Bangalore District Court
Harish vs Tabrez Alias Goru on 12 November, 2025
KABC031233532017 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 29-12-2017
Registered on : 29-12-2017
Decided on : 12-11-2025
Duration : 7 years, 10 months, 14 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 12th Day of November, 2025
C. C. No.31183/2017
(Crime No.24/2017)
State by J.C. Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Tabrez @ Goru,
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Late Sri Ibrahim,
Near Madina Mahal,
Opp. Quarters, D.J.Halli,
Bengaluru City.
KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
2. Sri Naheem @ Waseem,
Aged about 23 years,
S/o Sri Raheem,
R/at 4th Galli,
Modi Garden,
Bengaluru City.
3. Sri Ejaj,
Aged about 20 years,
S/o Sri Syed Peer,
R/at Anjaneya Temple Road,
J.C.Nagara, Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Mabu Subani, Adv for Accused
No.1)
(Represented by Sri Khadar Basha, Adv for Accused
No.2 and 3)
1. Date of commission of 12-02-2017
offence
2. Date of FIR 12-02-2017
3. Date of Charge sheet 23-03-2017
4. Name of Complainant Sri Harish
5. Offences complained of Under Section 295(A)
of IPC
2
KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
6. Date of framing charge 29-09-2018
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 25-10-2021
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 12-11-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 12-11-2025
11. Final order Accused No.1 to 3 are
convicted for section
295 of IPC
12. Date of Sentence 12-11-2025
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of J.C.Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 295(A) of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 12-02-2017 at about 5 pm, at 1st Main road, Sri Mahaganapati temple within the limits of J.C.Nagar PS, the accused No.1 to 3 have damage the Hindu God idols with hands and 3 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 wooden repiece and destroyed the idols thereby committed alleged offence.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information given by CW1, CW8/PW5 Sri Girish Naik.C., PI, registered Crime No. 24/2017 against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P3, sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers, drawn mahazar as per Ex.P1 from 8.15 am to 9.30 am in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Narasimha and CW3 namely Sri Balakrishna and seized pieces of idols and wooden club as per MO1 to MO4.
4. Investigation: Thereafter IO/PW5 recorded the voluntary statement of accused persons and statement of witnesses, obtained sanction from State Government, collected the documents and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offence.
5. At pre- cognizance stage, the accused No.3 and accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail by order dated 16-02-2017 and 18-02-2017 respectively.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offence alleged against the accused No.1 to 3.
4 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/20177. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. have been furnished to the accused No.1 to 3.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1 to 3, charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.295(A) of 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, examined 6 witness and exhibited 1, 3 to 6 documents and MO1 to MO4 and closed their side. Despite execution of process against CW5 and CW6, they were not appeared before the court and hence, the examination of CW5 and CW6 were dropped out by the order dated 03-10-2025.
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 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witness and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
5 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/201712. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12-02-2017 at about 5 pm, at 1st Main road, Sri Mahaganapati temple within the limits of J.C.Nagar PS, the accused No.1 to 3 have damage the Hindu God idols with hands and wooden repiece in the temple and thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.
295(A) of IPC?
2. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative however the accused No.1 to 3 convicted for the offence u/section 295 of IPC.
Point No.2 : As per final order 6 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 REASONS
14. Point No.1: 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 following witnesses i. CW3 Sri Balakrishna, pancha witness examined as PW1 deposed that on 12-02-2017, the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P1 in respect of the damage of Ganesh idol and the idols of three sages at the Mahaganapati Temple and seized the broken pieces of idols and wooden piece as per MO1 to MO4.
ii. CW1 Sri Harish, being informant examined as PW2 deposed that on 12-02-2017 at 6 am, CW4 being priest of the Mahaganapati Temple belonged to Mahaganapati Seva Mandali informed that the accused were breaking the idols of the temple, when he went to temple, the accused persons were breaking the idols of Ganesha and Rishi Muni in the temple with wooden piece, stones and hands and hence, the public who are present therein caught the accused and handed over them to the police. Later, he filed a complaint as per Ex.P1 and the police drawn mahazar as per Ex. P. 2 and seized MO1 to MO4.
