Bangalore District Court
Parappana Agrahara Police Station vs Ananda Kumar on 14 August, 2025
KABC030084312023
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
PRESENT: Sri.Vinod Balnaik
B.A. LL.B (Spl.)
IX Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2025
C.C.No.5282/2023
COMPLAINANT:-
The State of Karnataka,
through PSI of Parappana Agrahara Police Station.
(By Asst. Public Prosecutor)
// Versus //
ACCUSED:-
Ananda Kumar,
S/o Veerattegowda,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Haralukuntem Maluru,
Kolar.
( Accused party in-person)
2
C.C.No.5282/2023
1. Date of Commencement of : 19.10.2022
Offence.
2. Date of Report of Offence : 21.10.2022
3. Name of Complainant : Mallikarjun
4. Offences Complained U/sec. : 353, 504 & 506 of IPC.
5. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty.
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by the PI of Parappana Agrahara police station against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 & 506 of IPC.
02. In brief the prosecution case is that;
Accused is the convicted prisoner in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru under CTP No.1489. On 19.10.2022 at 10.45 am., CW.1 and 4 to 15 being the Jail Authorities, staff and hospital authorities were on duty, while they inspecting the prisoners in hospital section, at that time, in room No.23 they found the accused and under trial prisoner by name Nagabhushan in the said room even after completion of his treatment, for that, CW.4 asked the said under trial prisoner as to why you are staying in the said room even after completion of your treatment? At that time, the 3 C.C.No.5282/2023 accused interfered in their conversation and told the under trial prisoner that, " why you are fearing to these persons say boldly as you are staying here only". For that, CW.4 cautioned the accused do not interfere between the conversation, for that, the accused abused him in a filthy language as "...ಬೋಳಿ ಮಗನೆ...." and threatened him to cause his death and reverted towards CW.4 " as I know you and about your family members", I will finish you out side the barrack and came forward to assault him, at that time, CW.1 and 5 to 15 tried to pacify the quarrel. The accused used his criminal force to deter CW.4 from discharging of his official duty and thus the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.
03. Prior to filing of charge sheet , the body warrant issued against accused as he is in Bengaluru Central Prison under CTP No.1489. After filing of charge sheet, this court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 & 506 of IPC. Initially, Smt.NG Advocate filed vakalath for him and this court furnished the charge sheet copy and prosecution papers were furnished to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, as per the submission of accused through VC he intended to defend the case personally. 4
C.C.No.5282/2023 Hence, as per intimation dated 18.03.2024, the free legal service provided to him was withdrawn.
04. Heard the accused and learned Sr.APP on framing of charge, perused the prosecution papers. As there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused, the charges has been framed and the same were read over to him through VC, but he denied the contents of charge and claimed for trial. Hence the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
05. In furtherance of the charges leveled against the accused, the following points are arisen for my consideration.
POINTS
01. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, On 19.10.2022 at 10.45 am., the accused abused in a filthy language to CW.4 while he discharging his official duty along with CW.1, 3 to 15 and thus the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.504 of IPC.?
02. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time an place, the accused threatened CW.4 to cause his death while he discharging his official duty along with CW.1, 3 to 15 and thus the 5 C.C.No.5282/2023 accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 506 of IPC.?
03. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time an place, the accused used his criminal force to deter CW.4 from discharging of his official duty when CW.4 on the rounds to checkup the health conditions of the prisoners along with CW.1, 3 to 15 and thus the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC.?
04. What order or Sentence ?
06. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined CW.4 as PW.1, CW.7 as PW.2, CW.3 as PW.3, CW. 9 as PW.4, CW.11 as PW.5, CW.12 as PW.6, CW.13 as PW.7, CW.14 as PW.8 and CW.17 as PW.9 respectively and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The prosecution has not secured the presence of CW.2, 8, 10 & 15 and they dropped from evidence. CW.16 reported as died. CW.1, 5 & 6 bind over on 18.06.2024, but later not examined them.
07. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution is read over to the accused through VC and statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances as false and chosen to lead his side defence evidence. 6
C.C.No.5282/2023 Hence, it is ordered that to keep him present before the court through escort memo to lead his side defence evidence. Accordingly, he produced on 28.07.2025, he examined as DW.1 and produced documents with memo, the same are marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15.
