Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs Balakrishna Masali on 7 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
PRESENT :Smt. M. LATHAKUMARI M.A..,LL.M.
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.991/2011
Date of offence : 10-8-2010
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Wilson Garden PS
Accused : Balakrishna Masali
S/o Vittala
Aged about 40 Yrs
R/at No.4, 3rd Cross,
1st Main, Goraguntepalya,
Yeshawanthapura,
Bangalore-22.
Offence : U/s.354 and 509 of IPC
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 7-10-2015.
** ** **
2 CC.No.991/2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Police Sub Inspector of Wilson Garden
Police Station submitted charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable U/s.354
and 509 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is
that on 10-8-2010 at about 5-00PM when Miss.
Nithya-CW.2 attended for counseling before
Child Welfare committee, hereinafter referred as
CWC accused-Balakrishna Masali being member of
said committee misbehaved with her and thereby
outraged her modesty. That apart accused
misbehaved with one Kumari Ranjitha 17 years old
girl of 'concerned for working children
Organization' and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/s.354 and 509 of IPC.
3. Accused surrendered before court and he
was released on bail. Said FIR was registered on
the complaint made by complainant-Lakshmipathi
3 CC.No.991/2011
against the accused-Balakrishna Masali and
investigation was carried out.
4. Charge sheet U/s.354, 509 of IPC was
filed in this court. Accused was supplied with
the documents in compliance with Sec.207 of
Cr.P.C. Charge was framed against the accused
for the offences punishable U/s.354 and 509 of
IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the
prosecution has examined as many as 7
witnesses. PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 2
documents as per Ex.P-1 and 2.
6. After closing the prosecution side
evidence, the statement of accused was recorded
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, in which accused denied all
the allegations leveled against him.
4 CC.No.991/2011
7. I have carefully scrutinized entire
records before me. Heard arguments.
8. As I have already stated, the
prosecution in order to prove its case examined
as many as 7 witnesses. PW.1-Lakshmipathi is the
complainant. He deposed that, he is the Director
of the Organization 'AFSA' where they are giving
shelter to orphans, child labours and trying to
help them by giving education. They have also
provided all necessary facilities to them. In
this regard they protected one such child labour
by name Nithya i.e., CW.2 in the year 2008 and
later they came to know that sister of CW.2 is
residing at one such organization situated at
Hassan. Thinking that even if CW.2 is shifted to
said organization, Hassan, sisters can stay
together and thereby she can meet her sister.
With this intention on 10-8-2010 CW.2 was
produced before Child Welfare Committee by CW.6
5 CC.No.991/2011
at that time the accused who was member of said
Child Welfare Committee took CW.2 to
chamber/room and misbehaved with her by
touching her with an intention to outrage her
modesty. CW.2 stated these acts of accused
with CW.6 and CW.6 inturn reported to him. Later
CW.6 also enquired with Superintendent of
Balakiyara Balamandira and came to know that
accused misbehaved in similar way with 2-3 girls
of said Balamandira. Even cw.2 stated about
these acts of accused with CW.4 and one Gresa
of their employee, when they were counseling
with CW.2. Further on 3-9-2010 when CW.2 was
again asked to appear before child Welfare
Committee, she refused to go there. Later he has
filed complaint as per Ex.P-1 against accused
before complainant-police. PW.1 also deposes
that CW.2 also informed him orally about
accused attitudes with her. And later he came to
know that accused committed such acts even with
6 CC.No.991/2011
one Ranjitha-CW.3. The spot mahazar was marked
as Ex.P-2. In his cross-examination by accused
counsel it is suggested that various children
used to appear before child Welfare Committee
for counseling and there is no such complaints
against accused earlier. Further it is suggested
that there exists 5 members in the Committee.
PW.1 categorically stated on oath that on 10-8-
2010 except accused no other members were
present. It is also suggested that before
child welfare committee, concerned children will
put forth their problems and difficulties. It is
also suggested that, such children will inform
the members if they have any difficulty in the
organizations where they are residing. Finally
it was suggested that accused instructed
organization of PW.1 stating that he has
received complaints from children stating that
they are suffering some difficulties in the
organization and accused directed to take
7 CC.No.991/2011
necessary action in this regard. It is also
suggested that there was ill-will between
accused and organization of PW.1 and thereby
false complaint has been lodged against him.
9. CW.6 Smt. Gunasheela was examined as
PW.2. She has deposed that, on 10-8-2010 she
accompanied CW.2 to Child Welfare Committee, on
that day only accused-Balakrishna Masali was
available in the committee. Around 4-00 PM
accused called CW.2 to his chamber/room at
that time PW.2 told that she will be with CW.2.
Whereas accused informed her to stay outside.
