Bangalore District Court
M Mompuri Asi vs Chethangowda Alias Chethu on 15 November, 2024
KABC030776952019
Presented on : 22-10-2019
Registered on : 22-10-2019
Decided on : 15-11-2024
Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 24 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 15th Day of November, 2024
C.C. No.25130/2019
State by Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Chethan Gowda (a) Chethu,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sri Ramesh,
KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
2. Ramesh,
Aged about Major,
Both are R/at No.257,
Papanna Building,
Jalahalli Circle, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Gopal Yadav.R.S., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 02-09-2019
offence
2. Name of Complainant Sri Mopuri, ASI,
Jalahalli Police Station
3. Offences complained Under Section 353, 504,
of 506 read with section 34
of IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused are acquitted
6. Date of order 15-11-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 353, 504, 506 read with Secion 34 of IPC.
2KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
2. Prosecution Case: On 02-09-2019 at 11.30 p.m., CW1 Sri Mopuri, ASI and CW5 Sri Sharat Kumar, PC 17163 of Jalahalli PS were patrolling on Hoysala 150 at Jalahalli Village Circle within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, at that time CW4 Smt. Umajyothi came to ask their help to complain against her husband as he had beaten her. When she was asked to sit in the said vehicle, her husband i.e. accused No.1 came and picked up quarrel with CW1 and CW5, pulled the shirt collar of CW1, abused him in filthiest language, at that time accused No.2 being father of accused No.1 has also came there and threatened CW1 and CW5 saying that he set fire to the police station if his son gets into any trouble. Thereby the accused No.1 and 2 obstructed CW1 and CW5 from discharging their public duty.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1, CW8/PW6 Sri Ramesh, the then ASI of Jalahalli PS registered a Crime No.88/2019 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 353, 506, 504 R/W Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P5, sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers, conducted mahazar on 03-09-2019 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 at 7 a.m. to 7.50 a.m. as per Ex.P2 and seized uniform as per MO1 and handed over the case papers to CW9.
3KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
4. Investigation: On the receipt of case papers from CW8/PW6, CW10/PW8 Sri Yashwanth.B.S., the then PSI of Jalahalli PS continued with the investigation and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offences.
5. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 05/09/2019.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused. Accused No.2 was enlarged on bail by order dated 12/11/2024.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused persons.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 10 witnesses however examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents and MO1. The examination of CW7 was given up by the prosecution on account of examination of CW6 by the order dated 07/01/2022.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 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.
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 02-09-2019 at 11.30 p.m., CW1 Sri Mopuri, ASI and CW5 Sri Sharat Kumar, PC 17163 of Jalahalli PS were patrolling duty on Hoysala 150 at Jalahalli Village 5 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 Circle within the limits of Jalahalli PS, at that time CW4 Smt. Umajyothi came for help to complain against her husband, for which accused No.1 picked up quarrel with CW1 and CW5 abused them with filthiest language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 504 R/w sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, place and time in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 pulled the shirt collar of CW1 thereby obstructed CW1 and CW5 from discharging their public duty thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec.353 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
6KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, place and time in furtherance of common intention accused No.2 threatened CW1 and CW5 with dire consequences thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec. 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC?
4. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 3: 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 12 of this judgment, the 7 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 prosecution has examined witnesses which are as follows:
i. CW1 Sri M.Mopuri, ASI of the then Jalahalli PS, being Informant examined as PW1 deposed that, on 02-09-2019, he and CW5 were patrolling on Hoysala 150, at about 11.30 p.m. near the circle of Jalahalli village, a 20-year-old girl (CW4) came running in panic and told that her husband Chetanagowda i.e., accused No.1 beaten her and she wants to go to the Police Station to complain against him. Then, he asked her to sit in the vehicle, at that time accused No.1 came to the spot and suddenly picked up quarrel, grabbed his uniform collar, abused him. Then the accused No.2, who is the father of accused No.1 came to the said place and he also quarreled with them and said that if he disturbs her son and he will set fire to the police station and obstructed their public duty. Thereafter, he brought CW4 to the police station and complained against accused persons as per Ex.P1, on next day the police have conducted spot mahazar from 7.00 am to 7.50 am and seized MO1 uniform. He identified his signatures thereon as per Ex.P1(a) and 2(a).
