Bangalore District Court
Dhiraj vs Chethan Kumar Jain on 6 April, 2026
KABC030512762020
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE BENGALURU
DATED: THIS THE 06th DAY OF APRIL 2026
PRESENT: SMT. JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE
LLM
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13522/2020
COMPLAINANT :- State by Halsur Gate Police
Station
(Represented By. Sr. APP)
ACCUSED PERSON:- Chethan Kumar Jain
S/o Late P Suresh Kumar Jain
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.27, Flat No.102,
Shantivilla Apartment,
2nd Cross, 2nd Main,
CKC Garden, Mission Road,
Bengaluru.
(Represented By. Sri. H.K.B.G.
Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT 26.09.2022
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF 19.05.2023
EVIDENCE
DATE OF JUDGMENT 06.04.2026
ACCUSED ARE CHARGED U/s. 341, 324 and 506 of
FOR OFFENCES Indian Penal Code
UPSHOT OF THE CASE Accused acquitted of
the alleged charges
2
C.C. No.13522/2020
JUDGMENT
This judgment is the outcome of the final report filed by the PI of Halsur Gate Police Station, Bengaluru against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 341, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of Prosecution:-
The case of prosecution is that on 28.12.2019 between 6.30 pm to 7.00 pm the accused visited the shop of CW.1 at Riddhi Diamonds situated at Jumma Masjid Road along with CW.6. When CW.6 and CW.1 were discussing about a transaction, the accused restrained the CW.1 from going out of the shop with an intention to pickup quarrel with him and assaulted him with a laptop causing simple head injury and strangulated his neck and threatened him with deadly consequences and thus accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
3. In response to court summons the accused appeared through his counsel Sri. H.K.B.G. has been enlarged on bail. Cognizance was taken for the alleged offences. The prosecution 3 C.C. No.13522/2020 papers have been furnished to the accused person through his counsel as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Heard before framing of Charges. Charges were framed read over and explained to the accused in Kannada language known to accused, having understood the same he pleaded not guilty of offences and claimed to be tried.
4. As per the charge sheet the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses. Out of these witnesses the prosecution has examined 7 witness as PW-1 to PW.7 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 and MO.1 and MO.2 is marked.
5. Statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded and incriminating evidence in the case of prosecution was read over to the accused. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against accused and submitted that, he has no defense evidence.
6. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and learned counsels for the accused person. Perused the entire materials on record.
7. On the basis of the materials on record the following points arise for the consideration:-
4
C.C. No.13522/2020
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 28.12.2019 between 6.30 pm to 7.00 pm the accused visited the shop of CW.1 at Riddhi Diamonds situated at Jumma Masjid Road along with CW.6. When CW.6 and CW.1 were discussing about a transaction, the accused restrained the CW.1 from going out of the shop with an intention to pickup quarrel with him and assault him and thus accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 341 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused assaulted CW.1 with laptop on his head and tried to strangulate him and thus accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 324 of Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused threatened CW.1 with deadly consequences and thus accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 506 of Indian Penal Code?
4. What order?
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 3 :- In the Negative Point No.4 :- As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Reasoning On Point No.1 to 3:- The offences alleged against the accused is punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
5
C.C. No.13522/2020
10. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.12.2019 between 6.30 pm to 7.00 pm the accused visited the shop of CW.1 at Riddhi Diamonds situated at Jumma Masjid Road along with CW.6. When CW.6 and CW.1 were discussing about a transaction, the accused restrained the CW.1 from going out of the shop with an intention to pickup quarrel with him and assaulted him with a laptop causing simple head injury and strangulated his neck and threatened him with deadly consequences and thus accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
11. To bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7. CW.1 by name Deeraj Kumar is examined as PW.1 and through him Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and MO.1 and MO.2 are marked. CW.2 by name Babulal is examined as PW.2. CW.3 by name Aravind Kumar is examined as PW.3. CW.6 by name Kalpesh Jain is examined as PW.4. CW.10 by name Nagaraj. K is examined as PW.5. CW.7 by name Prakash Chand is examined as PW.6 and CW.9 by name Dr. Rajalakshmi is examined as PW.7. 6
C.C. No.13522/2020
12. The PW.1 has deposed that he knows CW2 to CW4 and accused. On 28.12.2019 CW6 had come to his office for business purpose. At about 6.30 PM while he was speaking to CW6, accused suddenly interfered and started abusing him and accused took his laptop and hit it on his head. When he tried to take the laptop accused strangulated his neck. CW5 and CW6 intervened and rescued him from the hand of accused. When CW5 questioned CW6 as to why he brought accused to his shop, he informed that he would see that no complaint can be lodged against him. Further accused threatened CW5 stating that if he go any where, he has support of rowdy elements. He has further deposed that after some rest, he went to Victoria Hospital with CW.5. At 10.00 PM police came to said hospital, and enquired me. On next day he lodged complaint against Accused. He identified Ex.P.1 and deposed that on next day police came to spot and conducted spot mahazar in his presence and in presence of CW2, CW5, CW7 and CW8. He identified Ex.P2. He has further deposed that he has produced pendrive which is at MO.1 and identified Ex.P.6. He identified MO.2 and deposed that he had took MO.1 7 C.C. No.13522/2020 to the computer center of one Arun Kumar and got the CCTV recordings in the pen drive. He identified the accused.
