Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs Somashekar on 21 February, 2023
1 CC.No.6128/20
KABC030275332020
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
C.C. No.6128/2020
Present: SRI. B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
B.A., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka through
Hanumanthanagar Police Station
Rep.by Sr.APP
V/s.
Accused Somashekar, s/o.Siddappa, 26 yrs,
R/at.No.309, 12th main, 9th cross,
T.R.Shamannanagar, Srinagar,
Bengaluru.
Rep.by Sri.RB, Advocate
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 01/03/2020
OF OFFENCE
2 CC.No.6128/20
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused is in JC under body
ACCUSED warrant
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 05/02/2021
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 17/10/2022
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found guilty for the offence
u/Sec.354(A) (D), 509 of IPC
(B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
The PSI of Hanumanthanagar Police station has filed
chargesheet against accused for the offence punishable
u/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are
that the CW 1 was residing at house No.25, 2 nd cross,
T.R.Shamanna Nagar, Hanumanthanagar and the accused
again and again tortured the CW 1 that he will keep her, for
that the CW 1 refused. In that regard the accused abused the
CW 1 in filthy language, and on 1/3/20 at 7.30 pm., the
accused has came to the house of CW 1 by drinking alcohol,
asked the CW 1 to remove her Tali and he is there for her,
3 CC.No.6128/20
dragged her chudidar and tried to rape her, at that time, the
CW 4 intervened to pacify them, then the accused assaulted
the CW 4 with plastic stool and thereby he has committed
the offence u/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC.
3. On the basis of the complaint of the CW 1, this crime
has been registered by Hanumanthanagar Police Station.
During the crime stage, the accused was in JC in another
case, hence, body warrant was issued against him and his
presence was secured. After investigation, Investigating
officer has submitted the chargesheet against the accused for
the offences u/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC. The cognizance
for the said offences are taken.
4. At the request of the accused, the standing counsel
has been appointed through legal aid to defend the case on
behalf of the accused. The copies of the prosecution papers
have furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 of
Cr.P.C., After being heard the arguments before charge, as
there were no grounds to discharge him, charge for the
offences u/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC has been framed &
read over, explained to the accused in the language best
known to him. The accused has not pleaded guilty and
claims to be tried. Hence, the case taken up for trial.
4 CC.No.6128/20
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as PW 1 to 4 out of 9
witnesses and got marked 4 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 4.
After prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined
u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., & he has denied the prosecution evidence.
The accused has not chosen to submit the defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of learned APP and counsel for
accused. Perused. On the basis of the above, the following
points have arises for my consideration :
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the CW 1 was
residing at house No.25, 2nd cross,
T.R.Shamanna Nagar,
Hanumanthanagar and the accused
again and again tortured the CW 1
that he will keep her, when the CW1
refused, the accused abused the CW 1
in filthy language, and on 1/3/20 at
7.30 pm., the accused has came to the
house of CW1 by drinking alcohol,
asked the CW 1 to remove her Tali
and he is there for her, dragged her
chudidar and tried to rape her and
thereby he has committed the offence
u/s.354(A) (D) of IPC ?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused
5 CC.No.6128/20
assaulted the CW 4 with plastic stool
and caused simple hurt to her and
thereby he has committed the offence
u/s.323 of IPC ?
3) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused
tortured the CW 1 that he will keep her,
asked her to remove her Tali and he is
there for her, dragged her chudidar and
tried to rape her and thereby intended
to insult the modesty of CW 1 and he
has committed the offence u/s.509 of
IPC ?
4) What order?
7. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 & 3 In the Affirmative
Point No.2 In the Negative
Point No.4As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3 : Since these points are interlinked
with each other, I have taken them together for common
discussion in order to avoid the repetition. According to the
prosecution the accused has committed the offence
u/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC. In order to prove the guilt of
the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant
6 CC.No.6128/20
as PW 1 and she has deposed that his brother Narendra has
died about 7 years ago and accused is his friend. The accused
used to come to their house. After death of brother, the
accused used to come to their house by drinking alcohol and
he has used to abuse her in a filthy wordings and also used to
tell that your husband has already left and went away, you
have no other persons, I will keep you and co operate with me
and used to harass her. Further she deposed that on 1/3/20
at about 7.30 pm., the accused has came to her house by
drinking alcohol and told her that you remove your tali, I am
there, I am your keeper (ವವವಿುಂಡ) and dragged her chudidar and
assaulted on her and outraged her modesty. Her mother
Chennamma came to rescue her, but at that time, he has
assaulted on her through a small plastic chair. Her mother
has sustained injuries near her neck, immediately her mother
has called the Hanumanthanagar police. Later on the police
have came and the accused has ran away. On the next day
morning, she has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. On the
same day, the police have drew up the mahazar at the spot as
per Ex.P.2 and seized a plastic stool used to commit the
offence under Ex.P.2 mahazar. Further she has identified the
accused before the court.
9. PW 1 being the victim has lodged the complaint as per
7 CC.No.6128/20
Ex.P.1, on perusal of the same, she makes an allegation in
the complaint that her husband has left the house because of
family misunderstanding. The accused is a friend of her
brother Narendra, her brother who died about 7 years ago.
The accused always used to come to her house as he is
brother of the complainant and always used to abuse her in
filthy wordings by saying that your husband has left and I will
keep you. She further makes an allegation that on 1/3/20 at
about 7.30 pm., the accused came by drinking alcohol and
asked her to remove her Tali and also dragged her Chudidar
and assaulted on her. She further makes an allegation that
at that time her mother has came to rescue, but accused has
assaulted on her with plastic chair and because of that her
mother has sustained injury on her neck. Her mother has
called to the police and the police have came there and the
accused has ran away. Thus, she has lodged the Ex.P.1
complaint.
10. On meticulous verification of the evidence of the
complainant as well as PW 1, she is a victim who has been
suffered and assaulted by the accused has deposed about the
allegation against the accused as per the allegation made in
the complaint. On careful verification of the evidence as well
as Ex.P.1, absolutely there is no any material omissions or
8 CC.No.6128/20
improvement rather than the complaint to suspect the
veracity of the PW 1. Further the PW 1 has been cross
examination by the counsel for the accused but there is no
any suspectable materials from her mouth that she has been
deposing falsely. Thus, as per the above evidence, one thing
is clear that PW 1 is a victim who has been outrages the
modesty from the hands of the accused and she clearly and
categorically deposed that on 1/3/20 at about 7.30 pm.,
accused came to her house by drinking alcohol and abused
her, asked her to remove her tali and also dragged her
Chudiar and assaulted with hands. Thereby he has outrages
the modesty of the complainant. Thus, I am not found any
suspectable things to disbelieve the version of the PW 1.
11. The prosecution further examined one of the eye
witness to the incident as PW 2 who is none other than the
daughter of the PW 1. She has deposed that CW 1 is her
mother, one Narendra is the brother of her mother and the
accused is his friend. About 7 years ago, the said Narendra
has dead and after his death, the accused always used to
come to her house and misbehave with her mother and he
used to abuse her mother in filthy wordings. She has further
deposed that on 1/3/20 at about 7.30 pm., the accused has
came to their house directly, at that time, she and her mother
9 CC.No.6128/20
and grand mother and her brother were there. Accused has
asked her mother to remove tali and abused her in filthy
wordings and dragged the Chudidar of her mother, her grand
mother went to rescue, at that time, the accused has
assaulted on her grand mother through a plastic stool, thus,
she has sustained injury near her neck. Her grand mother
has called the police over phone, later on the police have came
and the accused has taken by the police.
12. PW 2 being one of the eye witness to the incident has
deposed her evidence as above. She has been cross
examination by the counsel for the accused, but absolutely
there is no any suspectable materials from her mouth to
discard her allegation against the accused. The evidence of
PW 2 is completely corroborating the version of the
prosecution as well as the evidence of the PW 1. On the
basis of the above, it could be hold that on 1/3/20 at about
7.30 pm., the accused has came to their house, abused her
mother in a filthy wordings, dragged her Chudidar which
amounts to outraging the modesty of the complainant.