08. Heard the arguments. My findings on the above said points are as follows:-
Point No.1 to 3 : In the negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
09. POINT No.1 to 3 :- Since the points No.1 to 3 are interlinked with each other. Hence, taken together for discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. The prosecution has been launched on the basis of complaint lodged by the CW1 on the basis of letter given by CW.4 dated 19.10.2022 bearing No.BCPH/ CMO/ 615/2022-2023 for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 & 506 of IPC and investigation was taken place on the allegation made by the complainant as per the contents of the complaint/Ex.P4. It is pertinent to note here that, in criminal cases the measure of scale tilts or the amount of evidence 7 C.C.No.5282/2023 require to prove the guilt of the accused persons are based on the principle of beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the chain of events without any missing link, which contributes to the commission of the offences. In the back drop of the above principle, now let me analysis the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
11. CW. 1 sent the written complaint to the PI of Parappana Agrahara Police Station on 21.10.2022 on the basis of complaint letter given by the CW.4 against the accused. Accordingly, the FIR was registered. But, the said CW.1 was not examined. Further, CW.4 who being the Medical Officer in Central Prison, Bengaluru, has deposed that, on 19.10.2022 he along with Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Jailers, Chief Medical Officer and Other Medical Officers went on rounds duty to examine the prisoners at 10.45 a.m., At that time, in room No.23, the under trial prisoner by name Nagabhushan is there with the accused. At that time, he asked the said Nagabhushan why he is staying here even after his medication is completed and even after discharged from his treatment. For that, the said Nagabhushan replied as, the Chief Medical Officer was given 8 C.C.No.5282/2023 re- admission to him. At that time, the said Chief Medical Officer by name Dr.Harshavardhan (CW.5) was also along with CW.4.
Immediately, the said Chief Medical Officer told him that, he has not given admission to him in the said room. For that, the said Nagabhushan again replied that, he has given admission in the said room by the police. At that time, the accused interfered in their conversation and supported the said Nagabhushan and forced him to speak in a louder voice without any fear. At that time, CW.4 requested the accused not to interfere as he is speaking with the Nagabhushan. For that, the accused abused in a filthy language and replied that, he know his (CW.4's) family members, he will take care of them and threatened to cause his and his family members death. When the on duty Jailers and staff tried to pacify the quarrel. At that time, the accused tried to assault him. The said accused is admitted in Psychiatrist Ward even though, he was not in need of any kind of treatment. The accused deter him from discharging of his official duty with the threat of the accused, he is unable to discharge his official duty in the prison hospital. For that, he has given complaint before the CW.1 against the accused. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
9
C.C.No.5282/2023
12. Further, CW.7 is examined PW.2 who being the eye witness has deposed that, the under trial prisoner Nagabhushan was stayed in room No.23 even after completion of his treatment. When CW.4 questioned him about staying in that room, the accused interfered in the conversation when CW.4 restrained him for his interference, at that time the accused abused CW.4 in filthy language and threatened him to cause his death. The Jail wardens and staff tried to pacify the matter. The accused has obstructed to discharge their duties. For that, she has given statement before the police. Thereby, she supported the case of prosecution.
13. Further, CW.3 is examined as PW.3, who being the mahazar witness has deposed that, when he was on inspection duty in the prison along with CW.4, 1 & 7. The accused threatened CW.4 and abused in a filthy language and obstructed to discharge CW.4's duty. He has given statement before the police and the police have conducted the mahazar in his presence. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
14. Further, CW.9 is examined as PW.4, who being the another eye witness has deposed that, on 19.10.2022 when he was 10 C.C.No.5282/2023 on rounds with the Jail Chief Superintendent there was altercation occurred in between accused and the Jail Hospital Medical Officer by name Dr.Santhosh. The accused spoken in a louder voice with said Dr.Santhosh and threatened him to cause his death and deposed that, he has not given any statement before the police and she don't know any other things about the case. But in his cross examination done by the learned Sr.APP, he admitted all the suggestions. Hence, he supported the case of prosecution.
15. Further, CW.11 is examined as PW.5, who being the eye witness has deposed that, on 19.10.2022 at 10.45 am., when the hospital staff along with Medical Officers are on rounds with Superintendent of Jail. At that time, the quarrel took place between CW.4 and accused in room No.23. He don't know any other things apart from that. He given statement before the police. The learned Sr.APP treated him as partly hostile witness and cross examined him, he admitted all the suggestions as true. Thereby, he too supported the case of prosecution.