7 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017iii. CW2 Sri Narasimha, pancha witness examined as PW3 deposed that, on 12-02-2017 at 7:30 am, the public informed that the accused No. 1 to 3 broken the idols in the Mahaganapati Temple, when he went to the temple, he saw that the idols of Ganesha and two sages were already broken, at that time, the police conducted Ex.P1 mahazar and seized MO1 to MO4.
iv. CW4 Sri Phanindra Sharma, the priest, examined as PW4 deposed that on 12-2-2017, between 5 and 5:30 am, the public came and said that someone was breaking the temple, he went to the temple and saw that the accused were breaking the idols of Ganesha and two sages in the temple with a wooden piece, he informed the same to CW1. Thereafter, police conducted Ex.P1 mahazar and seized MO1 to MO4.
v. CW8 Sri C.Girish Nayak, the then PI of J.C. Nagara PS examined as PW5 deposed that on 12-2- 2017, he received written complaint from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P3, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 from 8-15 am to 9-30 am and seized MO1 to MO4, recorded the voluntary statements of the accused and statements of CW2 to CW6, after obtaining opinion from the State Government, he filed charge sheet against accused.
8 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017vi. CW7/PW6 Sri Nanjappa, deposed that he came to know about the incident from the priest of temple and he has not given statement before police. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before Magistrate is marked as Ex.4.
15. The relevant provision for section 295A of IPC which reads as under
Section. 295 A Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 9 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The essential elements of Section 295A of IPC was culled out as under
i. The act must be intentional and malicious, with the specific aim of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens ii. The act must involve insulting or attempting to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens in India.
iii. The insult must be carried out through words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representations iv. The offense is directed at the religious feelings of a "class of citizens" rather than an individuals Thus, there is no dispute that the accused No.1 to 3 are Mohammedans whereas the alleged incident was taken place in Hindu Temple and both are different communities.10 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
16. The relevant provision for taking cognizance under section 295A of IPC is Section 196 of Indian Penal Code reads as under
Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence
1. No Court shall take cognizance of--
1. any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A, section 295A or Sub-Section (1) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
2. a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or any such abetment, as is described in section 108A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
1A. No Court shall take cognizance of--11 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
a. any offence punishable under section 153B or Sub- Section (2) or Sub-Section (3) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or b. a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, Except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
2. No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceeding;
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
12 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under Sub-Section (1) or Sub- Section (1A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under Sub-Section (1A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under Sub- Section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in Sub- Section (3) of section 155.
Thus, from the record, IO/PW5 appears from the record that he secured the sanction from the State Government for filing of charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 through the proper channel namely Commission of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore as per Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and thereafter the sanction was accorded on 04/11/2017 and amended order dated 07/12/2017 from the State Government for submitting the charge sheet under section 295A of IPC and the said charge sheet was submitted on 15/12/2017 to the court. The primary ingredients for taking cognizance of the offence was from sanction of State Government was obtained.
13 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/201717. With the background of the section, this court had gone through the complaint which reads as under ತಮ್ಮ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತಿಳಿಯಪಡಿಸುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇವಾಲಯದ ಮುಂಭಾಗದ (ಹಾಪ್ ಕಾಮ್ಸ್)ದ ಶ್ರೀ ಗಣೇಶ ಮತ್ತು ರುಷಿಮುನಿಗಳ ವಿಗ್ರಹಗಳನ್ನು 3 ಜನ ಕಿಡಿಗೇಡಿಗಳು ಸೇರಿ ಹಾನಿ ಮಾಡಿ ವಿರೂಪಗೊಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಂದರೆ ಮಂಜಾನೆ ಸಮಯ 6.00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬ ಕಿಡಿಗೇಡಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ಅರ್ಚಕರು ಮತ್ತು ಪೇಪರ್ (newspaper) ಹಾಕುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಕಾಶ್ (ಬಿಲ್ಲಾ) hair cutting saloon owner ಸೇರಿ ಹಿಡಿದು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆತನ ಹೆಸರು ತಬರೇಜ್, ಕೋಲಾರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯವನೆಂದು ತಿಳಿದು ಬರುತ್ತದೆ, ಈ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಕುಡಿದ ಅಮಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ದೇವಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಹಾನಿ ಮಾಡದೇ ಬಿಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲಾವೆಂದು ಉರ್ದು ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದನೆಂದು ತಿಳಿದು ಬಂದಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮತ್ತಿಬ್ಬರ ಹೆಸರುಗಳು ಅಜಮ್, ಇಬ್ರಾನ್ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿದುಬಂದಿದೆ, ಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಇದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಾವು ಈ ಕೂಡಲೇ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೀರೆಂದು ವಿನಂತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇವೆ.