13. The prosecution has further examined the Medical
officer who given treatment to CW 4 as PW 3 and she has
deposed that on 2/3/20, at about 7.45 pm., one injured
Chennama has came to the hospital with the history of
10 CC.No.6128/20
assault by one Somashekar on 1/3/20 at about 7.45 pm., On
her verification, she has not sustained any injuries, but she
has some swelling on her left shoulder, hence, she has given
the treatment and issued the wound certificate and the said
injury is simple in nature.
14. The prosecution further examined the Investigating
officer as PW 4 and he has deposed that on 2/3/20 at about
4.00 pm., when he was the SHO of the Police Station, the
complainant has came and lodged the complaint as per
Ex.P.1, hence, he has registered the crime, on the same day
he visited the spot and drew spot mahazar and seized a
plastic stool used to commit the offence. He has identified the
same and which marked as MO 1. He has recorded the
statements of CW 4 to 6 and submitted requisition to the
Hon'ble court to record the statement of complainant u/s.164
of the Cr.P.C., and also requested to issue wound certificate.
15. He has further deposed that on 6/3/20 he has
received the statement of the complainant u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.,
since accused is in JC of another case, he submitted
requisition to issue body warrant and after collecting the
wound certificate and after completion of investigation, he has
filed the final report. Thus, the PW 4 being Investigating
officer has deposed about his entire investigation, about
11 CC.No.6128/20
registration of the crime, conducting of mahazar, seizing of
material objects, recording of sworn statements of the eye
witnesses and collection of wound certificate and filing of the
final report. PW 4 has been cross examination by the
counsel for the accused. On meticulous verification of the
same, I am not found any grounds to suspect the
investigation of the Investigating officer. Thus PW 4 has
deposed about his complete investigation.
16. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has
produced and got marked the complaint as Ex.P.1, spot
mahazar as Ex.P.2 and plastic stool which used to commit the
offence as MO 1.
17. According to the prosecution, the accused has
committed the offence u/s.354(A) (D), 323, 509 of IPC.
Hence, it is just and necessary to go through the provision of
Sec.354(A) and (D) and 509 of IPC.
...[354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual
harassment--(1) Aman committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit
sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause
(ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous
12 CC.No.6128/20
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-
section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.]
[354D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman
to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of
disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other
form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man
who pursued it proves that--
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and
the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility
of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or
requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and
justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on
first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and
be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and
shall also be liable to fine.]
509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any
word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending
that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object
shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
As per the provision of Sec.354(A) of IPC if a man commits
any offence of physical contact and advances involving
unwelcome and explicit sexually overtures, requested for the
sexual favours, making sexually coloured remarks shall be
13 CC.No.6128/20
guilty of the offence of the sexual harassment. Similarly as
per the provision of Sec.354(D) of IPC, if a person follows a
woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to
foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear
indication of disinterest by such woman, it is an offence of
stalking punishable u/s.354(D) of IPC.
18. As discussed above, the complainant has clearly
makes an allegation in her complaint that the accused used
to come to her house and used to ask her that her husband
has left and he will keep her and asked her to co operate and
harassed her. Further as alleged by the complainant that on
1/3/20 at about 7.30 pm., the accused has came to the
house of the complainant by drinking alcohol and he told the
complainant to remove her tali and pulled her and also
dragged the chudidar of the complainantCW 1, thus, the
accused has physically contacted and advance involving
unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures to the CW 1 and also
demanded for sexual favours. PW 1 being the victim has
clearly and categorically deposed about the ingredients as
above at the time of her evidence as discussed above. Inspite
of meticulous verification of the cross examination, this court
did not find any unpeachable circumstances to suspect her
veracity, thus, on the basis of the evidence of the
14 CC.No.6128/20
complainant, victim as well as eye witness PW 2, this court is
of the considered view that the accused has physically
contacted the complainant and explicit sexually overtures and
also demanded for sexual favours which amounts an offence
u/s.354(A) of IPC. Similarly as per the evidence of PW 1 and
eye witness, the accused always used to visit the house of the
complainant and attempted to contact the CW 1 to foster
personal interaction repeatedly despite the complainant has
made a clear indication of disinterest, thus which amounts to
an offence u/s.354(D) of IPC.