16. Further, CW.12 is examined as PW.6, who being the another eye witness has deposed that, on 19.10.2022 the hospital 11 C.C.No.5282/2023 authorities are on rounds duty along with Jail Superintendent and staff, when they reached accused room they found the under trial prisoner by name Nagabhushan in the accused's room. At that time, CW.4 enquired him as usual. For that, the said Nagabhushan replied that, he came from tower 1 to take treatment for favour. The CW.4 again asked him who given reference to him, for that the said Nagabhushan replied that, one Dr.Harshavardhan has referred and recommended him to take treatment. At that time, said Dr.Harshavardhan also present. Who denied the reference as he has not recommended any patient to take treatment in this room. At that time, the accused told to under trial prisoner Nagabhushan why you are un- necessarily entering into conversation with CW.4 instead of directly informing to CMO. For that, CW.4 told the accused as he is speaking with Nagabhushan and not to interfere in between, at that movement, the altercation took place between CW.4 and accused, the Jail Authorities restricted them. The accused told to CW.4 as he know the CW.4 to whom and to which accused persons he used to give treatment and about which matter he spoke with them and threatened him to he will look after all the things later. For that, he given statement given before the police. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
12
C.C.No.5282/2023
17. Further, CW.13 examined as PW.7, who being another eye witness has deposed that, on 19.10.2022 when he was on rounds duty along with Jail Superintendent and other staff members are on duty, Jail Hospital doctors, at that time, the accused threatened to cause death of CW.4. After completion of the rounds duty, CW.4 given a complaint letter to the Jail Superintendent. Later, the said Jail Superintendent put it in a covering letter and sent him to Parappana Agrahara Police Station to submit the same. He submitted the said covering letter, on the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
18. Further, CW.14 is examined as PW.8, who being the another eye witness has deposed that, he was discharging his duty as a Assistant Jailer on the date of incident. On that day, when CW.4 asked the under trial prisoner by name Nagabhushan as to why he is staying in room No.23 even after completion of his treatment without going back to barrack. At that time, the accused entered into quarrel with CW.4 and told to CW.4 in a louder voice that, the Nagabhushan is admitted in room No.23 by the Chief Medical Officer and who are you asked about the same and abused 13 C.C.No.5282/2023 him in a filthy language. For that he has given statement before the Investigation Officer. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
19. Further, CW.17 is examined as PW.9, who being the Investigation Officer has deposed about receiving of case file from CW.16 on 06.01.2023 and he received history ticket of accused and under trial prisoner by name Nagabhushan from the Superintendent of Central Prison and also collected the information about the said persons from psychiatrist and submitted the charge sheet against the accused on 13.01.2023. Further, deposed about CCTV footages obtained by CW.16 and kept them in the case file by the said CW.16. As the said CW.16 was died on 29.06.2025 due to accident while taking treatment in the hospital. Thereby, he supported the case of prosecution.
20. It is pertinent to note here that, all the witnesses in their respective examination in chief have categorically deposed that, the accused interfered in the negotiation of CW.4 and under trial prisoner by name Nagabhushan and entered into further altercation with CW.4 defending the said Nagabhushan by saying why are you 14 C.C.No.5282/2023 fearing CW.4 speak with him boldly about his stay in room No.23 and abused CW.4 and threatened to cause death of CW.4 and his family members. But, CW.4 deposed that, he has given written letter about the incident occurred on 19.10.2022 to the CW.1. Based upon the same, CW.1 sent a covering letter to the SHO of Parappana Agrahara Police Station. Accordingly, the FIR has been registered against the accused. But, the said covering letter is not in the case file, but only its xerox copy is there in the file. Further, CW.4 in his examination in chief has deposed that, on the next day of the incident, the police have conducted the spot panchanama i.e., Ex.P.1 in his presence and in the presence of panch witnesses by saying "...ಮಾರನೆಯ ದಿನ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಳ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆಂದು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ....". According to the witnesses and according to CW.4, the incident occurred on 19.10.2022 at 10.45 am., But, the spot panchanama i.e., Ex.P.1 was conducted on 26.10.2022, which itself creates doubt about the panchanama. Further, in Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that, "...