Bangalore District Court
Barbara Filmer Farnades vs Ganesh V.S on 8 October, 2025
KABC030607582021
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 30-08-2021
Registered on : 30-08-2021
Decided on : 08-10-2025
Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 9 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 08th Day of October, 2025
C. C. No.22141/2021
(Crime No.48/2021)
State by Hebbala Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Ganesh.V.S.
Aged about 23 years,
S/o Sri G.V.Srinivas,
R/at No.20/2, Near Reliance Smart,
V.Nagenahalli Main Road,
Guddadahalli, Hebbala,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru City
KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
2. Sri Chandrashekar.
Aged about 23 years,
S/o Sri Hanumanthappa,
R/at No.03, 1st Cross,
Papanna Layout,
V.Nagenahalli, Hebbala,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru City ... Accused
(Represented by Sri V.Ravanappa, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 21/22-03-2021
offence
2. Date of FIR 22-03-2021
3. Date of Charge sheet 18-07-2021
4. Name of Complainant Smt. Barbara Filmer
Fernandes
5. Offences complained of Under Section 341, 323,
504, 506, 509 read with
Section 34 IPC
6. Date of framing charge 07-02-2023
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 10-09-2024
of Evidence
2
KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
9. Date of Judgment is 08-10-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 08-10-2025
11. Final order Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Hebbala Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 504, 506, 509 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 21-03-2021 at 10 p.m. whilst CW1 namely Smt. Barbara Filmer Fernandes was parking her car near Reliance Mart Shopping Mall situated at V. Nagenahalli Main Road, within the limits of Hebbala Police Station, the accused No.1 and 2 came on Fasino bike Registration No. KA 50 EF 3605 and picked up quarrel with CW1 to CW4 with regard to parking, wrongfully restrained and abused them with filthiest language. The accused No.1 and accused No. 2 had beaten CW2 to CW4 with their hands and pulled CW4's hair in public place with an intention to insult her and the accused No.1 3 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 and 2 threatened CW1 to CW4 with life consequences and thereby accused person committed the alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW7/PW2 namely Sri Lakshmipathy, HC of Hebbala Police Station registered Crime No.48/2021 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 504, 506, 509 read with Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P3 and handed over the case papers to CW8.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers, CW8/PW1 continued the investigation, drawn spot mahazar on 23-03-2020 as per Ex.P1 from 10.20 am to 11.35 am in the presence of CW5 namely Sri Mani and CW6 namely Sri Venkatesh, on 21-06-2021 his staff produced the accused No.1 and 2 before him, he recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statement of CW2 to CW4 and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No. 1 and 2.
4KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
6. The accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 24-11-2022.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, charge for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 506, 504, 509 read with Section 34 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 8 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents and closed their side. Despite issuance of proclamation against CW1 to CW3 and CW4 to CW6 their presence could not be secured and hence they were dropped out from examination by the order dated 14-02-2024 and 04-10-2025 respectively.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined as per section 5 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 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.
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 21-03-2021 at 10 p.m. near Reliance Mart Shopping mall situated at V.Nagenahalli Main Road, within the limits of Hebbala PS, accused No.1 and 2 with common intention wrongfully restrained CW1 namely Smt. Barbara Filmer Fernandes, CW2 Sri Jerald Poul, CW3 Sri Marmian Fernandez and CW4 Kum.Indu.V thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.341 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
6KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention had voluntarily beaten CW2 to CW4 with their hands and caused him simple hurt thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.323 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time the accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention abused CW1 to CW4 with filthiest language and knowingly such abusive language will break the public peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.504 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, in furtherance of common 7 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 intention the accused No.1 and 2 threatened CW1 to 4 with life threat thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.506 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 and 2 pulled CW4's hair in public place with an intention to insult her modesty thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable u/Sec.509 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
6. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : As per final order
8
KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
REASONS
14. Point No.1-5: 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. CW8 Sri Shivabasavanna Joganna, the then PSI of Hebbala PS examined as PW1 deposed that after receipt of case papers from CW7, he drawn spot mahazar on 23-03-2020 as per Ex.P1 from 10.20 am to 11.35 am in the presence of CW5 namely Sri Mani and CW6 namely Sri Venkatesh, on 21-06-2021 his staff produced the accused No.1 and 2 before him, thereafter he recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statement of CW2 to CW4 and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences ii. CW7 by name Sri Lakshmipathy, HC examined as PW2 deposed that after receipt of complaint from CW1 as per Ex.P1, he registered FIR as per Ex.P3 and handed over the case papers to CW8.
9KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
15. It ought to be seen that the informant cum Victims and Pancha Witnesses namely CW1 to CW4 and CW5 and CW6 failed to appear before this court to adduce evidence on the alleged incident despite taking coercive steps their presence could not be secured.
16. The accusation is the accused persons wrongfully restrained the CW1 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 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 10 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 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 and 2 restrained the CW1 from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the CW1 that the two persons came drunk in his two wheeler when they were in car towards Reliance Smart however no forthcoming reasons stated that they were prevented from taking the car 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.
17. The case of the prosecution is that the accused beaten up quarrel the PW1 with her hands and hence charged for an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Section 321 of IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt 11 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 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
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:
12KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
1. The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt to another person.
2. The hurt caused must not be grave or life- threatening.
3. 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 circumstances of the case and the severity of the hurt caused.
18. Admittedly the prosecution has not produced any wound certificate of CW2 to CW4 for the alleged acts and more so as per complaint, they were not in state of mind as the accused No.1 and 2 were alleged to be under the influence of alcohol. Thus, it is clear that the accused persons has not beaten the CW2 to CW4 voluntarily with their hands thereby the point No.2 is answered in negative.
19. The next accusation is that the accused persons abused the CW1 with abusive language. The following ingredient of Section 504 of IPC comprises as follows;
13KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
(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 constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and mere fact that the accused abused the PW1 and PW5 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.
14KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021
20. 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 CW1 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, CW1 have not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC was not proved and hence the point No.3 is answered in negative.
21. The next accusation is under Section 506 of IPC which reads as under
Section 506 IPC- Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever 15 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both Thus, in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of CW1 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 16 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 such threat. If such act was exerted, then it could be punished under section 506 IPC for the offence of criminal intimidation.
22. In order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the CW1 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 CW1 or to make them to do, or omit to do any act, is not 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. It appears from the Ex.P1 that the accused No.1 and 2 have threatening CW1. The prosecution has not establish the prime ingredients i.e., intention which is the explicit for conviction under section 506 of IPC for causing alarm to CW1 and therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC was not proved against the accused persons thereby the point No.4 is answered in negative.
23. The alleged offence under section 509 of IPC does not apply to the case on hand as the prosecution alleged of pulling hair of CW4 namely Smt. Indu V. It is seen from Ex.P2 as per complaint that 17 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 xxxxx at that time one of my friend (Indu.V) interfered and tried to stop them, they assaulted my friend to, they caught hold of her hair and dragger her by her hair and her dress and purchased her on her face and beat her.
So thus, it is clear that it was taken place during the quarrelsome of accused persons and CW1 and not premeditated act. So pulling of her of CW4 and beaten her and torn her clothes was without any intention and was of sudden act. So such being the case, to attract the ingredients for the offence alleged under section of 509 of IPC, no physical act is required and there must be an explicit intention for the alleged spoken words, sounds, gestures, or objects intended to be seen and not for pulling the hair of CW4 during the process of quarrel could be considered as an offence for outraging the modesty of CW4.
24. The term "filthy language," when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, 18 KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 or any gestures--whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words--that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the accused No.1 and 2 and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Madhushree Datta v State of Karnataka reported in 2025 INSC 105. thereby the point No.5 is answered in negative.
25. In this case, PW1 and PW2 deposed about the lodging of complaint by the CW1 and the post complaint procedure, however their evidence is formal in nature and only on the basis of their evidence without any corroborating evidence of victims to the alleged incident, the accused No.1 and 2 cannot be held guilty for the alleged offences. Looking to the materials placed on record, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answer the point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
26. Point No.6:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 to 5, this court proceeds to pass the following:
19KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 323, 506, 504, 509 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused are 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 08th day of October, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
20KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Shivabasavann PSI/IO Joganna PW2: Sri Lakshmipathy HC Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Spot Mahazar PW1 Ex.P2: Complaint PW2 Ex.P3: FIR PW2
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.21
KABC030607582021 CC No.22141/2021 08-10-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 323, 506, 504, 509 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused are 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.
22