From the complaint averments and the statement of prosecution witnesses postulates Section 295A of IPC that a person is said to have committed the offence under this Section if they did an act with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class or community, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the 14 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 religious beliefs of that class. In the present case, there is no allegation mentioned or stated specifically that the accused No.1 to 3 with a malicious intention has outraged the feeling of any class or any religion and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Kishori W/o Basavarajagouda Boodanur vs The State Of Karnataka decided on 25/03/2022 in CRL. P. No. 102092/2017. However the complaint as per Ex.P1 and the version of CW4/PW4 who is one of the eye witness emerges from his statement and his evidence that he has seen the accused No.1 to 3 for damaging the Hindu vigrahas/idols i.e., idols of Ganesha and Rishi Muni in the temple with the repiece patti and the said repiece patti was seized and identified as MO4.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of Section 295A of IPC in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs Yerraguntla Shyamsunder and another reported in (2017) 7 SCC 760 observed that Section 295A of IPC does not stipulate everything to be penalised and every act would be insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious belief. It was further observed by the Apex Court that Section 295A of IPC penalises only those acts of insult or attempts to insult the religion or religious belief which are deliberate and malicious with the intention to outrage the religious feeling of a class of citizen and the said relevant Paragraph No. 6 of aforesaid decision is being quoted as under :
15 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/20176. On a perusal of the aforesaid passages, it is clear as crystal that Section 295A does not stipulate everything to be penalised and any and every act would tantamount to insult or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens. It penalises only those acts of insults d to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of a class of citizens which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class of citizens. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section. The Constitution Bench has further clarified that the said provision only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
Emphasis has been laid on the 16 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 calculated tendency of the said aggravated form of insult and also to disrupt the public order to invite the penalty.
The above legal position was again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Amish Devgan vs Union of India reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court observed that first part of Section 295A I.P.C. specially refers to deliberate and malicious intention on the part of maker to outrage religious feeling of any class of citizens and last part referred to harm-based element, that is, insult or attempt to insult religions or religious belief of that class and the relevant Paragraph No. 100 of Amish Devgan is being quoted as under :
100. The two provisions have been interpreted earlier in a number of cases including Ramji Lal Modi Vs State of UP reported in AIR 1957 SC 620, Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1962 SC 955, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs State of AP reported in (1997) 7 SCC 431. It could be correct to say that Section 295A of the Penal Code encapsulates of all three elements, namely, it refers to the content-based element when it refers to words 17 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 either spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation or otherwise. However, it does not on the basis of content alone makes a person guilty of the offence. The first portion refers to deliberate and malicious intent on the part of the maker to outrage religious feeling of any class of citizens of India. The last portion of Section 295A of IPC refers to the harm-
based element, that is, insult or attempt to insult religions or religious belief of that class.
Similarly, sub-section (2) to Section 505 refers to a person making publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news. Thereafter, it refers to the intent of the person which should be to create or promote and then refers to the harm-based element, that is, likely to create or promote on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, etc. feeling of enmity. hatred or ill-will between different religions, racial language, religious groups or castes or communities, etc. 18 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 From the above analysis and legal position, it is clear that only those words which have been spoken or written with deliberate and malicious intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of citizen, can be categorized as offence under Section 295A of I.P.C and not with regard to destruction or damage of idols though associated with Hindu religion or its belief will not attract the ingredients of Section 295-A I.P.C. as it does not in any manner affect or outrage the religious feeling or belief of a class of citizen unless specifically mentioned in the complaint or further statement was given in this regard. When the material allegation is lacking about the non- mentioning of deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class by the accused No. 1 to 3, this court cannot be held guilty under section 295A of IPC.
19. However, the prosecution has proved the offence under section 295 of IPC wherein it has been extracted for reference as under
Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of 19 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
and the cross-examination of PW4 (eye-witness) ನಾನು ಸುಮಾರು 15- 16 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದ ಅರ್ಚಕನಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಘಟನೆಗೂ ಪೂರ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಘಟನೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಖುದ್ದಾಗಿ ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಈ ದಿನವೇ ಮೊದಲು
ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಯನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಬರೆದರು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದವರ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಯನ್ನು 07-30 ರಿಂದ 08-30 ವರೆಗೆ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಚಕ್ಕುಬಂದಿ ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ - ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನ, ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ -ವಡವೆ ಅಂಗಡಿ, ಗ್ಯಾರೇಜ್, ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ - ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯ ಗೇಟ್ , ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ - ಗೇಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದ ಅಂಗಡಿಗಳು ಇವೆ. ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನನಗೆ ನೋಟೀಸ್ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಕರೆಸಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ 20 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಲು 1 ರಿಂದ 4 ಸದರಿ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದ ವಿಗ್ರಹಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
Admittedly, Ganesh and Rishimuni idols are scared in the Hindu Community and breaking of idols would amount to insult to the Hindu Religion Community. Added to which, there is no enmity from PW4 with the accused No.1 to 3 as PW4 had seen the accused No.1 to 3 for the first time on the date of incident and the PW1 had seen the accused No.1 at the spot and was given to the police on the said date of incident itself.