ii. CW2 Sri Shivakumar, pancha witness examined as PW2 has identified his signature on Ex.P2 as Ex.P2(b) and he affixed his signature on mahazar which was drawn on 03-09-2019 from 7 a.m. to 7.50 a.m. in respect of quarrel had taken 8 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 place amongst the accused and police and seized uniform as per MO1. In this regard, he had given the statement to the police.
iii. CW3 Sri Pradeep.S.S., pancha witness examined as PW3 has identified his signature on mahazar Ex.P2 as Ex.P2(c) and pleaded ignorance about the contents of mahazar and seizure of uniform (MO1). In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined him by treating as hostile witness, however no favorable answers has been elicited from him in support of Ex.P2. His denial statement given before police is marked as Ex.P3.
iv. CW5 Sri Sharat Kumar, the then PC of Jalahalli PS examined as PW4 deposed the version of PW1.
v. CW6 Sri Namesh, the then HC of Jalahalli PS examined as PW5 deposed that on 03-09-2019, CW10 deputed him and CW7 to trace out the accused persons and accordingly, they apprehended accused No.1 at Jalahalli Village Circle at 6.30 p.m., produced him before CW10 and submitted report as per Ex.P4. He identified his signature as Ex.P4(a).
vi. CW18 Sri Ramesh, the then ASI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW6 deposed that on 02-09-2019, he 9 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 received complaint from CW1 as per Ex.P1 and registered the case, prepared FIR as per Ex.P5 and sent to the court. On 03-09-2019 he drawn spot mahazar in the presence of CW2 and CW3 from 7 a.m. to 7.50 a.m. and seized uniform as per MO1 and subjected the same under PF No.58/2019 and handed over the case papers to CW9. He identified his signature as Ex.P1(b), 5(a) and 2(d).
vii. CW9 Sri D.Govindappa, the then ASI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW7 deposed that, after receipt of case papers from CW8, he appointed CW6 and CW7 to trace out the accused. Accordingly they produced accused No.1 before him and CW6 submitted report as per Ex.P4. He recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P6 and handed over the case papers to CW10 for further investigation. He identified his signature as Ex.P4(b) and 6(a).
viii. CW10 Sri Yashwanth.B.S., the then PSI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW8 deposed that after receipt of case papers from PW7, he continued the investigation and submitted charge sheet against accused.
ix. CW4 Smt. Umajyothi examined as PW9 deposed that accused No.1 is her husband, accused No.2 is father-in-law, she and accused No.1 were in love and got married in 2018. There marriage was 10 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 inter-caste marriage. On 02-09-2019 at 11-30 pm, accused No.1 under the influence of alcohol hit her, for which she came out and sought for help from police in Hoysala standing near the circle. While inquiring, her husband i.e. accused No.1 came there and dragged the collar of CW1 and CW5, at that time, the accused No.2 also came and threatened them. In this regard, she has given statement.
15. Before adverting into the factual matrix of the case, it is relevant to consider and analyze the necessary ingredients of Section 353 of IPC of IPC which reads as under:-
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 11 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Thus, the above Section makes it very clear that in order to attract the offence it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use of criminal force restraining public servant from performing his official duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty. In order to make out a case under section 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities or with the goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties.
16. To establish as to whether the PW1 has assaulted the PW1 or used any criminal force upon him, it is necessary to examine the definition of 'force', 'criminal force' and 'assault', which are defined in Sections 349, 350 and 351 of IPC which are as under:-
Section 349: Force-- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion 12 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described: First.--By his own bodily power.
Secondly.--By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly.--By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
A reading of above Section makes it clear that a person is said to use force in any of the three methods mentioned above. The exertion of energy or power that causes a movement or change in 13 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 the external environment is known as force. The term "force" as defined in this Section refers to force exerted by a person on another human.
