Bangalore District Court
Stella Geetha vs Muniraju Alias Auto Muniraju on 18 June, 2025
Digitally
KABC030510792018 DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 11-07-2018
Registered on : 11-07-2018
Decided on : 18-06-2025
Duration : 6 years, 11 months, 7 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 18th Day of June, 2025
C.C. No.18915/2018
(Crime No.304/2018)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Muniraju @ Auto Muniraju,
Major in Age,
S/o Sri Late Muniyappa,
R/at No.235, 1st Main ,
1st Cross, N.S.Halli,
Bengaluru.
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
2. Sri Manjunath @ Auto Manja,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri Muni Anjinappa,
R/at No.236, A.K.Colony,
N.S.Halli, Bengaluru.
3. Sri Nagaraj @ Auto Nagaraj,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri Late Muniraju,
R/at No.239, A.K.Colony,
N.S.Halli, Bengaluru.
4. Sri Muniraju @ Gurkha Muniraju,
Major in Age,
S/o Late Sri Muniraju,
R/at No.239, A.K.Colony,
N.S.Halli, Bengaluru. ......Accused
(Represented By Sri K.M.Thippeswamy, Advocate )
1. Date of commission of 01-11-2017
offence
2. Date of FIR 01-11-2017
3. Date of Charge sheet 15-02-2018
4.Name of Complainant Smt. Stella Geetha
2
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
5. Offences complained of Under Section 448, 323,
354, 506(b), 427 read
with Sec.34 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 17-08-2019
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 03-03-2021
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 18-06-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 18-06-2025
11. Final Order Accused No. 1 to 4
Convicted for the offence
punishable under section
448, 323, 427 and 506 of
IPC and acquitted from
the offence punishable
under section 354 of IPC
12. Date of sentence -
3
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 323, 354, 506(b), 427 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 01-11-2017 at 10.30 pm, at the house No.263 situated at Nagashettyhalli, Manjunath Layout, II Cross, Bangalore within the limits of Sanjaynagar Police Station, the accused No.1 to 4 were with common intention picked up quarrel with CW1 namely Smt. Geetha Stella abused her with filthiest language in respect of construction of house and trespassed into the house of CW1 and beaten CW5 namely Smt. Geetha and CW6 Kumari Gloria with their hands, dragged their clothes with an intention to outrage their modesty. When CW4 namely Sri Kumar try to pacified the quarrel all the accused persons who in turn beaten him with hands and accused No.4 destroyed the window glass and granite with long mettalic bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) and caused loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to CW1 and threatened CW1, CW4 and CW5 with dire consequences by showing iron fist.
4 KABC030510792018 CC18915/20183. First Information Report: On the basis of first information given by CW1, CW9/PW8 namely Sri Mestri Naik, PSI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station registered Crime No.304/2017 against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 323, 354, 504, 506(B), 427 read with Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P3 and sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: Thereafter he drawn spot mahazar on 01-11-2017 from 4 pm to 5 pm as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW7 and CW8 and seized MO1 to MO3, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses, collected the documents and submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 448, 354, 506(B), 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused No.1 to 4 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 23-11-2018.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused persons.
5 KABC030510792018 CC18915/20187. 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 to 4, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.323, 448, 354, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses, examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents and MO1 to MO3 and closed their side. Despite of execution of process, CW8 failed to appear to give evidence and hence given up from examination by the order dated 25-02-2025.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of Cr P C: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused No.1 to 4 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.
6 KABC030510792018 CC18915/201811. 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 01-11-2017 at 10.30 pm, at house No.263, Nagashettyhalli, Manjunath Layout, II Cross, Bangalore within the limits of Sanjaynagar Police Station, the accused No.1 to 4 were with common intention trespassed into the house of CW1 thereby resulted in commission of the offence punishable u/Sec.448 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 to 4 had voluntarily beaten CW5 namely Smt. Geetha, CW6 Kumari 7 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 Gloria and CW4 namely Sri Kumar with their hands and caused simple hurt thereby resulted in commission of the offence punishable u/Sec.323 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.1 to 4 dragged the clothes of CW5 and CW6 being women with an intention to outrage their modesty thereby resulted in commission of the offence punishable u/Sec.354 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.4 had destroyed the window glass and granite with long metal bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) and caused loss to the 8 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 tune of Rs.10,000/- to CW1 thereby resulted in commission of the offence punishable u/Sec.427 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.4 threatened CW1, CW4 to CW6 with dire consequences by showing iron fist (ಕಬ್ಬಿಣದ ಹಾರೆ) thereby resulted in commission of the offence punishable u/Sec.506 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
7. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1, 2, 4 & 5: In the affirmative Point No. 3: In the negative Point No.6: As per final order 9 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 5: 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 prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows
(i) CW1 by name Smt. Stella Geetha, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that on 01-11- 2017 at 10.30 am, the accused No.1 to 4 came to her house, destroyed tiles and window glasses with long metal bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ), beaten her daughter-in-law Geetha and pulled her daughter Gloria's hand and and tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her foster-son Kumar. They did this for getting money from her. Hence, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, seized tiles, glass pieces and long metallic bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) , as per MO1 to MO3. Further she identified her signature as Ex.P1(a) and (2).
