Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Gowri Lankesh vs Vishnu R.Bhat on 3 August, 2024

                             1

                                                    C.C.No.8698/2015

KABC030237642015




    IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
             MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.

           Dated this the 03rd day of AUGUST, 2024.

    Present: Sri SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
                     XL Addl. C.J.M., Bangalore.

               C/C XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE.

                      C.C. No.8698/2015

              JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,

    Complainant           : State by BASAVANAGUDI Police
                            Station.
                             Vs/-
    Accused               : SRI VISHNU R.BHAT
                            S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT
                            AGE 45 YEARS,
                            R/AT NO.398, 19TH MAIN ROAD,
                            4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
                            BANGALORE- 95.

    Date of offence       : 14-07-2014
    Offences complained   : U/s.153A, 295, 295A of IPC. R/W/S
    of                      66(A) Information Technology
                            Act,2000.
    Plea                  : Accused Pleaded not guilty
    Final Order           : Accused is Acquitted.
                                   2

                                                          C.C.No.8698/2015
     Date of Order             : 03-08-2024.

                              *****

      The Police Inspector, Basavanagudi Police Station, Bangalore

has filed this chargesheet     against the accused      for the offences

punishable    U/s.153A,    295,    295A    of   IPC.   R/W/S    66(A)   of

Information Technology Act,2000.



      2. The criminal law has been set into motion based on the

first information statement of N.Prabha. The gist of the prosecution

case is that the accused on 14-07-2014 at 5.30 p.m. had posted

message to the face book account of CW-1 who is editor of Gowri

Lankesh situated at No.9 EAT Road of Basavanagudi. The message

contended that 'ಶಾಂತಧರ್ಮವೆಂದು ಮುಸಲ್ಮಾನರು ಹೆಮ್ಮೆಯಿಂದ ಹೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಈ

ಮತಧರ್ಮ್ಮ ಜಗತ್ತನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟುಹೋಗಬೇಕು ಅಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ ಯಾರೂ ನೆಮ್ಮದಿಯಿಂದ ಇರಲು

ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ವಿವಿಧ ಗುಂಪುಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ಮತ್ತು ಧರ್ಮ , ವಂಶ , ಜನ್ಮಸ್ದಳ , ವಾಸಸ್ದಳ,

ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ವೈರತ್ವವನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿದ್ದು' and thus caused hatred in the

minds of the various religious communities and sentiments of

people who perform pooja by making such derogatory statements.

Further the accused posted defamatory messages to destroy,

damage or defile any place of worship or any object held sacred by

class of persons with the intention of insulting the religion and also
                                 3

                                                       C.C.No.8698/2015
by posted such message to CW.1 with deliberate and malicious

intention of outraging the religious feelings with the knowledge that

is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement

committed religious sentiments. Based on the said first information

of N.Prabha, a case in Crime No.234/2014 came to be registered

against the Accused for the aforesaid offences.

     3. After completion of the investigation, the Police-Inspector,

Basavanagudi Police Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet

against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.153A, 295,

295A of IPC. R/W/S 66(A) of Information Technology Act,2000. On

receipt of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the alleged

offences. Pursuant to the issuance and service of summons

Accused entered appearance and was enlarged on bail and            the

prosecution papers was provided       to the accused     as required

U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

     4. Before framing charge, an opportunity of being heard was

provided to the accused and after hearing him and the prosecution

and as there was sufficient materials, the charge for the aforesaid

offence was framed and same was read over to the accused in the

language known to him, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty
                                4

                                                      C.C.No.8698/2015
and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the matter was set down for

prosecution evidence.

     5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has

examined PW-1 to PW-4 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P6

documents.   The Statement of Accused as required U/s. 313 of

Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused        denied the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him. The accused have not let in

any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

     6. Heard    arguments on both sides. I have Perused the

materials on record.

     7. The following point arise for my determination :-

     1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
     doubt that on on 14-07-2014 at 5.30 p.m. had posted
     message to the face book account of CW-1 who is editor
     of Gowri Lankesh situated at No.9 EAT Road of
     Basavanagudi.        The    message      contended    that
     'ಶಾಂತಧರ್ಮವೆಂದು ಮುಸಲ್ಮಾನರು ಹೆಮ್ಮೆಯಿಂದ ಹೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಈ
     ಮತಧರ್ಮ್ಮ ಜಗತ್ತನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟುಹೋಗಬೇಕು ಅಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ ಯಾರೂ
     ನೆಮ್ಮದಿಯಿಂದ ಇರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ವಿವಿಧ ಗುಂಪುಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ಮತ್ತು
     ಧರ್ಮ , ವಂಶ , ಜನ್ಮಸ್ದಳ , ವಾಸಸ್ದಳ, ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ವೈರತ್ವವನ್ನು
     ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿದ್ದು' and thus caused hatred in the minds of the
     various religious communities and sentiments of people
     who perform pooja by making such derogatory
     statements. Further the accused posted defamatory
     messages to destroy, damage or defile any place of
     worship or any object held sacred by class of persons
     with the intention of insulting the religion and also by
     posted such message to CW.1 with deliberate and
     malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings
     with the knowledge that is likely to consider such
                                5

                                                     C.C.No.8698/2015
     destruction, damage or defilement committed religious
     sentiments and thereby the accused has committed the
     offences punishable u/s.153A, 295, 295A of IPC. R/W/S
     66(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000?

