Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs Srinivasa.S on 19 February, 2022
1 CC.No.27245/17
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
C.C. No.27245/17
Present: SRI. B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka through
K.G.Nagar Police Station
V/s.
Accused Srinivasa.S, s/o.late.Selvaraj, 46
yrs, R/at.No.12, Harsha
Chakravarthy road, Old
Corporation quarters,
Hanumanthanagar, Gavipuram,
Bangalore.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 21/03/17
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused is on bail.
ACCUSED
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.353, 332 of IPC.
2 CC.No.27245/17
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 06/07/19
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 07/12/19
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
The PI of K.G.Nagar Police station has filed chargesheet
against accused for the offence punishable u/s.353, 332 of
IPC
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :
On 21/3/17 at 6.45 pm., within the limits of K.G.Nagar
Police Station, infront of BBMP Ward No.155 office, while CW
1 to 3 and 8 were carrying their official duty, accused by
saying that they are not doing the work properly and they
should be assaulted in boots (shoes) abused them in filthy
language and also assaulted CW 2 with hands and caused
obstruction to their public duty.
3. On the basis of the compliant of the CW 1, this crime
3 CC.No.27245/17
has been registered by K.G.Nagar Police Station. During the
crime stage, the accused has appeared through counsel and
filed the bail application u/s.437 of Cr.P.C, as he has already
enlarged on anticipatory bail by Hon'ble 56 th ACCSJ,
Bangalore in C.Misc.2401/17 dtd: 28/3/17. Hence he has
released on regular bail.
4. After the investigation the Investigating officer has
submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons for
the offence punishable u/s.353, 332 of IPC. The cognizance
for the said offences are taken. The copies of the prosecution
papers have furnished to the accused as contemplated
u/s.207 of Cr.P.C., After being heard the arguments before
charge, as there were no grounds to discharge him, charge
for the offences u/s.353, 332 of IPC have been framed & read
over, explained to the accused in the language best known to
him. The accused has not pleaded guilty and claim to be
tried. Hence, the case taken up for trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused person,
the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PW 1 to 8 out
of 12 witnesses as cited in the chargesheet. 8 documents
have been marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After prosecution
evidence, the accused has been examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.,
4 CC.No.27245/17
& he has denied the prosecution evidence. The accused
person himself examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 and D2 are got
marked.
6. Heard the arguments of learned APP and counsel for
accused person. Perused, on the basis of the above, the
following points have arises for my consideration :
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, on 21/3/17 at
6.45 pm., within the limits of K.G.Nagar
Police Station, infront of BBMP Ward
No.155 office, while CW 1 to 3 and 8
were carrying their official duty,
accused abused them in filthy
language and also assaulted CW 2
with hands and voluntarily caused
simple hurt and thereby accused has
committed an offences punishable
U/s.332 of IPC ?
2) Whether prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place
accused caused obstruction to the
public duty of CW 1 to 3 and 8 and
thereby accused have committed
offences punishable u/s.353 of IPC ?
3) What order?
7. My answer to the above points is as under;
5 CC.No.27245/17
Point No.1 and 2 In the Negative.
Point No.3As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. According to the prosecution accused has committed
the offence u/s.353 and 332 of IPC. In order to prove the
guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined the
complainant as PW 6, according to his evidence on 21/3/17
when he along with CW 1 & 2 were working at ward No.155
office of BBMP, Hariharagudda, KG Nagar, at about 6.45
pm., the accused has came there and abused him and CW 2
& 3 by saying that "you are not working properly and you
have to be kicked through shoes". When he & others have
questioned him, the accused has abused him in a filthy
wordings & kept the collar neck of CW 2 and assaulted on
the chest of CW 2 through hands and caused injury. The
accused has told that he being the President of Human
Rights Commission, he will take the action against them &
obstructed for their public duty. Earlier also the accused
has picked up a quarrel with another staff by name Raju and
the case has been registered against him. Hence, he has
lodged the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.3.
