Bangalore District Court
Akkayamma vs Kumar N on 4 December, 2025
KABC030439542021 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 13-07-2021
Registered on : 13-07-2021
Decided on : 04-12-2025
Duration : 4 years, 4 months, 22 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 04th Day of December, 2025
C. C. No.15061/2021
(Crime No.64/2021)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Kumar.N. - abated
Aged about 64 years,
S/o Late Sri Narayanaswamy,
2. Sri Nithin.K.
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri Kumar.N.,
KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
3. Smt. Radha.,
Aged about 62 years,
W/o Sri Kumar.N.,
All are R/at No.19, 2nd Floor,
Flat No.F-2, Maruti Mansion
Apartment, Annayappa Layout,
Sanjaynagara Post,
Bengaluru City -94. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri V. Prabhu, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 10-03-2021
offence
2. Date of FIR 11-03-2021
3. Date of Charge sheet 25-06-2021
4. Name of Complainant Smt. Akkayamma
5. Offences complained of Under Section 323, 324,
354, 504, 506 read with
Sec. 34 of IPC
6. Date of framing charge 29-07-2022
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 24-01-2022
of Evidence
2
KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
9. Date of Judgment is 01-12-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 04-12-2025
11. Final order Accused No.2 and 3 are
acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 10-03-2021 at 9.30 pm at the parking lot of Maruti Mansion Apartment, situated at 1st Cross, Annayyappa Layout within the limits of Sanjay Nagara PS, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention picked up quarrel with CW2 namely Sri Prathap Yadav, abused him with filthiest language, beaten him with their hands and caused hurt, when CW1 namely Smt. Akkayamma, tried to pacify the quarrel, accused persons by pulling her hair and grabbed her clothes in public with an intention to outrage her modesty and caused life threat to CW1 and CW2.
3KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW11/PW4 Sri Raghupathi, PSI registered Crime No.64/2021 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 506, 323, 325, 504, 354 read with Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P4 and sent the same to the Court and drawn spot mahazar in the presence of CW6 namely Sri K.N.Sathish and CW7 namely Sri Shanmugam as per Ex.P5.
4. Investigation: Thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses, CW9 and CW10 produced the accused No.2 before him and submitted report as per Ex.P1, recorded statement of victim and handed over the case papers to CW12. After receipt of case papers, CW12/PW3 Sri Geeresh Naik, PSI continued the investigation, secured the wound certificate of CW1 as per Ex.P2 and after completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. At pre-cognizable stage, the accused No.2 and accused No.1 and 3 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 16-03-2021 and 29-03-2021 respectively.
4KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 3.
7. In view of death of accused No.1, the case against him was ordered to be abated by the order dated 01-0-2022.
8. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.2 and 3.
9. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.2 and 3, charge for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 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.
10. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 10 witnesses and examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and closed their side.
5KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
11. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.2 and 3 were examined as per section 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.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
13. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10-03-2021 at 9.30 pm, at the parking lot of Maruti Mansion Apartment, situated at 1st Cross, Annayyappa Layout within the limits of Sanjay Nagara PS, Bengaluru, the accused No.2 and 3 along with abated accused No.1 with common intention abused CW1 namely Smt. Akkayamma and CW2 namely Sri Prathap Yadav, with filthiest language, knowingly such abusive words 6 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time, in furtherance of common intention the accused No.2 and 3 along with abated accused No.1 voluntary beaten CW2 with hands and caused simple hurt to him, thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.323 and 324 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.2 and 3 along with abated accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention dragged CW1 being woman by grabbing her clothes in public, with an 7 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 intention to outrage her modesty thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.354 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, the accused No.2 and 3 along with abated accused No.1 in furtherance common intention threatened CW1 and CW2 with life consequences thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.506 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order?
14. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order 8 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 REASONS
15. Point No.1 to 4: 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 13 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows i. CW9 Sri Shivamurthy, the then PSI, examined as PW1 deposed that he along with CW10 apprehended the accused in front of Maruti Apartment, Annayappa Layout and produced him before CW11 and submitted report as per Ex.P1.
ii. CW8 Smt. Dr. Pankaja, examined as PW2 deposed that, on 11-03-2021 at 4:30 PM, CW1 came to the hospital for treatment after being assaulted with hands by the accused on 10-03-2021 at 9:30 PM, after examination she found swelling on the left hand, pain in the head, back of neck and back, in this regard she issued wound certificate as per Ex.P2. Further deposed that, the said injuries are simple in nature and if a person assaulted with hands, there is a possibility for the said injuries to occur.
9KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 iii. CW12/PW3 Sri Geeresh Naik, the then PSI deposed that after receipt of case papers from CW11, he continued the investigation, secured would certificate of CW1 as per Ex.P2 and submitted charge sheet against accused.
iv. CW11 Sri Raghupathi.H.S., PSI examined as PW4 deposed that, on receipt of complaint from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P4, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of CW6 namely Sri K.N.Sathish and CW7 namely Sri Shanmugam as per Ex.P5, CW9 and CW10 produced the accused No.2 before him and submitted report as per Ex.P1, recorded statements of witnesses and victim and handed over the case papers to CW12 for further investigation.
v. CW2 namely Sri Prathap Yadav, injured examined as PW5 deposed that, on 10.03.2021 at 9.30 pm, in the parking area of his house, the accused abused and beaten him and abused CW1, who came to pacify the quarrel. The accused No.2 grabbed CW1's left hand and twisted the same and pulled her hair and clothes, accused No.1 has put life threat to CW1, at that time CW3 and CW4 came and pacified the quarrel. On the next day after getting treatment, CW1 lodged complaint.
10KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 vi. CW1 namely Smt. Akkayamma, being informant cum injured examined as PW6 and deposed on 10.03.2021 at 9.30 pm, CW2 was assaulted by the accused in the parking area of her house, when she went to pacify the quarrel, the accused beaten her with slippers, twisted her hands. Later she went to KC General Hospital, got treatment and filed complaint before Sanjay Nagar Police Station.
vii. CW3/PW7 namely Sri Naveen Malali Chandrappa, eyewitness, deposed that on 10-03- 2021 at around 9.30 pm, the accused No.1 and 2 abused and assaulted CW2 in the basement of their house, when CW1 tried to stop the quarrel accused No.1 and 2 pushed her down, pulled her hair and clothes and twisted her hand and threatened CW1 and CW2.
16. The charge framed against the accused persons abused the CW1/PW6 with abusive/ filthiest language. The following ingredient of Section 504 of IPC comprises as follows;
(a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and 11 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
(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 No.1 to 3 abused the CW1/PW3 with bad words 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.
17. 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 12 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 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/PW6 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 whilst 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, prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC and hence the point No.1 is answered in negative.
18. The next charge is that the accused persons has beaten PW6 with their hands and hence charged for an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Section 321 of IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt 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 13 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 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:
1. The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt to another person.
2. The hurt caused must not be grave or life-
threatening.
14KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
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.
=
19. Admittedly the prosecution has produced wound certificate though PW6 alleged to have taken the treatment at the K. C. General Hospital and hurt was simple in nature as per Ex.P2 on 11/03/2021 at 4.45 pm and the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 10/03/2021 at 9.30 pm and the injuries was said to have treated for
i) swelling of left palm
ii) tenderness in the head region
iii) tenderness in the position aspect of neck
iv) tenderness in the back right scapular region so there is a delay of 18 hours 15 minutes for taking the treatment from the alleged tenderness and swelling. As per the prosecution case, PW6 has interfered when there was a heat of exchange of 15 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 words between the PW5 and the accused persons for usage of electricity in the common passage for cutting the woods and at the time she came in between the incident to rescue the PW5. More so the accused persons did not have any intention to beat the PW6. Thus, it is clear that the accused persons had not beaten the PW6 voluntarily with their hands. It is settled law that the small acts of body pain caused during the quarrel would amounts to voluntarily causing hurt, however the PW6 has voluntarily joined in the quarrel when the accused persons for having questioned their acts of cutting wooden piece in the common passage without obtaining permission from all the 7 residents of Apartment.
