that when the accused No. 3 is shorter and slimmer than the PW1, how she could have assaulted the PW1 on her left shoulder and hence the version of PW1 cannot be believed that the accused No.3 assaulted her. Added to which, the PW1 was guarding the accused No.3 who was made to sit in the Hoysala, at that time, accused No.3 had assaulted her at the back that too there were 5 to 6 police officials were there. When the senior was there, how the accused No.2 could have assaulted PW1 and hence the version of PW1 cannot be accepted. Added 20 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 to which, the PW1 was with the history of lodging complaints for obstruction to discharge of her public duties.
18. It appears from the cross examination of PW1 by the counsel for accused No. 2 that ನೈಟ್ ರೌಂಡ್ ಗಾಗಿ ರಾತ್ರಿ ೧೧.೦೦ ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ ನಾನು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ಹೆಚ್ ಸಿ 3335 ಇದ್ದರು. ಆ ದಿವಸ ಅವರು ನೈಟ್ ರೌಂಡ್ಸ್ ಗೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಬಂದ ಮೇಲೆ ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ರೌಂಡ್ಸ್ ಹೋಗಿ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಎಷ್ಟು ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ ಘಟನೆಯಾದ ಮೇಲೆ ಬೆಳಗಿನ ಜಾವ ಸುಮಾರು 4.00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದೆನು.
ಯಾವುದೇ ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದರೆ ಆ ಘಟನೆಯನ್ನು ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಕೇಸಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಎಸ್ ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಯನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ 21 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಬೌರಿಂಗ್ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ವಾಪಸ್ ಬಂದೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ಸಮಯ ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆ ದಿವಸ ನೈಟ್ ಡ್ಯೂಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಇನ್ಸ್ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್ ಇದ್ದರು ಮತ್ತು ಯಾರು ಎ ಸಿ ಪಿ ಇದ್ದರು ನನಗೆ ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಈ ಘಟನೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ನಮ್ಮ ಹಿರಿಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಆ ದಿವಸ ತಿಳಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.
ನಾನು ಆ ದಿವಸ ನೈಟ್ ರೌಂಡ್ಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕೃತ್ಯ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳ ಮತ್ತು ಮೌಂಟ್ ಕಾರ್ಮೆಲ್ ಕಾಲೇಜ್ ಗತ್ ಆಜು-ಬಾಜು ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಎಂಬಿಸ್ಸಿ ಹೆಬಿಟ್ಟಿತ್ ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಗೇಟೆಡ್ ಕಮ್ಯೂನಿಟಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದು ಕ್ಲೋಸ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಯಾರಾದರೂ ಬಂದಾಗ ಓಪನ್ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ 24 ಗಂಟೆ ವಾಚ್ಮ್ಯಾನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸೆಕ್ಯೂರಿಟಿ ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ ಮೌಂಟ್ ಕಾರ್ಮೆಲ್ ಲೇಡಿಸ್ ಹಾಸ್ಟೆಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾಲೇಜು ಎರಡು ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದೇ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂಡ ವಾಚುಮನ್ 24 ಗಂಟೆ ಕಾವಲು ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಘಟನೆ ವಿಷಯ ತಿಳಿದಾಗ ಮಿಲ್ಲರ್ಸ್ ರೋಡಿಗೆ ಹೋದೆನು. ನಾನು ಆ ದಿವಸ ರಾತ್ರಿ 11 ರಿಂದ ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ 4 ಗಂಟೆಯವರೆಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಡ್ರಾನ್ಕ್ 22 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 ಅಂಡ್ ಡ್ರೈವ್ ಕೇಸ್ ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಆ ದಿವಸ ನಾನು ಯಾರು ಯಾರು ವಿ ಐ ಪಿ ಮನೆಗಳ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಬೀಟ್ ಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ Thus, it emerges out that there is no single piece of paper produced by the prosecution that the PW1 was deputed to duty on 06/08/2012 at 11.30 pm till 3 am in Vasanth Nagar to corroborate that she was performing discharging government duties such being the case, the question of PW1 was performing her official duty cannot be considered. If such incident was taken place, then PW1 could have entered the same in the station house diary.