6 CC.No.27245/17
9. PW 1 is one of the victim and eye witness to the
incident, according to him that on 21/3/17 he along with
CW 1, 3 & 8 were working in the BBMP office at ward
No.155, Hariharagudda, KG Nagar, at about 6.45 pm., the
accused has came there & abused the CW 1 in a filthy
language & told that "you were not working properly & you
have to be kicked through the shoes". When he questioned
him, the accused abused him also & by keeping his neck
assaulted on his chest through his hands & caused injuries.
He told that he is the President of Human rights Commission
& he will take action against them & caused obstruction to
the public duty. CW 1 has lodged the complaint before the
police and he went to the Police Station along with CW 1.
Due to assault he went to the Victoria hospital & taken
treatment. In the year 2015 also a case has been registered
against the accused due to assault to the CW 8 & his wife.
10. PW 2 is one of the eye witness as well as mahazar
witness, according to him on 21/3/17 at about 6.45 pm., the
accused has came to the office at Hariharagudda, KG Nagar,
and abused the CW 1 in a filthy words & also told that "you
have to kicked through shoes". When CW 2 has questioned
the same, the accused has abused the CW 2 by keeping the
collar neck and assaulted on his chest through hands &
7 CC.No.27245/17
caused injuries. He has also told that he is working in the
Human Rights Commission & he will take action against
them and obstructed for the duty of the CW 1. He & CW 2
have went to the Victoria hospital & after treatment to CW 2,
they went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. A
case has been registered against the accused in the year
2015 also due to assault to CW 8 and his wife. On 22/3/17
the police have came to the spot and drew the mahazar & he
has identified his signature in the mahazar which is marked
at Ex.P.1.
11. PW 3 is the one more mahazar witness, he has
identified the spot mahazar dtd: 22/3/17 as well as his
signature which is marked at Ex.P.1. The said mahazar has
drew up due to an assault.
12. PW 4 is the Doctor who given treatment to the
victim and according to her evidence, on 21/3/17 at about
8.45 pm., one injured by name Devavarma has came to the
hospital with the history of assault. On his test, his right
neck portion become reddish and she has issued the wound
certificate as per Ex.P.2 and the said injury is simple in
nature.
13. PW 5 is one of the Investigating officer and
8 CC.No.27245/17
according to him, on 21/3/17 at about 7.45 pm., when he
was on SHO duty, CW 1 has came and lodged the complaint,
hence he has registered the crime. On 22/3/17 in between
6.30 to 7.30 am., he has visited the spot and drew up the
mahazar. On 28/3/17 he has written a letter to BBMP,
Basavanagudi sub division and sought the details of who are
all on duty on 21/3/17 and collected the attendance
certificate and identity cards. On 17/4/17 the accused has
came to the Police Station with anticipatory bail order, hence,
he has arrested and released him on bail. He has collected
the wound certificate and after recording the statements of
CW 4 to 8, after completion of the investigation, he has
submitted the final report.
14. PW 7 is one more eye witness to the incident, as
per his evidence usually in the Hanumanthanagar park at
the evening time, he & his friends used to practice the
drama. On 21/3/17 when he & his friends were practicing
drama in between 5.00 to 7.00 pm., they have heard a loud
noise in the BBMP office. When he went there , he found
that accused was abusing the CW 1 and picked up a quarrel
and the accused has abused the CW 1 & 2 and also
assaulted through his hands to the CW 1 & 2. Thus he has
given the statement before the police.
9 CC.No.27245/17
15. PW 8 is one more eye witness to the incident,
according to him, on 21/3/17 at about 6.45 pm., when he
went near BBMP ward No.155 for walking, the accused has
picked up a quarrel with CW 1 and he was telling loudly that
you are not working properly and assaulted the CW 2
through his hands & obstructed for the duty. He has given
the statement before the police.
16. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has
produced the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the
wound certificate, Ex.P.3 is the complaint, Ex.P.4 is the FIR,
Ex.P.5 is the requisition by the BBMP to the Police Inspector,
KG Nagar submitting the copy of the attendance certificate.