13. The PW.2 has deposed that in the year 2019 he was working in the shop of CW1. On 28.12.2019 at 6.30 PM, there was some quarrel in the shop of CW1. Accused and his brother Kalpesh were quarreling with CW1. He do not know the reason for said quarrel. Accused was holding shirt color of CW1. Then Accused hit laptop on the head of CW1. Thereafter, they took CW1 to hospital and no other persons were present at that time. The prosecution has treated PW.2 as partly hostile witness.
14. The PW.3 has deposed that he is working in the shop of CW.1 on 28.12.2019 at about 6.40 pm there was some quarrel between CW.1 and the accused, the accused assaulted CW.1 with hands and laptop and they were shouting at each other and the accused hit the laptop on the head of CW.1. The prosecution has treated PW.3 as partly hostile witness.
15. The PW.4 deposed that he know CW.1 and accused, present before court. He have not seen quarrel between CW.1 8 C.C. No.13522/2020 and accused but when he had been to Hulsoor Gate P.S about 4 to 5 years back, he came to know about their quarrel as heis the common friend to both of them. Accused had lent money to CW.1. No quarrel has taken place in his presence. The prosecution has treated PW.4 as partly hostile witness.
16. The PW.5 deposed that from July 2019 he is serving as ASI in Halsur Gate P.S. On 29.12.2019, when he was on SHO duty of said P.S., at 3.00 p.m CW.1 came and lodged an hand written English complaint. He received the same and registered the case in his P.S crime NO. 275/2019 and submitted FIR to the court. He identified Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4. On same day he visited the spot and conducted mahazar in between 4.10 pm to 5 p.m in presence of CW.1, CW.6 and CW.8 as per Ex.P.2. On 01.01.2020 he recorded statement of CW.2 and CW.3. On 02.01.2020 he recorded statement of CW.4. On 04.01.2020 he recorded statement of CW.5. On 11.01.2020 he recorded statement of CW.6. On 07.01.2020 accused appeared before him by obtaining bail from court. He recorded his statement and followed arrest formalities. On 14.09.2020 he secured wound certificate of CW.1 and 9 C.C. No.13522/2020 identified Ex.P.5. On same day he concluded investigation and filed charge sheet against accused. He identified accused.
17. The PW.6 identified Ex.P.2 and stated that he has signed it at Riddhi gold shop in 96/1 Jumma Masjid Road in the month of December 2019 after Christmas. CW1 informed him about incident and next day police had come to said spot and conducted mahazar. CW1 and CW.8 were present during mahazar. One Chethan and another had raised quarrel with CW1. Police had come at 4.00 PM. The prosecution has treated PW.6 as partly hostile witness.
18. PW.7 deposed that since July 2019, she has been working as CMO is Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. On 28.12.2019 at 9.50 PM, PW1 is brought by PW2 for examination before me with alleged history of assault by 2 people at his shop in Jumma Masjid Road by using laptop. On examination of said patient if found following injuries.
1. Tenderness over the right side of back of neck.
2. Tenderness with swelling in right parietal region.
3. Tenderness over the right eye brow region. 10
C.C. No.13522/2020 After investigation and examination, aforesaid injuries found to be of simple in nature. Aforesaid injuries may be caused if a person is assaulted by a laptop. She identified Ex.P.5.
19. The prosecution has produced Exh.P-1 to Exh.P- 6. Exh.P-1 is the complaint, Exh.P-2 is the spot mahazar, Exh.P- 3 is the statement of Kalpesh Jain, Exh.P-4 is the FIR, Exh.P-5 is the wound certificate, Exh.P-6 is the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, MO.1 is the pendrive and MO.2 is the laptop.