     2) What Order?

     8. My finding to the above points are as under:-

     Point No.1.......In the Negative.

     Point No.2.......As per final Order, for the following :-


                                   REASONS

     9. POINT No.1:- It is the fundamental principle of criminal

jurisprudence that the prosecution will have to establish its case

beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the same,         the

prosecution has examined three witnesses as PW1 to 4 and got

marked Ex,P.1 to Ex.P6 documents.



     10. CW-2 was examined as PW-1. He has deposed in his

examination in chief that during August 2014 in the office of Gowri

Lankesh Patrike at Basavanagudi he has signed Mahazar Ex.P.1

regarding   one B.V. Bhat      posting derogatory       messages on

facebook about muslim people. CW-1 lodged complaint. The police

have conducted mahazar in their office as per Ex.P.1 and he

identified his signature as per Ex.P.1(a). During his cross
                                6

                                                     C.C.No.8698/2015
examination, he has admitted that he works in the office of CW-1.

He also admits that he had not read the contents of Ex.P.1.



     11. CW-3 was examined as PW-2. He has deposed in his

examination in chief that during August 2014 in the office of Gowri

Lankesh Patrike at Basavanagudi he has signed Mahazar Ex.P.1

regarding   one B.V. Bhat      posting derogatory    messages on

facebook about muslim people. CW-1 lodged complaint. The police

have conducted mahazar in their office as per Ex.P.1 and he

identified his signature as per Ex.P.1(b). During his cross

examination, he has admitted that he works in the office of CW-1.

He also admits that he had not read the contents of Ex.P.1.



     12. CW-9 was examined as PW-3 Papanna, Police Inspector

has deposed regarding receiving of complaint, conducting spot

panchanama, registering of FIR, conducting seizure panchanama,

recording voluntary statement of accused and filing of chargesheet.

During his cross examination he has stated that accused was

already arrested by Chandra Layout Police Station before he

arrested the accused. He admits that accused and CW-1 are

friends. He states that he had not recovered any materials from the
                                 7

                                                     C.C.No.8698/2015
accused as the hard disk was already seized by Chandra Layout

Police Station. He admits that he had not taken any signature from

the panchas regarding seizure of articles.



     13. CW-7 was examined as PW-4. He has deposed in his

evidence that he knows the accused and deposed police did not

summoned him and in his presence nothing has been seized. About

09 years back when he visited police station, the police took his

signature on Ex.P.6 panchanama as per Ex.P.6(a) and he do not

know contents in it. This witness was treated hostile by the

prosecution.   During   the   cross   examination   he   denied   the

suggestion made to him.



     14. The above being the evidence on record, other than the

panchas the prosecution has not examined any witnesses. The

prosecution has failed to examine the complainant to prove its

case. Even the seizure pancha who       was examined as PW-4 has

turned hostile. Further the spot panchas being PW-1 and 2 have

stated that they do not know the contents of Ex.P.1. Such being

the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences

and also the spot and seizure panchanama. When the prosecution
                                 8

                                                       C.C.No.8698/2015
has failed to prove the very crux of the matter, this court holds that

the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt.

      Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

      15. POINT No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the

following:-

                                    ORDER

In exercise of power conferred U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.153A, 295, 295A of IPC. R/W/S 66(A) of Information Technology Act,2000.

The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for 6 months.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 03-08-2024 ).

(SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M.,) XL Addl.CJM.,B'lore C/C XXXVII ADDL.C.J.M., BANGALORE.

9

C.C.No.8698/2015 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1        :     Raju
PW-2        :     Girish
PW-3        :     Papanna
PW-4        :     Kiran


LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1      :     Panchanama.
Ex.P.1(a)
& 1(b)      :     Signature of PW-1,PW-2
Ex.P.2      :     Complaint
Ex.P.2(a)   :     Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.3      :     FIR
Ex.P.3(a)   :     Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.4      :     Panchanama
Ex.P.4(a)   :     Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.5      :     copy of Facebook message.
Ex.P.6      :     Seizure panchanama.
Ex.P.6a     :     Signature of PW-5


LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
NIL C/C XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE. 10 C.C.No.8698/2015 11 C.C.No.8698/2015 3-8--2024 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separately.
ORDER In exercise of power conferred U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.153A, 295, 295A of IPC. R/W/S 66(A) of Information Technology Act,2000.
The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for 6 months.
C/C XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE. 12 C.C.No.8698/2015