Ex.P.6 is the copy of the attendance certificate. Ex.P.7 and 8
are the copy of the Identity cards of BBMP.
17. After examination of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.,
he wants to submit the evidence. Accordingly, the accused
himself has examined as DW 1 and deposed that he knows
the Investigating officer of this case Vishwas. Since the KG
nagar police were collecting the amount from the road right
side footpath businessmen, when he went to ask the same,
they abused him in a filthy wordings. He is a social worker
having the habit of doing the social service. As the TV
10 CC.No.27245/17
media have called him to speak about the illegal act of BBMP
at Hanumanthanagar, he has given a programme in the TV
station on 17/3/17 at about 2.30 pm., and has told about
non working of CW 1 and 2. Due to this on 21/3/17 at
about 6.30 pm., when he was going to walking at Thimmesh
Prabhu park, CW 1 & 2 with one M.Raju, contractor
Manjunath have abused him and picked up a quarrel with
him by saying that how dare you to give the programme in
the TV. One Devavarma & M.Raja have assaulted him
through the club and others have kept him forcibly. When
he shouted loudly the publics have gathered there and they
have ran away. When he went to the Police Station, the SHO
of the said Police Station Sri Vishwas has not taken any
complaint by saying that he will compromise the matter. He
has lost his consciousness in the Police Station itself, when
he regained the conscious, he was in the Appollo hospital at
Bannerughatta road. He has taken treatment due to the
assault and lodged the complaint to the Human Rights
Commission. Later on the Commission has forwarded the
complaint to the Police Commissioner and the ACP has asked
the SHO, Sri.Vishwas to register the crime. The said
Vishwas has filed a suit against him and he has also filed the
written statement in the said suit. Accordingly he prayed to
acquit from the charges levelled against him.
11 CC.No.27245/17
18. Apart from the oral evidence the accused has
produced the pendrive as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D2 is the certified
letter under 65(B) of Evidence Act and Ex.D3 is the copy of
the discharge summary and Ex.D4 is the copy of letter of
Human Rights commission and Ex.D5 is the copy of the
written statement in OS.5759/18.
19. I carefully gone through the entire evidence placed
by the prosecution as well as the defence. Before going to
marshelling the evidence of prosecution as well as defence, it
is just and necessary to have a look over the penal provisions
of Sec.353 and 323 of IPC. The provisions read as
hereunder:
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
description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public
servant from his duty.--Whoever voluntarily causes
hurt to any person being a public servant in the
discharge of his duty as such public servant, or
12 CC.No.27245/17
with intent to prevent or deter that person or any
other public servant from discharging his duty as
such public servant, or in consequence of anything
done or attempted to be done by that person in the
lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
As per the provisions of sec.353 of IPC in order to
warrants the conviction under the said provision the accused
must assault or uses criminal force to a public servant in the
execution of his duty as a public servant or with an intend
to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as
a public servant or done anything to prevent the discharge of
duty as a public servant, the said accused persons shall be
punished under the above provision. Thus, the provisions is
very clear if any assault uses of criminal force to a public
servant in execution of his duty as a public servant or
prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as
public servant it is an offence u/s.353 of IPC. Similarly as
per the provisions of sec.332 of IPC if the accused
voluntarily causes hurt to a public servant in the discharge
of his duty as a public servant or to prevent or deter that
person from discharging his official duty he is liable to be
punished under the provision of Sec.332 of IPC . By keeping
the principle of the above provision, I once again carefully
gone through the evidence of both parties.
13 CC.No.27245/17
20. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the
accused submits that accused has participated in a Samaya
news channel and discussed about the illegal acts of the
Hanumanthanagar ward BBMP officers and problems of
Hanumanthanagar ward, he makes an allegation against CW
1, 2 and other AEEs of BBMP, having the said grudge, they
lodged the false complaint, though the said incident has not
at all taken place. The Investigating officer who registered the
crime and filed the final report himself has filed a civil suit
against the accused and by keeping the said grudge, the
Investigating officer has involved with witnesses and
registered a false case and submitted the final report. In
support of their arguments, the accused himself has
examined as DW 1 and deposed that the Samaya news
channel have called him to talk about the irregularities of
BBMP of Hanumanthanagar ward and on 17/3/17 at about
2.30 pm., he made an allegation before the Samaya news
channel against the CW 1 and 2 and AEE Shivakumar and
EE Kenchappa that they are not making any proper work.