Section 350: Criminal force-- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
From perusal of the above section, it is clear that the force that has been specified in Section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essential of Section 350 are satisfied. The essentials of Section 350 are intentional/deliberate use of force against any one; without consent, when the claimed assault involves illegal conduct and the force has 14 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 to be utilized in order to conduct an offence or to cause hurt or fear to another person.
Section 351: Assault-- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
With the background of this section, this court had gone through the complaint wherein it appears that ಜಾಲಹಳ್ಳಿ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಎಂ. ಮೋಪುರಿ ASI ಆದ 15 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 ನಾನು ತಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡ ರಿಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಏನೆಂದರೆ, ದಿನಾಂಕ 02-09-2019 ರಂದು ನನಗೆ ಪಿ ಸಿ 17163 ಶ್ರೀ ಶರತ್ ರವರ ಜೊತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ -150 ರಲ್ಲಿ ರಾತ್ರಿ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಕ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿತ್ತು, ಅದರಂತೆ ನಾವುಗಳು ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ 150 ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಾ, ರಾತ್ರಿ ಸುಮಾರು 11.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಜಾಲಹಳ್ಳಿ ವಿಲೇಜ್ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ಬಳಿ ಬಂದಾಗ, ಸುಮಾರು 20 ವರ್ಷದ ಹುಡುಗಿಯೊಬ್ಬಳು ಅಳುತ್ತಾ ಗಾಬರಿಯಿಂದ ಓಡಿ ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ಉಮಜ್ಯೋತಿ, ನನ್ನ ಮನೆ ದೊಡ್ಡಬೊಮ್ಮಸಂದ್ರ ಸುಮಾರು 10 ತಿಂಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ಜಾಲಹಳ್ಳಿ ವಾಸಿ ಚೇತನ್ ಗೌಡ ಎಂಬುವವನನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸಿ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿರುತೇನೆ. ಮದುವೆಯೆಯಾಗಿ ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದಾಗಿನಿಂದಲೂ ನನಗೆ ವಿನಾಕಾರಣ ಜಗಳ ಮಾಡಿ, ಬೈಯುವುದು, ಹೊಡೆಯುವುದು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಾರದ ಹಿಂದೆಯೇ ಸಹ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆತನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಆದರೂ ಈ ದಿನ ರಾತ್ರಿ ಸುಮಾರು 11.15 ಗಂಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ ಚೇತನ್ ಗೌಡ ರವರು ಏಕಾಏಕಿ ಜಗಳ ಮಾಡಿ ನನ್ನ ತುಟಿ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ, ಎದೆ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಕೈಗಳಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿ, ಆತನ ಮೇಲೆ ದೂರು ನೀಡಲು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಆಕೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಬರುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ್ಗೆ 16 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 ಆಕೆಯ ಚೇತನ್ ಗೌಡ ಎಂಬುವನು ತನ್ನ ಬೈಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯನ್ನು ಏಕೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಶಿರ್ಟಿನ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಹಾಗೂ ಅವಾಚ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಪೊಲೀಸರನ್ನು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿ ಬೈಯ್ದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಲು ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಆತನ ತಂದೆ ರಮೇಶರವರು ನನ್ನ ಮಗನಿಗೆ ಏನಾದರೂ ತೊಂದರೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಕಿ ಹಚ್ಚುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿ ತನ್ನ ಮಗನನ್ನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಂತರ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಉಮಾ ಜ್ಯೋತಿ ಸುಮಾರು 20 ವರ್ಷ ರವರನ್ನು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆತಂದು SO ರವರು ಬಳಿ ಬಿಟ್ಟಿರುತೇನೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಲು ಅಡ್ಡ ಪಡಿಸಿ, ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಕಿ ಹಚ್ಚುವುದಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಾನೂನು ರೀತಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸ ಬೇಕೆಂದು ತಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತೇನೆ.
Thus, it appears from Ex.P1 i.e., 02/09/2019, PW1 had given the complaint however the date of complaint was changed by using whitener. The accused No.1 and 2 obstructed their public duty of PW1 and PW4 whilst taking the PW9 to the Police Station in their vehicle for lodging the complaint and held his shirt-color but there is no whisper about the uniform button was broken in the Ex.P1. No explanation was tendered by the prosecution about the change of date of complaint and the station house 17 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 diary does not depict about the alleged incident as per record.
17. The version of complaint that they were patrolling near the Jalahalli circle at 11.30 pm and the complaint as per Ex.P1 was lodged on 02/09/2019 at 11.45 pm within 15 minutes. It ought to be seen that it is not so easy for any common man to beat the police officials (PW1 and PW4) and even after the alleged incident, when the accused No.1 was under influence of alcohol how the PW1 and PW4 could have left the accused No.1 and 2 scot-free particularly when the accused No.1 held shirt-collar of PW1 when he was an ASI and was patrolling in Hoysala vehicle. He could have immediately taken them into their custody but that was not done so. PW1 did not whisper anything what prevented him to take the accused No.1 and 2 into their custody, particularly, the accused No.1 was in a drunken state and the accused No.2 has put a serious threat setting fire to the Police Station which raises the doubt about the alleged incident.
18. The status of PW9 was made to sit in the vehicle was left with the custody of SHO i.e., PW6 but the PW6 did not speak about the custody of PW9 and when she went to her house.
18KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
19. It appears from the order sheet that the accused No. 1 was arrested only on 04/09/2019 through CW6 and CW7 as per Ex.P6. The version of PW1 and PW4 cannot be accepted that the accused No.1 beaten the PW1 and torn his button shirt whilst performing his public duties that too left the accused No.1 and 2 scot-free when the accused No.1 and No. 2 committed non-bailable offence.
20. PW1 and PW4 deposed in the cross examination that ನಮ್ಮ ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ ವಾಹನ 4 ಚಕ್ರದ ವಾಹನವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ ವಾಹನದ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ 1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ದಿನ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರು ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ದೊಡ್ಡಬೊಮ್ಮ ಸಂದ್ರಕ್ಕೂ ಜಾಲಹಳ್ಳಿ ವಿಲೇಜ್ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ಗೂ ಎರಡು ಕಿ.ಮೀ ಅಂತರವಿರುತ್ತದೆ. xxxx ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುವ ಪೂರ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರನ್ನು ನಾನು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ರಕ್ತಗಾಯಗಳು ಆಗಿರಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಚಾಸಾ 4 ರವರು ಆ ರೀತಿ ದೂರನ್ನು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ನಾನು ನಮ್ಮ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಮಹಿಳಾ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಯನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. xxxx ಒಂದನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದ ಬೈಕ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 19 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 ಹಾಗೂ ಯಾವ ಕಂಪನಿಯ ಬೈಕು ಎಂದು ನಿಪಿ 1 ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
and PW4 deposed that ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರಿಗೆ ಸದರಿ ದಿನ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗಾಯಗಳು ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ Thus, it is clear that it is highly impossible and improbable to believe the version of PW1 and the PW4 that the PW9 ran from Doddabommasandra to Jalahalli Village which is almost distance of two kilometers.
21. Added to which, the version of PW9 cannot be relied upon though she supported the prosecution case as there were matrimonial discord amongst the accused No.1 and her who would be interested in conviction of accused No.1 and 2 and the same is evident from her chief in examination.
22. It appears from the cross examination of PW1 that there were shops near the spot on the west by Varun stores, North by Jalahalli Bus stand and south by Raghavendra sweets and bakery as per Ex.P2 (spot Mahazar). If the alleged incidents were taken place, then naturally, Sree Raghavendra Bakery and sweets would be opened and more so the bus stand was situated on the southern side and hence the best witness would be owner and workers 20 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 of Sree Raghavendra Bakery and sweets . PW6 and PW8 did not investigate about the availability of any evidence or witnesses as such CCTV footage or any independent witnesses about the alleged incident apart from PW9 who is the wife of accused No.1.
