Bangalore District Court
Syed Imthiyaz Hasan vs Jogindar Yadav on 2 July, 2025
KABC030907832021
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2025
Present : Sri. Puttaraju, B.A.LLB.,
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C. No.34777/2021
Complainant : State by : Kodigehalli Police Station.
(By Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused
Nos. Sri.Jogindar Yadav,
S/o Sahadev Yadav,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at : No.531, 4th Cross,
5th Main, near Vijaya Bank,
Dollers Colony, RMV, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.PMG Adv.,)
2 C.C. No.34777/2021
Date of occurrence of offence 06.11.2021
Date of report of offence 06.11.2021
Name of the Complainant Syed Imteyaz Hasan
Date of Commencement of 30.12.2022
recording Evidence
Date of Closing of Evidence 03.04.2024
Offences complained of U/s 324, 504, 506(B) of
I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found
found not guilty.
The PSI of Kodigehalli Police Station has
submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 324, 504, 506(B) of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on
06.11.2021 at about at 1.30 PM, at JKR Bakery
situated within the jurisdiction of Kodigehalli Police
Station, CW.1 ordered tea for himself and CW.2 and 3,
after taking tea, accused asked CW.1 to pay bill by
cash instead of google pay, in that process, the
accused assaulted CW.1 with glass zar on his head,
3 C.C. No.34777/2021
abused in filthy language and gave life threat by
showing knife and thereby the accused has committed
the offence punishable under section 324, 504, 506(B)
of I.P.C.
3. The accused is on bail. As required u/sec. 207
of Cr.P.C., the copies of the charge sheet papers were
furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the
offences punishable U/s 324, 504, 506(B) of I.P.C.
and read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to him. Accused has not pleaded
guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to 7, material objects marked as MO-1
and 2. On closure of the evidence on the side of the
prosecution, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313
Cr.PC was recorded and read over, the accused has
denied incriminating evidence and submits that no
defence evidence to lead.
4 C.C. No.34777/2021
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the
documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution has
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that accused has
committed the offence U/s 324,
504, 506(B) of I.P.C. ?
2. What order ?
7. The above points are answered as under :
Point No.1 : In the NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : That on 06.11.2021 at about at
1.30 PM, at JKR Bakery situated within the
jurisdiction of Kodigehalli Police Station, CW.1 ordered
tea for himself and CW.2 and 3, after taking tea,
accused asked CW.1 to pay bill by cash instead of
google pay, in that process, the accused assaulted
5 C.C. No.34777/2021
CW.1 with glass zar on his head, abused in filthy
language and gave life threat by showing knife and
thereby the accused has committed the offence
punishable under section 324, 504, 506(B) of I.P.C.
9. The Ld. Sr.APP for the state during the course
of argument has submitted that, prosecution has
examined complainant, eye witnesses, mahazar
witness and police officials as PW.1 to 8, though other
witnesses did not turn up, the evidence placed by
prosecution through prosecution witnesses and
documentary evidence are clearly establishes that the
accused has committed the offense as alleged in the
charge sheet. The copy of disability certificate of
accused placed by him cannot be looked into.
Therefore, prays to convict the accused by imposing
maximum sentence.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
accused during the course of argument has submitted
that though PW.1 complainant and PW.7 eye witness
6 C.C. No.34777/2021
deposed in support of prosecution case, the eye
witness PW.7 is daughter of PW.1, so PW.7 is an
interested witness, except evidence of PW.7 no other
eye witnesses have been examined. So, evidence of
PW.1 is not corrobarated by the evidence of
independant eye witnesses, in the absance of the
same, the evidence of interested witnesses PW.7 is not
reliable. It is also argued by producing copy of disable
certificate of accused that the accused is physically
disabled, so he was not in a position to commit any
assault as alleged. Hence, prayed for acquit the
accused by extending benifit of doubt.