(ii) CW2 by name Smt. Suja, the sister of CW1 examined as PW2 deposed that, on 01-11-2017 at 10.30 am, accused NO. 1 to 4 came to her sister's 10 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 house. When she went there, the accused were beating Kumar//PW3, trying to hit her sister with hammer, hitting Geetha on the leg and making her fall, dragging her sister's daughter Gloria by the hand, and then breaking the tiles and window glasses. She identified accused persons and MO1 to MO3.
(iii) CW3 by name Sri Kumar, eyewitness examined as PW3 deposed that, on 01-11-2017, between 9 am and 9.30 am, while he, his foster father Michael, his mother CW1, CW6, CW5, CW3 Mahesh an electrician were working on the construction of his foster father's house in Manjunatha Layout, Sanjaynagar, the accused persons came and abused them in filthy language, held their hands and grabbed their clothes and dragged them, destroyed the granite and window glasses with hammer and stones. When he went to ask them, they beaten him and his father and threatened them with dire consequences.
(iv) CW5 by name Smt. Geetha and Smt. Kumari Gloria, eye witnesses examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively deposed that, on 01-11-2017, while they along with CW1 and CW4 were at their father-in- law Michael's house No.263 in Nagashettihalli, the accused came with hammer and long metallic rod, abused CW1 and destroyed granite and window 11 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 glasses, when to try to pacify the quarrel, the accused pushed them and tried to hit CW4 with long metallic rod.
(v) CW3 by name Sri Mahesh, eye witness examined as PW6 and deposed that on 01-11-2017, he went to do electrician work to the house of Michael in Manjunathanagar, Nagashettihalli. When he returned after drinking tea, the accused were quarreling near Michael's house, they broke the window glass and granite, grabbed CW1's hand and tore her clothes, and abused her in filthy language. He had given statement to the police about the incident.
(vi) CW7/PW7 Sri Babu, deposed that on 01- 11-2017, he was working as an electrician at the Ivenjika Outreach Mission Church in Nagashettihalli, and that the accused persons took the gadapare (ಗಡಪಾರೆ), broke the granites and glasses of window and pushed the women there down. He identified the signature on Ex.P2 (spot Mahazar) as Ex.P2(b) and MO1.
(vii) CW9 by name Sri Mestri Nayak, the then PSI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW8 and deposed that on 01-11-2017 he received written 12 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 complaint from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P3, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 from 4 pm to 5.00 pm in the presence of CW7 and CW8, seized glass and granite pieces, long mettalic bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) and subjected to property form No.116/2017, recorded the statements of CW2 to CW6, recorded the statements of CW1 and CW6 under Section 164 CrPC, secured the tax receipt in respect of CW1's house and after completion of investigation he submitted final report against the accused persons. He identified his signatures as Ex.P1(b), 2(c) and 3(a).
15. It is the case of prosecution that this criminal complaint was lodged on account of the outcome of the civil dispute filed against the accused No.1 to 4. It ought to be seen that the accused persons are nowhere party to the civil proceedings bearing O.S. No. 4008/2017. Added to which, the accused No.1 to 4 has not explained how they are related to the informant or her husband Micheal or to the parties mentioned in the suit therein. Though the accused No.1 to 4 has denied the prosecution case however admitted in the cross examination that they went to the incident place 01/11/2017 on the ground of stopping the construction work on account of stay granted in O.S. No. 4008/2017 on 16/06/2017 whereas the alleged incident was taken place on 01/11/2017 so this interim order does not have any 13 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 bearing upon the rights of accused persons as they are not related to the civil suit in anywhere.
16. It is relevant to mention the parties in O S No.4008/2017 are that the plaintiff namely Sri Srinivasa Murthy S/o. Late Hanumantha filed the suit against the defendants namely Smt. Arasamma, Sri Srinivasa, Smt. Mahadevamma, Sri Muniraju, Sri Ramesh, Sri Jayamma, Smt. Nandini, Sri S. Michael and Sri Stella Geetha for partition and separate Possession of the and hence the name of assailants /accused persons in this case was not mentioned from the documents produced by the counsel for the accused persons.