20. The case of the prosecution is that in the shop of CW.1 when CW.1 was discussing with CW.6, the accused assaulted him wrongfully restrained him and threatened him. The specific allegation against the accused is that he had hit the laptop on the head of CW.1 causing simple pain.
21. As per Ex.P.1 complaint, the complaint is dated 29.12.2019 and the alleged incident as per Ex.P.1 took place on 28.12.2019 between 6.30 pm to 7.00 pm. Perusal of the Ex.P.1 shows that the complainant has alleged that Kalpesh 11 C.C. No.13522/2020 and Chethan visited his place for business purpose and Chethan got into discussion, abused CW.1 and also charged him with compact laptop and chocked him with hands and pushed and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that hearing the loud voice of CW.1, the father of CW.1 came and asked the accused to go away. In the complaint it is also mentioned that the alleged incident took place on 28.12.2019, but as he was undergoing treatment at Victoria Hospital, he lodged the complaint on 29.12.2019. The Ex.P.1 is registered at 3.00 pm on 29.12.2019. As per Ex.P.4 the FIR is registered at 3.00 pm. Perusal of the Ex.P.1 shows that soon after the incident or at the time when the alleged incident took place the father of the CW.1 came to the spot and tried to pacify the quarrel. From the evidence of PW.1 it can be seen that his father is one Ashok Kumar. Perusal of the charge sheet as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer shows that the father of the CW.1 by name Ashok Kumar is cited as CW.5 in the charge sheet and the statement of CW.5 Ashok Kumar is also recorded by the Investigating Officer on 04.01.2020 as per charge sheet. The CW.5 Ashok Kumar is not examined by the prosecution and the said witness is dropped. The PW.1 has not 12 C.C. No.13522/2020 explained as to why he has not got examined CW.5 his father in this case. The CW.5 Ashok Kumar is the material witness in this case, who has first seen the alleged incident.
22. As per the version of PW.1, soon after the alleged incident he was taken to Victoria Hospital by CW.5 and at about 10.00 pm police came to the hospital and enquired him and on the next day he lodged the complaint. Even the examination in chief of PW.1 shows that PW.1 was taken to hospital by CW.5 and the said witness being material witness and who is the father of CW.1 is not examined in this case. The version of PW.1 is that at the time of incident CW.5 and CW.6 were present. As stated above CW.5 is not examined and CW.6 who is said to be the eye witnesses to the incident is examined as PW.4/Kalpesh Jain. The PW.4 has stated that he has not seen the quarrel and that he came to know about the quarrel when he had been to station and further stated that no quarrel took place in his presence. The evidence of the PW.4 is treated as hostile and learned APP for the prosecution cross-examined PW.4. The PW.4 has denied the suggestions made by learned APP. He has further stated that he do not know the contents of his statement given before the police.
13
C.C. No.13522/2020
23. The CW.5 who is the material eye witness is not examined and CW.6 who is also the material eye witness has not supported the case of prosecution. As such there as no eye witnesses in this case. The PW.2 has stated that he is working in the shop of CW.1 and PW.3 has also stated that he works in the shop of CW.1. In the cross-examination the PW.2 has stated that the father of PW.1 was LIC agent and that the police have not issued any notice to him, he has not given his statement before the police. The PW.3 in his cross-examination admits that the building in which Riddhi Diamonds is situated is a commercial premise. He admits that he had not been to police station, but the police had come on the next day to the office.
24. The prosecution has got examined mahazar witness in this case. The PW.6 had identified his signature in Ex.P.2 and deposed that the police had come at 4.00 pm and conducted mahazar. In the cross-examination the PW.6 admits that he knows the CW.1 from last 15 years and as per the request of CW.1 he is giving evidence before the court. 14
C.C. No.13522/2020
25. The order sheet shows that the PW.1 and his examination in chief was recorded on 26.09.2022, 05.10.2023, 24.09.2024 and again 10.012.2025 as number of applications were filed u/s 311 of Cr.P.C for further examination in chief of PW.1. The PW.1 himself has produced the pendrive wherein he has contended that the alleged incident is captured in the CCTV footage of his shop and that he had got the said footage from his CCTV cameras and got it copied to the pen drive which is at MO.1. The PW.1 has also produced Ex.P.6, but the Ex.P.6 is not in compliance of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The details of the pen drive, the CCTV cameras, the date on which it was copied to pen drive and the hard-disk of CCTV camera is not mentioned in the Ex.P.6. It is pertinent to note here that the Investigating Officer PW.5 Nagaraj in his examination in chief has stated that he conducted mahazar on 29.12.2025 as per Ex.P.2. If at all the accused had hit the CW.1 with a laptop then why CW.1 has not produced the said laptop to the Investigating Officer at the time of mahazar or at the time of lodging the complaint is not forthcoming in the evidence of PW.1. The Investigating Officer has not seized the 15 C.C. No.13522/2020 laptop at the time of investigation which is a material object in this case.