20. Added to which, the oral testimony of PW4 was not demolished/discredited in any manner that he did not witness the incident rather his cross examination emerges that the accused No.1 to 3 had broken the idols. No doubt, there are minor contradictions about the boundaries of alleged spot however that cannot a sole ground to discard his evidence when he had spoken about the incident.
21. It appears from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses that the accused No.1 to 3 was mainly concentrating on the non-inclusion of nearby shop keepers and about the existence and non- existence of CCTV at the spot however that cannot be 21 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 a ground to discard the oral testimony of eye witness i.e., PW4 and the seizure of idols were much present before this court.
22. It appears from the record that the presence of accused No.1 to 3 was not denied by the accused persons in the defence rather has taken specific defence that they were under influence of alcohol however neither PW5 nor the doctor had reported at the time of examination. Such being the case, the prosecution has made out the case under section 295 of IPC about the damages caused to the Hindu idols, which is a minor offence compared to Section 295A of IPC wherein the punishment prescribed is for a period of 2 years or fine or both whereas punishment prescribed Section 295A of IPC is the punishment prescribed is for a period of 3 years. Acting under section 222 of CRPC, the accused No.1 to 3 are held guilty for destruction/damage of idols.
23. There is no favorable answers elicited from PW1 to PW3 by the accused No.1 to 3 that alleged incident was not taken place. More so over, the presence of accused No.1 was fortified by the PW1 and PW4 in their evidence.
24. Added to which, the accused No.1 to No.3 did not cross examined the PW5/IO and even if the 22 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 investigating officer was not examined that would not be a dent in the prosecution case when the presence of eye-witness/PW4 at the spot was proved by the prosecution and his oral testimony was not discredited by the defence in any manner and the said principle is appreciated in the case of is sufficient for convicting the accused persons.
25. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER i. Accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under 295 of IPC by acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
ii. To hear on sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of November, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
23 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017ORDERS REGARDING SENTENCE
1. Heard regarding sentence.
2. The learned Sr. A.P.P. contended that the accused have committed heinous offence, as such no leniency be shown against them and be sentenced severely.
3. Per contra the learned counsel for accused submitted that the accused are first time offenders and have no criminal antecedents. Further submitted that the accused persons are having responsibility to look after their family members, who are solely depending on their earnings. Hence prayed for leniency.
4. Having considered the submission of both parties, in the considered opinion of court, the accused are not entitle for the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act as they tried to create communal disharmony amongst Hindu and Muslim community much less offence committed against the State. The alleged offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or fine or with both. It is settled principle of law that sentence imposed shall respond to the cry of society. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 773 State of Rajasthan V/s Mohan Lal wherein it is held at paragraph No.13 which reads thus;
24 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017"13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances, have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, in as much as both the crime and criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not loose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance."
Therefore keeping in mind the mitigating factors against the accused and considering the above ratio, this court is proceed to pass the following:
25 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017ORDER i. The accused No.1 to 3 are sentenced to under go SI for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default the convict shall under go 6 months simple imprisonment.
ii. After expiry of appeal period, MO1 to MO4 shall be destroyed.
iii. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled.
iv. Accused No.1 and 2 are entiled for set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. for the imprisonment underwent in this case during pre-cognizance stage.
v. Copy of the judgment furnish to the accused persons by free of cost.
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
26
KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Balakrishna/pancha witness PW2 : Sri Harish/Informant PW3 : Sri Naraismha/pancha witness PW4 : Sri Phanindra Sharma/Priest PW5 : Sri C.Girish Naik/PI/IO PW6 : Sri Nanjappa Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Spot Mahazar/PW1
Complaint/PW2
Ex.P2 : Not marked
Ex.P3 : FIR/PW5
Ex.P4 : Statement of PW6/
Letter addressed to Assistant Director of Public Prosecution/PW5 Ex.P5 : Letter addressed to Police Commissioner, seeking permission Ex.P6 : ಜ್ಞಾಪನ ಪತ್ರ ದಿಃ 16-11-2017 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1-3 : Pieced of idols MO4 : Wooden piece 27 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
Witnesses examined for defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of defence: Nil Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.28 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017
12-11-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER i. Accused No.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under 295 of IPC by acting under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
ii. To hear on sentence.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru 29 KABC031233532017 CC 31183/2017 12-11-2025 Orders on Sentence pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER i. The accused No.1 to 3 are sentenced to under go SI for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default the convict shall under go 6 months simple imprisonment.
ii. After expiry of appeal period, MO1 to MO4 shall be destroyed.
iii. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled.
iv. Copy of the judgment furnish to the accused persons by free of cost.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru 30