ನಾವು ಪಂಚಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರಾಗಿ ಸಹಕರಿಸಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆ ಪತ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಆಗ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರಿದ್ದ ವೈದ್ಯಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಶ್ರೀ.ಸಂತೋಷ್ ಜೆ. ಅವರು ಸ್ಥಳವನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ, ತೋರಿಸಿ....". But, the said Dr.Sri.Santhosh.J has not affixed his signature on Ex.P.1, which is left blank as "( ಸ್ಥಳ ಗುರುತಿಸಿ, ತೋರಿಸಿದವರ ಸಹಿ)" who is none other than CW.4, who himself admitted 15 C.C.No.5282/2023 in his examination in chief about the same as "...ನಿಪಿ.1ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸಹಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ....". Which creates doubt about his presence at the time of preparation of Ex.P.1. Apart from that, CW.3/ PW.3 who being the panch witness and official witness in his cross examination has deposed that, "...ಘಟನೆಯಾದ ಮಾರನೆಯ ದಿನ ಮಹಜರ್ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ಜರುಗಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಪಿ.1ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 1.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಹಾಕಿ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿರತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕುವಾಗ ಚಾಸಾ 4ರವರು ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಅವರು ಛೇಂಬರ್ ಗೆ ಹೊರಟುಹೋಗಿದ್ದರು...." . CW.3 / PW.3 has deposed that, he put his signature on Ex.P.1 at 1.30 pm., whereas in Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that, "...ಈ ಮಹಜರ್ ನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10 ಗಂಟೆಯಿಂದ ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 11 ಗಂಟೆಯವರೆಗೆ ಪಂಚ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರಾದ ನಮ್ಮಗಳ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಿ ....". Which also clearly reveals that, the Ex.P.1 is prepared in the presence of CW.16 in the absence of CW.3/ PW.3 & CW.4/ PW.1 and CW.16 took the signature of PW.3 and forgotten to take the signature of PW.1. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the panchanama i.e., Ex.P.1. For that, this court is relied upon the decision passed by Hon'ble Supre Court of India in Crl. Appeal No(s). 793 - 794 /2022 in the matter of Rajesh and Another Vs. State of Madhyapradesh with Crl.Appeal No.795/2022, Wherein Para No.28 it is held as under; 16
C.C.No.5282/2023 "28. That apart, the manner in which the Investigating Officer (PW-16) went about drawing up the proceedings forms an important issue in itself and it is equally debilitative to the prosecution's case. In Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay 12, this Court noted that the primary intention behind the 'panchnama' is to guard against possible tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the officers entrusted with the execution of the search and also to ensure that anything incriminating which may be said to have been found in the premises searched was really found there and was not introduced or planted by the officers of the search party. It was further noted that the legislative intent was to control and check these malpractices of the officers, by making the presence of independent and respectable persons compulsory for search of a place and seizure of an article. It was pointed out that a panchnama can be used as corroborative evidence in the Court when the respectable person who is a witness thereto gives evidence in the Court of law under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. This Court noted that Section 100(4) to Section 100(8) Cr.P.C. stipulate the procedure with regard to search in the presence of two or more respectable and independent persons, preferably from the same locality, so as to build confidence and a feeling of safety and security amongst the public. The following mandatory conditions were culled out from Section 100 Cr.P.C. for the purposes of a valid panchnama:
(a) All the necessary steps for personal search of officer (Inspecting officer) and panch witnesses should be taken to create confidence in the mind of court as nothing is 17 C.C.No.5282/2023 implanted and true search has been made and things seized were found real.
(b) Search proceedings should be recorded by the I.O. or some other person under the supervision of the panch witnesses.
(c) All the proceedings of the search should be recorded very clearly stating the identity of the place to be searched, all the spaces which are searched and descriptions of all the articles seized, and also, if any sample has been drawn for analysis purpose that should also be stated clearly in the Panchanama.
(d) The I.O. can take the assistance of his subordinates for search of places.
If any superior officers are present, they should also sign the Panchanama after the signature of the main I.O.
(e) Place, Name of the police station, Officer rank (I.O.), full particulars of panch witnesses and the time of commencing and ending must be mentioned in the Panchnama.
(f) The panchnama should be attested by the panch witnesses as well as by the concerned IO.
(g) Any overwriting, corrections, and errors in the Panchnama should be attested by the witnesses.