26. The PW.1 has stated that soon after the incident he was taken to Victoria Hospital by CW.5. Perusal of Ex.P.5 wound certificate shows that the injured Mr. Deeraj Kumar was brought to the hospital with an alleged history of assault by 2 people at his shop by using laptop on 28.12.2019 at 7.30 pm and he was treated from 9.50 pm to 9.50 pm on 28.12.2019. As per Ex.P.5 injuries are simple in nature. The prosecution has also treated PW.1 as partly hostile witness and cross examined PW.1. The PW.1 has denied that on 29.12.2019 police had come to the spot and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2. The PW.1 who is the injured and in whose presence mahazar is said to be conducted has himself stated that no mahazar was conducted in the spot on 29.12.2019. The learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW.1 at length. In the cross-examination the PW.1 has stated that he knows the accused since 5 to 6 years. He admits that he had some transaction with CW.4 and it was commission transaction. He admits that on the date of 16 C.C. No.13522/2020 incident he did not approach the concerned police and that he has not given medical certificate to the police and has also not given his laptop to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the accused and that in order to avoid the payment he had filed this false case. The PW.2 and PW.3 though have stated that they work in the shop of CW.1, but in the complaint, the complainant has not stated that at the time of alleged incident CW.2 and CW.3 were present at the spot. The material witnesses i.e., mahazar witness, eye witness have not fully supported the case of prosecution. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination admits that in the charge sheet he has not mentioned as to how he secured Ex.P.5 from the hospital. He admits that he has not examined the medical officer and that he has not recorded the further statement of CW.4 after obtaining Ex.P.5. He admits that he has sent the FIR to the court on 30.12.2019 and after 30.12.2019 he has not conducted any spot mahazar. He admits that he has not seized the laptop used in the alleged crime.
27. In the entire charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has not stated as to what was the motive for the accused to 17 C.C. No.13522/2020 assault CW1. In the complaint which is at Ex.P.1 it is stated that accused assaulted him. The case of the prosecution is that the accused used laptop to assault the complainant. None of the witnesses belonging to the family of the PW.1 are examined in this case. The Investigating Officer has not obtained statements of any of the family witnesses to ensure that there was some kind of enmity between the CW1 and the accused. As per Exh.P.1, the alleged offence took place on 28.12.2019 and the mahazar was conducted on 29.12.2019.The investigation officer has not stated as to why the laptop was not seized in this case.
28. No independent witnesses are examined in this case and even the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The eyewitness to this case CW.5 is not examined. Having considered the oral evidence I am constrained to conclude that the prosecution has not established that the accused has assaulted the CW.1. None of the ingredients of assault have been attracted. Further, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused assaulted the CW.1 which caused him any injuries.
18
C.C. No.13522/2020
29. The prosecution has not produced any such material documents to prove that the accused wrongfully restrained CW.1 and gave him life threat. There is no cogent evidence by the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed the alleged offences. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court answer point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
30. Point No.4:- For the aforesaid reasons, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby Acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.
341, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
The cash security deposited by the accused for his release on bail shall be refunded on proper identification.
(Dictated by me on computer, typed by the stenographer, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 06th day of April 2026) (JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE) XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU 19 C.C. No.13522/2020 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Dheeraj Kumar PW.2 Babulal PW.3 Arvind Kumar PW.4 Kalpesh Jain PW.5 Nagaraja. K PW.6 Prakash Chand PW.7 Dr. Rajalakshmi. N LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Statement of Kalpesh Jain Ex.P.4 FIR Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
Ex.P.6 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:-
- NIL -
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION:-
- NIL -
20
C.C. No.13522/2020
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS GOT MARKED :-
MO.1 Pendrive
MO.2 Laptop
(JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE)
XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU