Bangalore District Court
Lalmani Devi Mishra vs Taradatta Alias Chotu on 20 January, 2026
KABC030603122020
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 02-12-2020
Registered on : 02-12-2020
Decided on : 20-01-2026
Duration : 5 years, 1 months, 18 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 20th Day of January, 2026
C. C. No.17091/2020
(Crime No.93/2020)
State by J.C. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Taradatt @ Chotu,
Aged about 23 years,
S/o Sri Vasanth Mishra,
R/at No.109, 6th Cross,
Modi Garden, D.J.Halli,
Bengaluru City ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Venkateshappa., Advocate)
KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020
1. Date of commission of 26-10-2020
offence
2. Date of FIR 26-10-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 17-11-2020
4. Name of Complainant Smt. Lalmani Devi Mishra
5. Offences complained of Under Section 354(A)(B)
(D) of IPC
6. Date of framing charge 05-07-2021
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 30-12-2025
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 20-01-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 20-01-2026
11. Final order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
2
KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of J.C. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 354 (A)(B)(D) of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 26-10-2020 at rd about 5.00 a.m., at 3 Cross, Modi Garden, within the limits of JC Nagar Police Station, whilst CW1 namely Smt. Lalmani Devi Mishra came to pick flowers from the tree, at that time, the accused followed her and restrained her and tried to advance physical contact involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and criminal force was used upon her with intent to disrobe her thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW16 Sri Vinod Jirgale, PSI of J.C. Nagara Police Station registered Crime No.93/2020 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354(D), 511, 376 of IPC, prepared FIR and sent the same to the Court.
4. Investigation: Thereafter CW17 Sri D.R. Nagaraj, PI drawn spot mahazar on 27-10-2020, collected the documents, recorded the statements of requisite witnesses and on completion of 3 KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020 investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 (A)(B)(D) of Indian Penal Code.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused.
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 04-02-2021 however he remained absent and hence NBW and proclamation were issued. On 29- 10-2025 the accused produced under execution of proclamation and remanded to judicial custody. On 31-10-2025, he was granted bail however not complied with bail condition and hence he is JC.
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, charge for the offence punishable under Section 354 (A)(B)(D) of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 17 witnesses and examined 1 witness and no documents was marked. Perused the nature of offences and PW1 being informant cum victim did not support the prosecution case and hence the issuance of witness summons to other witnesses has been dispensed by the order dated 19/01/2026.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: There are no incriminating evidences against the accused found from the evidence of prosecution thereby the recording of statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
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 26-10-2020 at about 5.00 a.m., at 3rd Cross, Modi Garden, within the limits of JC Nagar Police Station, whilst CW1 namely Smt. Lalmani Devi Mishra came to 5 KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020 pick flowers from the tree, at that time, the accused followed her and restrained her and tried to advance physical contact involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and criminal force was used upon her with intent to disrobe her thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.354 (A) (B)(D) of IPC?
2. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
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 CW1 Smt. Lalmani being informant cum victim as PW1 and she deposed that she has not filed any complaint against accused, spot mahazar was not drawn in her presence and she 6 KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020 does not know the content of statement given before the Magistrate and she has not given any CCTV DVR in respect of alleged incident. In this regard, the learned Senior APP has cross examined this witness by treating her as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from her to support the prosecution case.
15. In this case the PW1 being informant cum victim did not support the prosecution case. Though the prosecution cross-examined this witness by treating as hostile witness however no favorable evidence have been elicited to support the prosecution case and deposed falsely to help the accused. Hence, this court is of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined by the prosecution and they supported the prosecution case that would not helpful as PW1 herself did not support the prosecution case. This court has dispensed with the examination of other witnesses which could be only formal in nature and hence taken the prosecution evidence as closed. At this stage, it is relevant to rely upon the decision in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the 7 KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020 valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."
By basing aforesaid principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above case is applicable to this case as well. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
16. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 354(A) (B)(D) of Indian Penal Code
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.8
KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020
(iii) The jail authority is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, after obtaining his personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/-, in compliance of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
(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 20 th day of January, 2026) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Lalmani Devi Informant cum victim Mishra 9 KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020 Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution: NIL Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.10
KABC030603122020 CC No.17091/2020 20-01-2026 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 354(A) (B)(D) of Indian Penal Code
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) The jail authority is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, after obtaining his personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/-, in compliance of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C..
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
11