11. PW.1 is the complainant, in his evidence, he
stated that while coming from Marriage Registrar office
of Byatarayanapura, on the way, himself along with
CW.2 and 3 went to tea shop of accused and teken a
cup of tea, after that while paying amount through
phonepe by his daughter, the accused started to argue
that to pay cash only, then his daughter told him to
7 C.C. No.34777/2021
why are you asking cash, for that the accused getting
angry, and abused her in filthy language, in that
process, the accused assulted on him with zar of glass
and threatened his life showing knife if they are not
living the place. He identifed the complaint Ex.P.1 and
glass peices and knife as MO-1 and 2. In the cross
examination, he stated that there were 3-4 customers
at that point time and denied the suggestions that he
argued with accused to give tea in bigger up, he does
not know whether accused was physically disabled or
not.
12. PW.7 is the daughter of PW.1 and eye witness
to the incident. She has stated in her evidence that,
when her father told accused about payment made
through google pay, the accused shouted that pay the
amount cash only as he had to attend other
customers. Then her father told accused don't shout
like this and make payment by cash, but at that time,
tea cup was fell down and broken. Then accused
8 C.C. No.34777/2021
getting angry and assaulted with glass zar on her
father's head, later she taken away her father to
hospital for treatment. She stated regarding statement
given to police and identified MO-1 and 2. In the cross
examination, she denied teh suggestions that incident
happened for the reasons that accused did not give tea
in a bigger cup.
13. Ex.P.2 is the mahazar. PW.2 is the witness to
mahazar. He has stated in his evidence that on
07.11.2021 at about 11.00 am to 12.00 pm, police
have drawn mahazar Ex.P.2 in front of JKR Bakery. In
the cross examination, he has stated that he know
PW.1 and he was taken away by PW.1 to the spot at
the time of mahazar and he denied the other
suggestions.
14. PW.3 and 4 are the witnesses to seizure
mahazar, in their evidence, they have stated that
police have seized MO-2 knife in their presence by
drawing Ex.P.3. The other witnesses are the police
9 C.C. No.34777/2021
official, as they are police offical naturally supported
the prosecution case by deposing about their offcial act
done by them during the course of investigation.
15. Upon careful perusal of evidence palced by
the prosecution in the light of submission made above,
admittedly, PW.1 and 7 are interested witnesses as the
are father and daughter, alleged incident happened at
tea shop and publics were there as stated by PW.1,
that bieng so, but the prosecution has not cited them
as eye witnesses. So, except evidence of PW.1 and 7,
nothing is on record to prove offence alleged against
accused, the testimony of PW.1 and 7 is not
corroborated by testimony of independant eye witness,
hence, evidence of PW.1 and 7 would doubtful.
16. It is also important to mention here that
doctor who treated PW.1 and other police offical who
arrested the accused did not turn up. Therefore, taking
into consideration the over all the evidence of the
prosecution and fact and circumstances of the case,
10 C.C. No.34777/2021
the considered opinion is of the court that the
prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
17. Therefore, in view of discussion made above,
the considered opinion is of the court that, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to
benefit of doubt. Hence, answered the point No.1 in the
NEGATIVE.
18. Point No.2: In view of discussion made on
point No.1 this court proceeds to pass following
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 324, 504, 506(B) of I.P.C.
The bail bond of accused and his surety bond stand canceled after six months from the date of judgment.
11 C.C. No.34777/2021MO-1 is being worthless, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over. MO-2 is ordered to be confiscated to the state after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer system, transcript computerized by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 2nd day of July, 2025) ( PUTTARAJU ) VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :
PW.1 Syed Imtiyaz Hasan PW.2 Anthoni Reddy PW.3 Sabu Abraham PW.4 Suresh D. PW.5 Somaraj PW.6 Shrinivas Shirur 12 C.C. No.34777/2021 PW.7 Dr.Pariha Imtiyaz PW.8 Vijay Savalagi
2. List of documents marked on behalf of the prosection :
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.4 FIR Ex.P.5 Requisition Ex.P.6 Voluntary statement of accused Ex.P.7 Wound Certificate
3. List of Material object produced:-
MO-1 Glass pieces MO-2 Knife
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
13 C.C. No.34777/2021