(h) If a search is conducted without warrant of court Under Section 165 of the Code, the I.O. must record reasons and a search memo should be issued. It was held that a panchnama would be inadmissible in a Court of law if it is recorded by the Investigating Officer in a manner violative of Section 162 Cr.P.C. as the procedure requires the Investigating Officer to record the search 18 C.C.No.5282/2023 proceedings as if they were written by the panch witnesses themselves and it should not be recorded in the form of examining witnesses, as laid down in Section 161 Cr.P.C. This Court concluded, by stating that the entire panchnama would not be liable to be discarded in the event of deviation from the procedure and if the deviation occurred due to a practical impossibility, then the same should be recorded by the Investigating Officer so as to enable him to answer during the time of his examination as a witness in the Court of law."
21. Further, it is significant to note here that, the accused in his defence evidence, he clearly admitted that, he has abused CW.4 in filthy language by deposing that, "... 2019ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4ರವರು ನನಗೆ ಉಳಿದ ಖೈದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂರೈಸಲು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಚೋದಿಸಿದ್ದು, ನಾನು ಅದನ್ನು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿ, ನೀವು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಸೇವೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದುಕೊಂಡು, ಈ ತರಹದ ಕೃತ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಎಸಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4ರವರಿಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ನಿಂದಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.....". Even though, he admitted the using of abusive words, his main defence is that, how come the under trail prisoner by name Nagabhushana is admitted / permitted to stay in room No.23 or how come he admitted in the same room with the said Nagabhushan? Without the permission of Jail Authority or Jail Hospital Authority. For that, all the witnesses excluding PW.1 & 3 have categorically deposed in their respective cross examination as, 19 C.C.No.5282/2023 "...ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಕೋಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಚಾರಣಾ ಬಂಧಿ ನಾಗಭೂಷಣನನ್ನು ನನ್ನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಇರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ಇದೆಯೇ ಎಂದರೆ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.....". Further, PW.1 in his cross examination has deposed that, "......ನಾಗಭೂಷಣನನ್ನು ವಾರ್ಡ್ ನಂ.23 ರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಡಿಸ್ಚಾರ್ಜ್ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಕಾರಾಗೃಹದ ಯಾವ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯೂ ಸದರಿಯವರನ್ನು ಡಿಸ್ಚಾರ್ಜ್ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.....". Now the doubt arises in the mind of the court that, if any of the authorities have not admitted the said Nagabhushana then, how come he stayed in Room No.23 with the accused?. Further, the accused has taken defence that, he always protested against the hospital authorities and Jail Staff with respect to their support for illegal activities. Such as, supplying Ganja and other Narcotic Substances and providing mobile phones to the prisoners in the prison by illegal means. For that, he has made complaint to several officials of the Central Prison. For that, CW.9 / PW.4 admitted in his cross examination as "...ನಾನು ಆ ದಿನ ಚಾಸಾ 4ರವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದೆ ಚಾಸಾ 4ರವರು ವಿಚಾರಣಾಧೀನ ಬಂಧಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಗಾಂಜಾ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರೆ ಮಾದಕ ವಸ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಸರಬರಾಜು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಿಮಗೆ ದೂರನ್ನು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂಬುವುದು ನಿಜ.....". Which clearly reveals that, the said illegal activities happening in the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru. For that, no proper supervision is conducting by the Prison Authorities. For that, the accused produced 15 documents which are marked as Ex.D.1 to 20 C.C.No.5282/2023 Ex.D.15. Among which, Ex.D.11 to 13 are the portions of the different dated Kannada News papers publications. After careful perusal of Ex.D.11, which is the one of the portion of paper publication titled as "...ಡಿ.