23. It appears from the record that PW8 produced station house diary to show that PW1 and PW4 deputed for their duty but the date of station house diary was corrected from 02/08/2019 to 02/09/2019. No explanation was tendered about the major discrepancy to connect that the PW1 and PW4 were deputed for patrolling duty in Hoysala 150 on 02/09/2019.
24. More so PW2 did not support the prosecution case as per Ex.P2 that the spot mahazar was drawn on the alleged spot Jallahalli village Circle within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station and the boundaries of spot are ಪೂರ್ವ ದಿಕ್ಕಿಗೆಃ- ಜಾಲಹಳ್ಳಿ ವಿಲೇಜ್ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ನಿಂದ ಬಾಹುಬಲಿನಗರ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಹೋಗುವ ರಸ್ತೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ದಿಕ್ಕಿಗೆಃ ರಸ್ತೆ ಇದ್ದು, ಆಚೆಗೆ ವರುಣ್ ಸ್ಟೆೋರ್ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಉತ್ತರ ದಿಕ್ಕಿಗೆಃ ಜಾಲಹಳ್ಳಿ ವಿಲೇಜ್ ಬಸ್ ಸ್ಟಾಂಡ್ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ದಕ್ಷಿಣೆ ದಿಕ್ಕಿಗೆಃ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಘವೇಂದ್ರ ಸ್ವೀಟ್ಸ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಚಾಟ್ಸ್ ಎಂಬ ಬೇಕರಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. However, PW2 deposed in the cross examination which reads as under
ಪಂಚರಾಗಿ ಸಹಕರಿಸುವಂತೆ ನನಗೆ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಯಾವುದೇ ಲಿಖಿತ ನೋಟೀಸು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ 21 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 ನಾನು ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ನಾನು ನಿಪಿ.2 ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳು ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯಸ್ಥರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳು ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯಸ್ಥರಾಗಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆಯಿಸಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, it is clear that the Ex.P2 was signed in the police station.
25. PW3 could not identify the MO1 before this court and did not support the prosecution the case.
26. Furthermore, it appears from the record that the accused No.1 and 2 did not challenge the evidence of PW6 (investigation officer ) and PW9 (who was alleged to be an eye witness however PW6 is the post complaint procedure done and PW9 claims to be eyewitness is an interested person in conviction of accused No.1 and 2 on account of matrimonial rifts.
27. The evidence of PW5 does not play a vital role in this case as he deposing the evidence about the post complaint procedure. Thus, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 was not having major discrepancies with regard to commission of offence punishable 22 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 under section 353 of IPC and there is no satisfactory evidence placed by the prosecution to convict the accused No.1.
28. The next accusation is that section 504 of IPC. 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
(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 the mere fact that the accused abused the 23 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 PW1 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.
29. 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 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 a PW1 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 while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1, PW4 and PW9 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out.
24KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
30. The another accusation was under section 506 of IPC. The ingredients of criminal intimidation was enumerated in Section 503 of IPC reads as under
"Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"503.Criminal intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section." A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property 25 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.'' On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of PW1 by the accused NO. 2, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which he 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 offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the PW1 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 PW1 or to make him 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 26 KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423. Therefore, in the instant case, even ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are not made out against the accused persons.
32. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sri T. P. Basavaraju Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2534. In the absence of any material evidence to corroborate the alleged offences levelled against the accused, this Court cannot presume that the accused No.1 and 2 was present at the scene and had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, this court answer the point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.27
KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019
33. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 3, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.353, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
(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) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 is ordered to be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 th day of November, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
28KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri M.Mopuri PW2 : Sri Shivakumar PW3 : Sri Pradeep S.S. PW4 : Sri Sharath Kumar PW5 : Sri Naresh PW6 : Sri Ramesh PW7 : Sri D.Govindappa PW8 : Sri Yashwanth.B.S. PW9 : Smt. Umajyothi
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 : Statement of PW3 Ex.P4 : Report Ex.P5 : FIR Ex.P6 : Voluntary statement of accused No.1
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Uniform Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
29KABC030776952019 CC No.25130/2019 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec.353, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
(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) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 is ordered to be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 30