That is the reason on 21/3/17 at about 6.30 pm., when he
went for a walk, CW 1 and 2 and M.Raju and contractor
Manjunath and Ramesh have abused him and picked up a
14 CC.No.27245/17
quarrel by saying that how dare you to give an interview in
the news channel and Devavarma and Raja have assaulted
on him and remainings have caught hold him tightly. When
he shouted, publics have came there and they have ran
away. He went to the Police Station but the SHO of the
Police Station Vishwas not took his complaint. He lost the
conscious at the Police Station when he gained the
consciousness he was in the Appolo hospital at Bannerghatta
road and he has taken treatment in the hospital for 3 days.
He lodged the complaint before Human Rights Commission
and they have transferred the same to the Police
Commissioner. The SHO of K.G.Nagar Police Station
Vishwas has lodged a civil case against him, hence, he
requested to acquit him. Further he has produced the
pendrive as well as other documents as Exhibits in 'D' series.
21. Apart from the oral evidence, he has placed the
pendrive as Ex.D1 and other documents as Ex.D2 to 5.
22. I carefully watched the contents in Ex.D1, the
pendrive and it appears that the accused herein has
participated in the Samaya news channel and discussed
about the problems of Hanumanthanagar ward and the news
channel has telecasted about the various problems at
15 CC.No.27245/17
Hanumanthanagar ward. The accused has makes an
allegation against the BBMP officers. Ex.D2 is a certificate
u/s.65 of the Evidence Act. Ex.D3 is the discharge summary
of accused disclosing that on 21/3/17 he was admitted in
the Apollo hospital for treatment with the history of left side
chest pain on exertion and he has discharged on the next
day of 27/3/2017. Ex.D4 is the copy of the letter by
Karnataka State Human Rights Commission to the Police
Commissioner which disclosing that the accused herein
along with others have been assaulted by the police and the
said complaint has been transferred to the Police
Commissioner, Bangalore for further steps. As per Ex.D5 is
the certified copy of the written statement in OS.No.5759/18
and it disclosing that the Investigating officer Sri.Vishwas
has filed a suit against the accused herein for damages and
malicious publication and defamation, the accused herein
has filed the said written statement by denying all the claim
of the Investigating officer.
23. On marshelling of entire evidence it appears that
on 17/3/17 the accused has given an interview in Samaya
news channel and discussed about the various problems at
Hanumanthanagar ward more particularly with respect to
work of BBMP. According to the prosecution the incident
16 CC.No.27245/17
has took place on 21/3/17 at about 6.45 pm., As per Ex.D4
the accused also makes an allegation that the BBMP official
have assaulted on him because of the interview in the
Samaya news on 17/3/17. But the SHO of
Hanumanthanagar Police Station has not taken any action. It
is also fact that the said Investigating officer Sri.Vishwas has
filed a suit against the accused for damages. Under such
circumstances, prima facie the enmity of the BBMP official as
well as the Investigating officer of this case cannot be
brushed aside. Under such circumstances, the evidence of
the BBMP officials as well as the Investigating officer has to
be scrutinized closely and carefully.
24. PW 1 is the Work Inspector of BBMP, according to
him at about 6.45 pm., when he was doing the work in the
office the accused has came and abused the CW 1 when he
questioned he has assaulted on him on his chest through
hands and abused in a filthy wordings. During the course of
cross examination he admits that the office duty is from 8
am., to 6.30 pm., though the office hours would close at
6.30 pm., itself he has not deposed anything why he was in
the office at 6.45 pm., and what work he has been doing.