ರೂಪ ವಿರುದ್ಧದ ಮಾನ ನಷ್ಟ ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗೆ ತಡೆ....". Wherein it is published that, "...2017ರ ಜೂನ್ 12 ರಂದು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಕಾರಾಗೃಹಗಳ ಇಲಾಖೆ ಡಿಜಿಐ ಆಗಿದ್ದ ಡಿ.ರೂಪ ಸರಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ವರದಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ, ಕಾರಾಗೃಹ ಇಲಾಖೆ, ಡಿಜಿಪಿ ಯಾಗಿದ್ದ ಹೆಚ್.ಎನ್. ಸತ್ಯನಾರಾಯಣರಾವ್ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಭ್ರಷ್ಠಾಚಾರ ಆರೋಪ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಪರಪ್ಪನ ಅಗ್ರಹಾರ ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂಧಿತರಾಗಿರುವ ಎಐಎಡಿಎಂಕೆ ನಾಯಕಿ ಶಶಿಕಲಾ ಗೆ ವಿಶೇಷ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಲು ಸತ್ಯನಾರಾಯಣರಾವ್ ರೂ. 2 ಕೋಟಿ ಲಂಚ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದರೆಂದು ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ....". Further, after careful perusal of Ex.D.12 which is the another portion of paper publication titled as "...ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತೆಲಗಿ ದಂಧೆಗೆ ಸಹಕಾರಃ ಜಯಸಿಂಹ, ನಂಜಪ್ಪ ಗೆ 5 ವರ್ಷ ಜೈಲು....". Wherein it is published that, "...ಅಬ್ದುಲ್ ಕರೀಂ ತೆಲಗಿ ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾಗಲೂ ಆತನ ನಕಲಿ ಛಾಪಾ ಕಾಗದ ದಂಧೆಗೆ ಸಹಕಾರ ನೀಡಿದ್ದ ಅಂದಿನ ಜೈಲು ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಾದ ಜಯಸಿಂಹ ಮತ್ತು ನಂಜಪ್ಪರವರಿಗೆ ಹೈ ಕೋರ್ಟ್5 ವರ್ಷ ಗಳ ಜೈಲು ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ಸಜೆ ಮತ್ತು ತಲಾ ರೂ.50,000/- ದಂಡ ವಿಧಿಸಿದೆ. ತೆಲಗಿ 2001-2002ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪರಪ್ಪನ ಅಗ್ರಹಾರ ಜೆೃಲಿನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾಗ ಅವನ ಐಶಾರಾಮಿ ಜೀವನಕ್ಕೂ ಸಹಕರಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಇವರಿಬ್ಬರೂ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ 3 ½ ವರ್ಷ ಜೈಲುವಾಸ ಅನುಭವಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.....". Further in Ex.D.13 which is the another portion of paper publication titled as "... ಹೃದಾಯಾಘಾತದಿಂದ ಕೈದಿ ಸಾವು ...." Wherein it is published that, "... ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಬಳ್ಳಾಪುರ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ಗೌರೀಬಿದನೂರಿನ ಆನಂದ್ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸೂಕ್ತ ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಸಿಗಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಜೈಲಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವೈಧ್ಯಕೀಯ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಸರಿ 21 C.C.No.5282/2023 ಇಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದೇ ಅವರ ಸಾವಿಗೆ ಕಾರಣ ಎಂದು ಕೈದಿಗಳು ಆರೋಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಕೆಲ ತಿಂಗಳ ಹಿಂದಷ್ಟೇ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಕೈದಿಗಳು ವೈಧ್ಯಕೀಯ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಸಿಗದೇ ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು. ಇದೀಗ ಆನಂದ್ ಸಾವನ್ನಪ್ಪಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಇದರಿಂದ ಇತರೆ ಕೈದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಆತಂಕ ಶುರುವಾಗಿದ್ದು ಜೀವ ಭಯವಿದೆ. ಜೈಲಿನ ವೈಧ್ಯಕೀಯ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ಕೂಡಲೇ ಸುಧಾರಿಸಬೇಕು. ಸಧ್ಯ ಇರುವ ಜೈಲಿನ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ವೈಧ್ಯರನ್ನು ಅಮಾನತ್ತು ಮಾಡಿ, ಹೊಸಬರನ್ನು ನೇಮಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನಾನಿರತ ಕೈದಿಗಳು ಒತ್ತಾಯಿಸಿದರು ಎನ್ನಲಾಗಿದೆ....." which also reveals that, there are so many incidents happened about illegal activities prevailing in the Central Prison. For that instant, the defence of the accused cannot be denied. Apart from that, it is most crucial and considerable fact to take judicial notice of the allegation of the accused with respect to illegal activities happening in the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison is that, " the Crime No.418/2024 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station was registered in this court on 26.08.2024 about the illegal activities in the Central Prison," wherein recently, the Government of Karnataka passed its proceedings on 07.03.2025 as ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ನಡವಳಿಗಳು, ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಆದೇಶ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಃ ಅಕುಕ 106 ಎಂಎಸ್ಎ 2025 ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿ.07.03.2025 passed by Sri.K.Nadeem Ahamad ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ, ಆರೋಗ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ಇಲಾಖೆ, (ಸೇವೆಗಳು -