Accordingly she was waiting outside. After 15
minutes again she went to the chamber of accused
and enquired about the talks going on. Even at
that time accused told her that still he is
counseling CW.2 and thereby asked PW.2 to stay
outside only. At bout 4-55 PM accused told with
CW.6 that he has completed counseling and asked
8 CC.No.991/2011
her to take CW.2. When they were returning
their organization 'APSA' CW.2 told with her
that accused touched her body here and there
and also touched her cheeks. She informed the
same with her organization head. Again CW.2 was
suppose to be produce before Child Welfare
Committed on 3-9-2010. On that day CW.2 refused
to go to CWC, since she was insulted on the last
occasion itself. PW.2 also stated that, she
informed about the same with one Shantha
probationary officer, said Shantha told that
accused misbehaved with 2-3 girls of their
organization in a similar manner. In her cross-
examination PW.2 deposed that, when CW.2 came
out of the counseling room she was very much
frightened. It is also elicited that, she
informed her Director on 10-8-2010 and complaint
was lodged on 9-9-2010. Even in her cross-
examination it is suggested that Child Welfare
Committee suggested certain requirements in the
9 CC.No.991/2011
origination, having annoyed by the same they
have created false complaint against accused.
10. CW-2 Kum. Nithya was examined as PW.3
and she has stated that accused-Balakrishna
Masali was alone on that day. He informed PW.2
that he has to talk with CW.2 separately and
thereby sent PW.2 outside his chamber. During
counseling accused misbehaved with her. In her
cross-examination it is suggested that, members
usually sits very close to the children and talk
to them with all love and affection. Further it
is suggested that when members are talking to
the children intimately there is chances of
suspecting same to that of misbehavior. It is
also suggested that PW.3 is deposing before the
court as instructed by PW.2. It is also
suggested that PW.3 is not at all having
knowledge to know about outrage of her modesty.
10 CC.No.991/2011
11. CW.3 Ranjitha was examined as PW.4.
Even she has supported the case of prosecution
and deposed before this court that accused
misbehaved with her asking that whether she is
married and doing all such activities what
actually husband and wife will do and thereby
made her embarrassed. PW.4 further deposed
that accused touched her cheeks and also on her
chest. In her cross-examination similar
suggestions were made by suggesting that there
is ill-will between accused and AFSA
organization authorities and thereby this false
complaint has been crated against accused.
12. PW.5 Smt. Susan Thomas deposes about
Ex.P-2 mahazar drawn by concerned police. PW.6
Manjunath states that, he came to know that
accused misbehaved with Kum. Ranjitha of their
organization. At that time of cross-examination
of these witnesses, it was only suggested that
11 CC.No.991/2011
accused instructed complainant organization to
provide proper facilities to the children and
inturn complainant developed some illwill
against accused and he has been falsely
implicated in this present case. In spite of
taking such defense, accused not opted to lead
defence evidence. PW.2 as well as PW.3 are star
witnesses of the prosecution and they have
supported the case of prosecution in all
material particulars. No doubt there is almost
One month delay in filing this complaint against
accused. It is not the defence of accused that
he has not conducted any counseling on 10-8-
2010. On the other hand from the various
suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses it
is clear that accused was sitting by the side
of children while counseling them. However, it
was asserted that, he was doing so only with
affection and there was no ill intention behind
such acts. When accused has done counseling to a
12 CC.No.991/2011
teenage girls by touching them here and there,
it is for the accused to explain whether his
touch was fatherly, brotherly or elderly.
Whereas accused not at all stepped into the
witness box. If he had noticed any mismanagement
by complainant's organization, or if he had
received any complaints by children of said
organization with regard to the facilities
available to them, or difficulties suffered by
them, it is obvious that accused as a dutiful
member, who has taken oath and occupied the
chair of Child Welfare Committee, as its member
would not have left any stone unturned and
directed them in writing either about the
complaints or about his suggestions. Whereas
absolutely no such material placed before this
court. When such being the case there is no
scope of any ill-will between accused and CW.1
herein. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is found to
be totally credit worthy, truthful and reliable.
13 CC.No.991/2011
The veracity of evidence of victim-PW.3 is
further apparent from the fact that, she has
voluntarily stated that PW.2 did not question
accused about his misbehavior at that time since
she had not personally seen the same. She made
no efforts to conceal anything and given such
voluntary statement in the court. If witness is
tutored or stating falsehood, such witness would
never reveal such fact in her evidence on her
own. Further it is suggested that the chamber
of accused was a glass cabin, as per Ex.P-2 spot
mahazar, the said chamber was having only glass
door and it was not a glass cabin where persons
from outside can see the persons sitting inside
the chamber.