Since the office hours has already closed by 6.30 pm., itself
and as he has not specifically speaks what work he has even
17 CC.No.27245/17
after office hours and what he was doing at 6.45 pm., Hence,
the small doubt would accrued in the mind of the court
about the discharging his official duty at the time of alleged
incident.
25. It is significant to note here that on that day at
about 6.45 pm., accused came to the office and he was
abusing the CW 1, when PW 1 has questioned the same, he
has assaulted on him by saying that I am the president of
Human Rights Commission and I will take action against
them and obstructed for his public duty. But he has not
deposed what work he was doing and how the accused has
obstructed his duty. Though he is an injured he has not
deposed the entire scenario of the incident to attract the
penal provisions of sec.353 and 332 of IPC as discussed
above. According to the prosecution he is the victim
assaulted by the accused. During the course of cross
examination he admits that on 21/3/17 he went to the
Police Station with CW 1 but he has not lodged the
complaint. Even though he is the victim for the incident and
though he went to the Police Station he has not lodged any
complaint against the accused about assault on him and
obstruction to the public duty but CW 1 has lodged the
complaint. This also gives slight doubt on the act of the PW
18 CC.No.27245/17
1. If at all because of the injury he was not in a position to
lodge the complaint or in the hospital, the matter would have
different. But he himself has admitted that he also went to
the Police Station along with CW 1 but not lodged the
complaint. Thus, the act of the PW 1 appears to be doubtful
for the simple reason that the accused has already
participated in the interview in a news channel about
irregularities of the BBMP authorities in Hanumanthanagar
ward.
26. PW 2 is the Gangman of BBMP and according to
him on that day at about 6.45 pm., accused has came to the
office and abused the CW 1 in a filthy wordings when CW 2
has questioned the accused has abused him also and
assaulted on his chest through hands and also threatened
that he will take action against them as he was doing the
work at Human Rights Commission and obstructed for the
duty of the CW 1. It is very significant to note here that
according to the PW 1 the accused has abused the CW 1,
when he questioned, the accused has assaulted on him and
obstructed his public duty but material eye witness who
present at that time, PW 2 has deposed that the accused has
obstructed to the public duty of the CW 1, thus, both are
deposing contrary about obstruction of public duty by the
19 CC.No.27245/17
accused. Hence, it also creates one more slight doubt on the
credit worthiness of evidence of PW 1 and 2.
27. PW 6 being the complainant CW 1 has deposed that
on 21/3/17 at about 6.45 pm.,when he & CW 2 were
working, the accused has came and abused him and CW 2
and 3 in a filthy wordings by saying that they have to be
kicked with boots. When they have questioned the same
with accused, he again abused him and others with him and
assaulted on CW 2 and also he told that he being the
President of Human Rights Commission he will take action
and obstructed for his public duty. As discussed above,
according to the PW 1 on that day, accused has came to the
office and abused the CW 1, hence, PW 1 went and asked
the accused he has abused and assaulted on him. Thereby
he has obstructed his public duty. But according to CW
1/PW 6 on that day the accused has came and not only
abused him but also abused CW 2 & 3 by saying that they
have to kicked through shoes. At that time, all are have
questioned him and accused has abused all of them in a
filthy wordings. Thus, the evidence of PW 6/CW 1 is totally
different from the allegation of the PW 1. Further according
to the PW 1 the accused has obstructed his public duty but
according to the PW 6 the accused has obstructed to his
20 CC.No.27245/17
public duty. PW 1, 2 and 6 have no clarity whether the
accused obstructed the public duty of CW 1 or 6 or he has
obstructed to all of them. They have totally deposed in an
inconsistence manner about obstruction of the public duty
by the accused.