19. According to the version of PW1, they have taken all six people directly from the spot to hospital however the PW2 deposed that ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಹಾಗೂ ವಸ್ತುಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ 4 ಗಂಟೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ನಮ್ಮ ಪಿ ಎಸ್ ಐ ರವರು ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ವರದಿ ತಯಾರಿಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ 6 ಗಂಟೆ ತೆಗೆದುಗೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು. ಸದರಿ 6 ಜನರನ್ನು ಬೌರಿಂಗ್ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರಿಗೆ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದರು. xxx ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರೊಂದಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ 23 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದೆವು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಿಂದ ವಾಪಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ 6 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಬಂದೆವು.
PW7 deposed that ಬೆಳಗಿನ ಜಾವ 4.00 ರಿಂದ 4.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದೆವು. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳವನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟಾಗ 4.00 ರಿಂದ 4.5 ಗಂಟೆ ಆಗಿತ್ತು. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳ ಠಾಣೆಯಿಂದ ಸುಮಾರು 1 ಕಿಮಿ ಇದೆ. 3 ಜನ ಜೊತೆ ಇನ್ನೂ 3 ಜನರು ಇದ್ದರು. ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಮಹಿಳೆಯರು, ಒಬ್ಬ ಪುರುಷರು ಇದ್ದರು. ಆ ದಿನ 3 ಜನರನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದೆವು. ಉಳಿದವರನ್ನು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬರುವಂತೆ ಸೂಚಿಸಿದೆವು.
Thus, as per version of PW2 and PW7, the accused persons along with other three persons were brought to the police station however PW1 deposed that all the six people were taken to the hospital. Thus, the version of PW1 and PW2 and PW7 were contrary to each other that the accused persons along with other three were taken to the police station and hospital at 4 pm but no cases were registered against them. Though the PW6 doctor did not examine the accused No.1 to 3 at 4.30 am as they refused to go for medical examination as per Ex. P4 to 6.
24KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
20. It appears from the cross examination of PW1 that there were 24 hours security guards at the Mount Carmel hostel and Embassy Hebbit Apartment gated community and such being the case, if the accused persons were screaming loudly particularly, then the independent witnesses namely security guard could have witnessed the incident if such incident was taken place.
21. PW8 has not seized the uniform of PW1 which alleged to have torn by the accused No.3 on the left whistle guard to corroborate the incident.
22. PW8 did not enquire with the accused persons about the alleged incident rather mechanically filed the charge sheet since PW1 being her sub-ordinate officer.
23. The whole story of the prosecution cannot be believed when there were 5 police personnel's and by crossing them could have assaulted by the accused No.3 who is shorter than PW1 and accused No.2 when she was guarding the PW1 in the hoysala and hence the accused No.2 and 3 assaulted the PW1 cannot be accepted.
25KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
24. The accused No. 1 and 3 were husband and wife and such being the case, by leaving other three persons were left out without any assigning the reasons when they alleged that they were all drinking alcohol and screaming loudly in the car.
25. 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
(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 26 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 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.
26. 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. 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 the 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 PW5 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC who claims to be an eyewitness. Therefore, 27 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out.
27. The another charge 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 28 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property 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 the 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 by the accused persons, 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.
28. In order to constitute offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the PW1 or to do any act which is not legally bound to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm to the PW1 or to make him to do, or omit to do any act, is not 29 KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 sufficient to bring the act within the definition of criminal intimidation and the said principle is appreciated in the case of MANIK TANEJA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423. Therefore, in the instant case, even ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are not made out against the accused persons.
29. 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 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. Accordingly, THIS COURT ANSWERS THE POINT NO.1 TO 3 IN THE NEGATIVE.
30KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
30. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 3 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 353, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 to 5 are ordered to be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of October, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
31KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Shobha.G., PW2 : Sri Mukunda, PW3 : Sri R. Ranganath PW4 : Sri Sri Srinivas Murthy PW5 : Sri Lakshmaiah PW6 : Dr. Sheshan Kumar PW7 : Sri Parasappa Doddamani PW8 : Sri Errana Balagurgi
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3 : FIR
Ex.P4-6: Medical reports of accused No. 1 to 3
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1: Whistle Guard
MO2: One hockey stick
MO3: 4 Kingfisher bottle
MO4: One Redbull empty tin
MO5: One SMIRNOFF Vodko bottle
32
KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
33KABC030650032012 CC No.22654/2012 10-10-2024 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 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 353, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 to 5 are ordered to be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 34