20. Added to which, there was no complain of twisting the left hand with the doctor and no treatment was given which appears that the version of PW6 was exaggerated at the time of giving complaint and giving the evidence to gain sympathy from the Police authority and Court respectively. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 though they claims to be injured during alleged incident never corroborates with each other. As per Section 319 of IPC, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause "hurt". Therefore, even causing bodily pain can be said to be causing "hurt" however there is a delay of 18 hours 15 minutes and hence such swelling and tenderness was occurred due to the 16 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 alleged beating was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution when the age of the injuries was not stated in the wound certificate.
21. Though the eye witness/PW7 deposed about the alleged quarrel, however his evidence depicts that
1. ನಾನು ಅದೇ ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನ ಒಬ್ಬ ವಾಸಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂಟು ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ಗಳು ಇವೆ. ಸದರಿ ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಫಾರ್ಮ್ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಫಾರ್ಮ್ ಮಾಡದೇ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ಮೆಂಟೇನಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸೆಕ್ಯುರಿಟಿ, ಲಿಪ್ಟ್, ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಸಿಟಿ ಚಾರ್ಜನ್ನು ಕಲೆಕ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಘಟನೆಯಾಗುವ ಮುಂಚೆ ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ರೂ.1500/- ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬರು ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನ ವಾಸಿಗಳ ಹತ್ತಿರ ವಸೂಲಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು. ಬಂದಿರುವ ಬಿಲ್ಲನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲ ನಿವಾಸಿಗಳು ಶೇರ್ ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅವರ ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಪೆಂಟರ್ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಬೇಸ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಸಂಪರ್ಕವನ್ನು ಬಳಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಚಾಸಾ 2 ರವರು ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರಿಗೆ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಫಾರ್ಮ್ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರೇ 17 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 ಮೆಂಟೇನಸ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರು ಬೇರೆ ನಿವಾಸಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ 2 ರವರು ಮಾಡುವ ಕಾರ್ಪೆಂಟರ್ ಕೆಲಸದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಮಾಡುವ ಕೆಲಸದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಭೆಯನ್ನು ಕರೆದಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ
2. ದಿ.10-03-2021 ರಂದು ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಪೆಂಟರ್ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿದಾಗ ಚಾಸಾ 2 ರವರೇ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದರು ಮತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ಯಾಕೆ ಕೇಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಏಕವಚನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಆ ರೀತಿ ಬೈಯ್ದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಪುನಃ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ರವರನ್ನು ಬೈಯ್ದಿಲ್ಲ, ಹೊಡೆದಿಲ್ಲ, ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರ ಕೈಯನ್ನು ತಿರುಚಿಲ್ಲ, ಅವರ ಬಟ್ಟೆಯನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಕೂದಲನ್ನು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿಲ್ಲ, ಖಾರದ ಪುಡಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಲೆ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಲು ಸುಳ್ಳು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಈ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎನ್ನಲಾದ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
18KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 however IO/PW4 deposed that ಸ್ಥಳ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಬೇಸ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಬೇಸ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಚಾಸಾ 9 ರವರ ವರದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 10 ರವರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯವರು ನಮ್ಮ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಗಮನದಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಮ್ಮ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ದೂರನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿ ಎನ್.ಸಿ.ಆರ್.ನಂ.37/2021 ದಾಖಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಎನ್.ಸಿ.ಆರ್.ನಂ.37/2021 ನ ಜೆರಾಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಮೇಲ್ನೋಟಕ್ಕೆ ಎನ್ಸಿಆರ್ ಅನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ಜೆರಾಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರತಿ ಆಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಶಾನೆಯಾಗಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲು ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಆದೇಶಿಸಲಾಯಿತು Thus, it is clear that he pleads ignorance about the case of prosecution. Added to which, there was the best evidence of CCTV available in the basement (car parking) to prove the alleged incident however IO/PW4 failed to secure the same.
19KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
22. Added to which, the accused No.3 has lodged complaint against the PW5 and PW6 about the alleged incident, however NCR No.377/2021 was issued. No investigation was done as to the lodging of NCR No.377/2021 by the PW4 with the accused No.1 to 3 about the alleged incident. Their role and complicity of accused persons have not been established for trusting the oral testimony of PW5 and PW6 and unable to secure the best evidence of CCTV despite availability at the spot. As such, the version of PW5 to PW7 was not trustworthy for conviction of accused persons.
23. The accused were charged with the offence under section 324 of IPC, which reads as under
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it 20 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Thus, on perusal of above sections, it is very clear that, to attract section 324 of IPC accused must have caused hurt to another with an instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting or any deadly or dangerous weapon. So hurt + deadly and dangerous weapon is prime requirement of section 324 of IPC. Thus ingredients to prove the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC would be Hurt + dangerous weapon = Section 324 of IPC.
24. Keeping in mind the requirements of section 324 of IPC. The Court is reverting towards the facts of the case however no deadly or dangerous weapon was used for beating the CW1/PW6 as per the prosecution case. Mere insertion of Section 324 of IPC, the accused No.2 and 3 without any ingredients of offence cannot be accepted and hence this court had to give the benefit of doubt in favour of accused No.2 and 3 thereby the Point No.2 is answered in affirmative.
21KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
25. The next charge framed under section 354 of IPC. Whether the act of the accused persons falls within the mischief under Section 354 of IPC. As per Section 354 of IPC-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished.
The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC are:-
a) That the assault must be on a woman.
b) That the accused must have used criminal force on PW4 and PW5.
c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5.
The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from the birth of PW6, she possess the modesty 22 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 which is the attribute of her sex. From the test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman and the said principle is appreciated in case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC 194.
26. Looking to the complaint and evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-6) and victim of Section 354 of IPC i.e., is that ದಿ.10-03-2021ರಂದು ರಾತ್ರಿ 09-30 ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 2 ರವರು ಅವರ ಕಛೇರಿಯಿಂದ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದರು. ಚಾಸಾ 5 ರವರು ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮಗನನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಪಾರ್ಕಿಂಗ್ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕಾಮನ್ ಪ್ಯಾಸೇಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಸಂಪರ್ಕವನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಉಪಯೆಾೕಗ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೀರಾ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿ ಚಾಸಾ 2 ರವರನ್ನು ಹೊಡೆದರು. ನಂತರ ಅವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಗಾಡಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಬಿದ್ದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಮದ್ಯಪ್ರವೇಶಿಸಿದಾಗ ಹೇಗೆ ಅವರನ್ನು ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂದು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಚಪ್ಪಲಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಕೈಯನ್ನು ಮಡಚಿ ಕೆಟ್ಟ ಕೆಟ್ಟ ಮಾತುಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು ನನ್ನ ಕಣ್ಣಿಗೆ ಖಾರಪುಡಿ 23 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 ಹಾಕುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈಗಲೂ ಕೂಡ ನನ್ನ ಕೈಯನ್ನು ಎತ್ತಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 11-30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಕೆ ಸಿ ಜನರ್ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ದೂರನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Thus, it is clear from the oral testimony of alleged victims i.e., PW6 that she went to question the acts of accused persons whilst the PW5 fell on two wheeler. In fact PW6 did not depose about the alleged outraging of modesty of tearing of clothes in the presence of public and hence the complaint and statement of prosecution witnesses does not appear that the accused No.1 and 2 made an attempt with intention to outraging the modesty which is contrary to the oral testimony of PW5 and PW7.