28. As per PW 2, the office time is from 8 am,. to 5.30
pm., and if they have any work, they required to work 24
hours. He further admits in his cross examination that on
that day there was no any special duty but they were just
having the office duty. Under such circumstances, PW 1, 2
and 6 must have deposed what was the exact duty they were
doing at the time of incident and how the accused has
obstructed their official duty. But they simply makes an
allegation that accused came and abused them and
assaulted on CW 2. Even though the PW 1 is the victim and
PW 2 and 6 are the material eye witnesses, they have not
deposed with a consistent manner about the incident how it
has taken place and exactly to whom the accused has
obstructed for his official duty. But PW 1 and 6 have
deposed totally contrary between each other.
29. PW 7 is the employee of BHEL and according to
him, when he went to practice the drama at
21 CC.No.27245/17
Hanumanthanagar park, they have heard the noise from the
BBMP office. When he went there, the accused was abusing
the CW 1 and the quarrel has developed and the accused has
again abused the CW 1 and 2 and assaulted with his hands
to CW 1 and 2. He has given the statement before the police.
The CW 1 and 2 who examined as PW 1 and 6 have not at all
deposed that accused has assaulted on both the CW 1 and
2. But for the first time PW 7 has deposed that accused has
assaulted on CW 1 and 2. Thus, PW 7 has improved his
version by saying the assault on CW 1 also. When the CW 1
being the complainant has not deposed that he has been
assaulted by the accused , but eye witness has deposed the
said thing, his credit worthiness appears to be suspectable.
As discussed above, the illwill on the accused by the CW 1,
2 and 6 should not be kept aside, there would be a chances
of plan by the CW 1 and 7. If really the PW 7 was an eye
witness he must have deposed as per the case of the
prosecution or at least as deposed by the CW 1 and 2. But
his evidence is totally contrary not only to the case of the
prosecution but also contrary to the evidence of injured
witnesses as discussed above. Hence, his evidence is not a
credit worthy evidence.
30. PW 8 is the Engineer, according to him, at about
22 CC.No.27245/17
6.45 pm., when he went to have a walk near BBMP office, the
accused has picked up a quarrel with CW 1 and he was
abusing the CW 2 and 3 in a loud voice and assaulted the
CW 2 and obstructed for the work of the CW 2. Thus,
according to the PW 8 the accused has just picked up a
quarrel with CW 1 and not only abused the CW 2 but also
abused CW 3. However, CW 3 who examined as PW 2 has
not at all spelt a single word that accused has abused him in
a filthy wordings. Though PW 2 has not speaks about abuse
on him , PW 8 has deposed that accused has abused PW 2.
Thus, PW 8 also deposed quite contrary with the evidence of
PW 2. It is significant to note here that as per PW 8 the
accused has picked up a quarrel with PW 1 but he has not at
all abused CW 1. Thus, it is also contrary evidence with the
other material eye witness and victim as discussed above.
Since the evidence of PW 8 is also not in consistent with the
evidence of the other material eye witness and victim, his
credit worthiness is also suspectable.
31. PW 3 being the mahazar witness has admits his
signature on Ex.P.1 spot mahazar and it has prepared with
respect to the quarrel. During the course of cross
examination he has clearly admits that he does not know
the contents of the mahazar and on the request of the police
23 CC.No.27245/17
he has affixed his signature on it. Thus the evidence of PW 3
creates the doubt in the mind of the court about drawing up
of the mahazar as per Ex.P.1. This also creates the doubt on
the case of the prosecution.