3) as " .......ಪರಪ್ಪನ ಅಗ್ರಹಾರ ಕೇಂದ ಕಾರಾಗೃಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೈದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್ ಹಾಗೂ ನಗದು ಹಣವನ್ನು ಸಾಗಾಣಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಆರೋಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಡಾ.ಹರ್ಷವರ್ಧನ್ ಇವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಪರಪ್ಪನ ಅಗ್ರಹಾರ ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುವ 22 C.C.No.5282/2023 ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 418/24ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಸದರಿ ವೆದ್ಯರನ್ನು ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಚಾರ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1988(ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ-2018) ರ ಕಲಂ .17(ಎ) ರೀತ್ಯಾ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಡಿಸಲು ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪೂರ್ವಾನ್ವತಿ ನೀಡಿ ಆದೇಶಿಸಿದೆ.....". Which also creates doubt that, the hospital authorities of the Parappana Agrahara Central Prison is involved in the such illegal activities as rightly alleged by the accused. Further, the said Dr.Harshavardhan is made as a witness as CW.5 in the instant case.
22. Further, it is pertinent to note here that, CW.16 who was part investigation officer has produced the CD by down loading the CCTV Footages along with the charge sheet with respect to alleged incident happened on 19.10.2022, but unfortunately he died prior to his examination in chief during the course of trial. Hence, the same CD is marked as MO No.1 through CW.17 to trace out the truth. But, when the said CD is inserted in the official laptop of learned Sr.APP on 08.07.2025 in the further examination in chief of CW.17/PW.9, but the contents of the CD not displayed in the laptop in the open court and same is displayed as "loading content and displayed the file name as Hospital video file", but any 23 C.C.No.5282/2023 of the CCTV Footages are displayed. Hence, MO.1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. Such being so, as stated earlier, the allegation of the accused cannot be denied by taking into consideration of above mentioned reasons. Therefore, under all the above attending circumstances of the case, the Court cannot come to the just conclusion to infer the guilt of the accused for the above alleged offences. As such, I am of the opinion that though the Prosecution tried to establish its case, but under the above said circumstances, the Prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the above alleged offences. Further, the accused is already convicted prisoner serving his sentence in the Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. For which reason, the accused entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt. Hence, I answered the Point No.1 to 3 in the negative.
23. POINT NO.4: In view of reasons stated above on points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
24
C.C.No.5282/2023 ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 & 506 of IPC.
The accused is set at liberty.
Office is hereby directed to issue intimation to Jail Authority.
(Dictated Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this 14th day of August 2025).
2025 (Sri Vinod Balnaik) IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the prosecution:-
PW-01 : Dr.Santhosh
PW-02 : Smt.Maithily
PW-03 : Ravindranath Hugar
PW-04 : Karna Kshathriya
PW-05 : Ravi Patil
25
C.C.No.5282/2023
PW-06 : Vijay Kumar
PW-07 : Kanthappa Patil
PW-08 : Basappa Koravar
PW-09 : Narendrakumar.K
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
DW-01 : H.V. Ananda Kumar List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Panchanama Ex.P.2 : Letter Ex.P.3 : Complaint Letter Ex.P.4 : Letter Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.6 : Letter Ex.P.7 : History Ticket Ex.P.8 : 65-B Certificate
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Receipt
Ex.D.2 : Endorsement
Ex.D.3 to 5 : Imprisonment Certificates
Ex.D.6 : Endorsement
26
C.C.No.5282/2023
Ex.D.7 : Judgment Copy of Criminal Appeal No.792/2012
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.8 : Out patient record book Ex.D.8(a) : Prescription dated 18.07.2024. Ex.D.9 to 15: Paper Publications.
Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO. 1: CD
IX ADDL.C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
27
C.C.No.5282/2023
14.08.2025
Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(Vide separate order)
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 & 506 of IPC.
The accused is set at liberty.
Office is hereby directed to issue intimation to Jail Authority.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.