27. It is relevant to mention the decision in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC (Cri) 1059 in paragraph 17 and in the case of Vidhyadharan Vs state Of Kerala reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 260 in paragraph 14 held that
17. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other 24 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being states of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. Since, however, in the instant case we are only at the incipient stage we have to ascertain, only prima facie, whether Mr Gill by slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior, in the background detailed by her in the FIR, intended to outrage or knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty, which is one of the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The sequence of events which we have detailed earlier indicates that the slapping was the finale to the earlier overtures of Mr. Gill, which considered together, persuade us to hold that he had the requisite culpable intention. Even if we had presumed he had no such intention he must be attributed with such knowledge, as the alleged act was committed by him 25 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 in the presence of a gathering comprising the elite of the society- as the names and designations of the people given in the FIR indicate. While on this point we may also mention that there is nothing in the FIR to indicate, even remotely, that the indecent act was committed by Mr Gill, accidentally or by mistake or it was a slip. For the reasons aforesaid, it must also be said that - apart from the offence under Section 354 IPC-an offence under section 509 of IPC has been made out on the allegations contained in the FIR as the words used and gestures made by Mr. Gill were intended to insult the modesty of Mrs. Bajaj."
and
10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the 26 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A Victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. xxxx In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence coupled with the aforesaid decisions, the accused persons did not start the quarrel with an intention to outrage the modesty of PW6 rather from the evidence (chief in examination of PW5 to PW7) makes it very clear that she went to question the acts of accused persons and added to which, the accused persons have called for meeting with regard to usage of electricity in the common passage for personal use by the PW5 and PW6 . This Court is of opinion that the alleges acts of the accused persons during the heat of quarrel accidentally in a wrongful manner, the same cannot be said to be 27 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 with an intention to outrage the modesty of PW6 and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sumit Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal decided in CRR 3236 of 2014, decided on 22.04. 2014.
28. The oral testimony of PW5 to PW7 do not disclose that any assault or criminal force was used on them intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that their acts would outrage the modesty of PW6. The action of accused persons can be attributed to the fallout of a heated quarrel which culminated to falling of pallu. The informant may complain of outraging her modesty however did not complain of a definite apriori intention on the part of the accused persons to outrage the modesty of PW6 on 10/03/2021 as soon as the accused No. 1 to 3 came to the basement/parking lot.
29. Furthermore, there is no surrounding circumstances exist to convince this Court that the accused persons arrived at the spot with an intention to outrage the modesty of PW6. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove/establish that the accused persons came to the basement/parking slot with an intention to outraging the modesty of 28 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 PW6 by using criminal force thereby the point No. 3 is answered in negative.
30. The next charge is under Section 506 of IPC which reads as under
Section 506 IPC- Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever 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 29 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 Thus, in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of PW6 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 they is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. If such act was exerted, then it could be punished under section 506 IPC for the offence of criminal intimidation.
31. In order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the PW6 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 PW6 or to make PW6 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 to 3 have threatened PW1 if they would pour the chilli powder in the eyes and kill them. 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 PW6 and therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC was not proved 30 KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 against the accused persons thereby the point No. 4 is answered in negative.
32. Evaluating the materials placed on record, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answer the point No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
33. Point No. 5:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 4, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 354, 504, 506, read with Sec.34 of 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.31
KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
(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 04 th day of December, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Shivamurthy PSI
PW2: Dr. Pankaja Doctor
PW3: Sri Geeresh Naid PSI/Partial IO
PW4: Sri Raghupathi.H.S. PSI/Partial IO
PW5: Sri Prathap Yadav Victim
PW6: Smt. Akkayamma Informant cum injured
PW7: Sri Naveen Malali Eye witness
Chandrappa
32
KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Report PW1 Ex.P2: Wound certificate PW2 Ex.P3: Complain PW4 Ex.P4: FIR PW4 Ex.P5: Spot mahazar PW4
Material Objects marked on behalf of 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.
33KABC030439542021 CC No.15061/2021 04-12-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Sec.34 of 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.
34