19. As already discussed above, the accused has visited
the house of the complainant for sexual co operation and he
has an intention to insult the modesty of the CW 1 and that is
the reasons he has dragged the chudidar of the complainant
and intended to insult the modesty of the women thereby this
court is of the considered opinion that the accused has
committed the offence u/s.509 of IPC also. Accordingly, the
prosecution has successfully proved the guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence u/s.354(A) (D) and 509 of IPC.
20. As per the chargesheet, the accused has assaulted on
CW 4 with the plastic chair and caused simple injury and
15 CC.No.6128/20
makes an allegation against the accused that he has
committed an offence u/s.323 of IPC. Ofcourse the PW 1 has
clearly and categorically deposed that on that day he has
assaulted on her and caused simple injury, but she has not
taken any treatment to hold that because of assault, she has
sustained simple injury. But the main allegation that accused
has assaulted the CW 4 also through a plastic chair and
caused injury over her neck and CW 4 has sustained simple
injuries as per the evidence of the Medical officer and wound
certificate. However, the said injured has not examined.
Merely because PW 1 and 2 eye witnesses have deposed that
because of assault, the CW 4 has sustained injury unless and
until victim has examined only on the basis of testimony of
PW 1 and 2, it could not be concluded that accused has
assaulted on CW 4 and caused simple injury. Non
examination of CW 4 the material injured witness is creates
slight doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt is required to be
extended to the accused. Since the prosecution has failed to
examine the CW 4, this court of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for an
offence u/s.323 of IPC.
21. In view of the detailed discussion made above, the
prosecution has successful proved that the accused has
16 CC.No.6128/20
committed the offences u/s.354(A) (D), 509 of IPC and the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused u/s.323 of
IPC. Hence, without further discussion, I answer the point
No.1 & 3 in the Affirmative and point NO.2 in the
Negative.
22. POINT NO.4 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354(A) (D), 509 of IPC.
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is Acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.323 of IPC.
By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., 17 CC.No.6128/20 Call on to hear on PO Act and sentence. (Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of February 2023) (B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU TO HEAR ON PO ACT Heard the arguments on P.O.Act. The offence against the accused are punishable u/s.354(A), (D) and 509 of IPC. As per the provision of P.O.Act, the benefit for the alleged offence can be extended. However, since the presence of accused has secured here under Body warrant and as per the chargesheet, the accused is also an accused on the file of Girinagar Police Station u/s.397 of IPC in Cr.No.62/20 and still he is in JC, this court declined to extend the benefit of P.O.Act.
TO HEAR ON SENTENCE Heard the arguments on sentence. Perused.
The accused is the aged about 26 years. He is an accused in Cr.No.62/20 of Girinagar Police Station for an offence u/s.397 of IPC and till today he is in JC. By considering the facts and circumstances, I carefully gone through the penal provision of section.354(A) of IPC is punishable with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which 18 CC.No.6128/20 may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. Similarly as per the provisions of Sec.354(D) of IPC, it is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 3 yrs and also liable to fine. Similarly Sec.509 of IPC shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine. By considering the nature and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby Convicted for the offence punishable U/s.354(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby Convicted for the offence punishable U/s.354(D) of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.19 CC.No.6128/20
accused is hereby Convicted for the offence punishable U/s.509 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of
2 months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Since presence of accused has secured under Body warrant, there will be no set off for the accused.
Supply the free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
(B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Jayasheela PW 2 : Sneha PW 3 : Dr.Leela PW 4 : Ravikumar
Documents marked for the Prosecution:
20 CC.No.6128/20Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 : Wound certificate Ex.P.4 : FIR
Material objects marked for the Prosecution:
MO1 : Plastic stool Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused: NIL (B.C.Chandrashekar) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.