13. Accused who is advocate by profession,
who assumed the chair of Child Welfare Committee
as its member failed to spell out any reason for
his false implication by the complainant and
14 CC.No.991/2011
PW.2 and PW-3. It is noteworthy that though
such suggestion of scuffle was given to PWs.1 to
4 during their cross examination, but no such
defence was taken by the accused in his
statement recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. This
shows that a feeble attempt has been made by the
defence to show false implication of accused as
an after thought.
14. It is further asserted that, there is
one month delay in lodging the complaint. It is
the contention of complainant that on 3-9-2010,
PW.3 was again suppose to appear for counseling
before CWC, at that time PW.3 refused to go
there and on his detail enquiry she again stated
about misbehavior of accused with her and
thereby she refused to attend before said
committee. PW.2 has stated in her evidence
that, as per instructions of her superior she
approached Chairman of Child Rights Commission
15 CC.No.991/2011
situated at Krushi Bhavn on 8-8-2010 and
Chairman in turn told them to lodge complaint.
Hence the delay has been properly explained by
the prosecution. Even otherwise in such cases
concerned authorities think hundred and one time
before come up with complaints, since the issue
involved is very sensitive. Accordingly this
court opines that the delay in filing FIR has
happened in the natural course and same is not
at all fatal to the case of prosecution.
15. Further it is also argued that
prosecution failed to examine concerned
Investigation Officer. Non examination of
Investigation Officer is not at all fatal to
prosecution. Evidence on record proved that,
there was no ill intention between complainant
and accused herein so also accused and victim
PW.2. When such being the case, even the sole
testimony of victim is sufficient in cases
16 CC.No.991/2011
falling U/s.354 of IPC. It is a settled law that
minor discrepancies on trivial matters would not
demolish the case of the prosecution unless it
affects core of the prosecution case. Some of
the discrepancies projected by accused counsel
here and there in the evidence of pws.1 to 5 is
not very vital and does not go to the root of
the mater. Further non examination of
Investigation Officer as I have stated is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution. As per
Sec.134 of Indian Act 1872 it is stated that no
particular number of witnesses are required for
proof of any fact. It is the quality of the
evidence and not the quantity of evidence which
is required to be judged by the court to place
credence on the statement. It is also well
settled that conviction on the basis of solitary
statement of prosecutrix in offence involving
moral turpitude or sexual offences, if the court
come to the conclusion that the said statement
17 CC.No.991/2011
is true and correct version of case of
prosecution. Accordingly, the evidence of
complainant and other witnesses are found to be
totally credit worthy and reliable.
16. Accused cannot get out of clutches of
law by making mere suggestions to the
prosecution witnesses. That apart, as I have
already stated accused failed to take such
defence at the time of recording his statement
by this court U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The incident
as well as complicity of the accused in the
crime is duly established by the prosecution.
17. Modesty is an attribute of female sex
and she possesses it irrespective of her age.
When such being the case accused cannot take
advantage of the age of victim d by suggesting
that victim was not in a position to judge what
is correct and what is wrong. Accused being
advocate by profession knowing fully well about
18 CC.No.991/2011
legal consequences has committed such offence,
if he was falsely implicated in the instant
case, it is obvious that, he would have taken
all possible steps to establish his innocence.
Whereas accused except vaguely denying the
incriminating evidence, not made any such
effort. This itself establishes that the defence
taken by accused is only after thought and there
is no truth in it. In view of the above, I am of
the considered opinion that prosecution has
succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences
punishable U/s.354 and 509 of IPC.
18. Put up for arguments on sentence, on
13-10-2015.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript
thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in
the open court this the 7th day of October 2015).
(M. LATHAKUMARI)
VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city.
19 CC.No.991/2011
14-10-2015
Heard, learned counsel for accused on
sentence, who only requested to acquit the
accused. When guilt has been proved against
accused, question of acquitting accused does not
arise. The submission of accused counsel
appears baseless. Considering the gravity of
the offence, in the result, I proceed to pass
the following:-
ORDER
Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 354 and 509 of IPC. Accused is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. with simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for another one month.
20 CC.No.991/2011The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Copy of this judgement shall be given to accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 14th day of October 2015).
(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city. Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Lakshmipathi
PW.2 Smt. Gunasheela
PW.3 Kum. Nithya
PW.4 Ranjitha
PW.5 Susan Thomas
PW.6 Manjunath
PW.7 N.P. Rajendra Prasad.
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Complaint
EX.P-2 Panchanama.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY. 21 CC.No.991/2011 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER 22 CC.No.991/2011 Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 354 and 509 of IPC. Accused is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. with simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for another one month.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Copy of this judgement shall be given to accused.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore. 23 CC.No.991/2011 24 CC.No.991/2011 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.