32. PW 4 is the Investigating officer who registered the
crime and conducted the investigation and submitted the
chargesheet. According to him he has received the complaint
of CW 1 registered the crime and visited the spot in the next
day morning and drew up the spot mahazar and he has
collected the copy of the attendance from the BBMP office
and other documents and after collecting the wound
certificate he has recorded the statements of witnesses and
submitted the chargesheet. The counsel for the accused has
argued that though he was the Police Inspector, having many
Police Sub Inspectors under him he himself has registered
the case and conducted the investigation and submitted the
final report, because of his illwill on the accused and it
shows as he has already filed a suit for damages against the
accused . As discussed above, as per Ex.D5 the copy of the
written statement , the Investigating officer himself has filed
a suit for damages against the accused. During the course of
cross examination he admits that he has filed a defamation
case against the accused before the Civil Court. Under such
24 CC.No.27245/17
circumstances, the illwill of the Investigating officer against
the accused in filing the final report against the accused
cannot be kept aside easily. During the course of cross
examination , PW 5 Investigating officer admits that the
accused herein has lodged a complaint before the Human
Rights Commission against him with CW 2 to 8. When
Investigating officer himself has admits about the lodging of
the complaint before the Human Rights Commission against
him along with CW 2 to 8, certainty there would be a
chances of exact illwill on the accused and certainly it
would be the suspectable ground that Investigating officer
has filed the chargesheet because of the illwill against the
accused . As argued by the counsel for the accused though
PW 5 is the Police Inspector, having many PSI for his
assistance in registering the crime and investigation of the
cases, he himself has registered the crime and conducted
the investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the
accused appears to be suspectable with illwill on the
accused. When the accused has lodged the complaint before
the Human Rights Commission against the Investigating
officer atleast he must have supervise the case and atleast he
would have direct the other PSI of the same Police Station to
conduct the investigation. But filing the final report by the
Investigating officer is creates the strong in the mind of the
25 CC.No.27245/17
court about the case of the prosecution.
33. As per the detailed discussion made above, the
accused has participated in the interview in the Samaya
news channel and participated in the discussion of problems
of Hanumanthanagar ward more particularly belongs to
BBMP office and CW 1, 2 and 3 who examined as PW 1, 2
and 6 who are also belongs to the BBMP office, the personal
grudge on the accused and ill will shall not be thrown away.
The PW 1, 2 and 6 are not an ordinary layman but they are
having knowledge about rules and regulations. Though they
have deposed as discussed above, their evidence are having
so much improvements, omissions which are amounts to a
strong contradictions. The said contradictions clearly
discloses the ill willness against the accused. Under such
circumstances, the evidence of the BBMP official witnesses is
not a credit worthy to accept the guilt of the accused persons
because their evidence is not steady and consistence with the
case of the prosecution. But all the BBMP officials as well as
private witnesses have deposed like a tutor and planted
witnesses. Thus, on over all verification of the entire
evidence of the prosecution, this court did not found truth in
their evidence about the allegation made against the
accused. Under such circumstances, this court is unable to
26 CC.No.27245/17
accept that the accused has obstructed the public duty of
CW 2 by abusing and assaulting on him as alleged in the
chargesheet. Thus, the case of the prosecution become more
doubtful. Hence, I am of the considered view that the
evidence place by the prosecution are having strong doubts
to accept the guilt of the accused persons. In a criminal
justice system, if a tiny doubt arises in the mind of the court,
benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. In this
case, not only tiny doubt but the strong doubt arise in the
mind of the court. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence, in my opinion it is a fit case to extend benefit
of doubt to the accused. Accordingly point under
reference answered in the Negative.
34. POINT NO.2 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 353, 332 of IPC. The bail bond executed by the accused is 27 CC.No.27245/17 stands cancelled. However, accused shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed.
It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of February 2022).
(B.C.Chandrashekara) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Devavarma PW 2 : Puttaswamy PW 3 : Umesh.C PW 4 : Dr.Poornima PW 5 : Vishwas PW 6 : Girish.V.Gudalkar PW 7 : Suresh PW 8 : Manjunath
Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Mahazar
28 CC.No.27245/17
Ex.P1(a) : Signature
Ex.P2 : Wound certificate
Ex.P2(a) : Signature
Ex.P.3 : Complaint
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.5 : Letter of BBMP
Ex.P.6 : Attendance
Ex.P.7 : ID card of Devavarma
PW 8 : ID card of PW 2
Witnesses examined for the accused:
DW 1 : Srinivasa Documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D.1 : Pen drive
Ex.D.2 : Certified letter under 65(B) of Evidence Act
Ex.D3 : Copy of the discharge summary
Ex.D.4 : Copy of letter of Human Rights commission
Ex.D5 : Copy of the written statement in OS.5759/18
(B.C.Chandrashekara)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.