17. It is relevant to extract the cross examination of PW3 in page No.6 and PW5 in page No.3 wherein it was suggested that ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಗಂಡ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಈ ರೀತಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವಾಗಿದೆ, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ಅವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಈ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಕೇಸನ್ನು ದಾಖಲೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಈ ರೀತಿ ಕೇಳಲು ಬಂದಾಗ 14 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1 ಹಾಗೂ ಇತರರು ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಮೇಲೆ ದೌರ್ಜನ್ಯ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಸದರಿ ವಿಚಾರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ಒಂದು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದರ ಕ್ರೈಂ ನಂ.305/2017 ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಪರಿಶಿಷ್ಟ ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದವರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಬಿ ರಿಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
PW5 deposed that in paragraph No. 3 that ಸದರಿ ಆದೇಶ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ನಾವು ಕಟ್ಟಡ ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊದಲೇ ಕಟ್ಟಡ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆ ಕೇಸು ಹಾಕಿದ ನಂತರ ನಾವು ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವಿದ್ದರೂ ನಾವು ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅದನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡರೂ ಸಹ ನಾವು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ದಿಕ್ಕರಿಸಿ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
15 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018Thus, from the aforesaid suggestion made to PW3 and PW5 makes it very clear that the accused No.1 to 4 went to the house of the PW1. In this regard, the accused persons lodged the complaint in crime No. 305/2017 however they did not challenge the said report rather chosen to remain uncontested. Merely, the accused persons lodged the complaint, the court cannot infer that the alleged incident could not have taken place. It appears from the record that there is an inconsistency defence taken by the accused persons as one hand had taken defence that they never gone to the house of PW1 whereas on the other hand accused persons had gone to the house of the PW1 from stopping the PW1 from proceeding with the construction.
18. The First charge is against the accused persons were for having entered the house of the PW1 unlawfully with intention to commit the offence and hence they are charged under section 448 of IPC provides punishment for house-trespass which is defined under Section 442 of the IPC which states that "whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or any building used as a place for 16 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 worship, or as a place for the custody of property" meaning thereby to constitute house trespass, it must be a criminal trespass.
Criminal trespass is defined under Section 441 of the IPC. Basic ingredient to satisfy criminal trespass is (i) entry into or upon property in the possession of another, (ii) if such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property, (iii) such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent (a) to commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession.
19. In order to constitute offence under Section 441 of IPC, the accused persons must enter into property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. It is clear from the wording of the section that there can be no criminal trespass unless the "intent" specified in the section is present. The phrase "any person in possession of such property" is also to be remembered. The intent to annoy and intimidate must be not with respect to any and every person connected with the property but with respect to any 17 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 person in actual possession of such property. It is aimed to protect possession and not the ownership.
20. Mere entry upon another's land, under however preposterous a claim of right or even without any claim of right, is no offence unless this entry is accompanied by one of the specific intents provided for in Section 441 of IPC.
21. The presence of such criminal intent may be manifested by the act or may be inferred from other circumstances. But in either case there must be an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.
22. Admittedly, the possession of the PW1 in the spot was admitted by the accused persons from the suggestions put forth to the prosecution witnesses. The another ingredient to be proved/established by the prosecution was that whether the accused persons entered into the property of the PW1 with an intention to commit an offense. In this regard, it is relevant to analyses the prosecution witnesses which are extracted as under
I. PW1 (informant) deposed in her chief in examination that 18 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಆಟೋ ಮುನಿರಾಜು , ಆಟೋ ಮಂಜು, ಆಟೋ ನಾಗರಾಜು, ಗೂರ್ಕ ಮುನಿರಾಜು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದರು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ನಮಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದರು. ಗಡಪಾತಿ (ಹಾರೆ) ಯನ್ನು ತಂದು ಹೊಸದಾಗಿ ಹಾಕಲು ತಂದು ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಟೈಲ್ಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಕಿಟಕಿಯನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆಗೆ ಗೀತಾಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬೀಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
II. PW2 (sister of PW1) in page No. 2 of chief in examination deposed that ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ. ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-
11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಆಟೋ ಮುನಿರಾಜು , ಆಟೋ ಮಂಜು, ಆಟೋ ನಾಗರಾಜು, ಗೂರ್ಕ ಮುನಿರಾಜು ನಮ್ಮ ಅಕ್ಕನ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದರು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕುಮಾರ ಎಂಬವನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.
ನಂತರ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರಿಗೆ ಕರಣೆಯಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಗೀತಾ ಎಂಬವರಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದು ಬೀಳಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕನ ಮಗಳು ಗ್ಲೋರಿಯ ಮರ್ಸಿಗೆ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡು 19 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 ಎಳೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಟೈಲ್ಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಪುಡಿ ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಕಿಟಕಿಯ ಗಾಜುಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
III. PW3 deposed in the chief in examination that ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 09- 00 ರಿಂದ 09-30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆ ಮೈಕೆಲ್ , ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಾಯಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 , ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಚಾಸಾ 6, ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತಿಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ 5, ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಷಿಯನ್ ಮಹೇಶ್ ಚಾಸಾ 3 ರವರು ಸಂಜಯನಗರದ ಮಂಜುನಾಥ ಲೇಔಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆಯ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ, ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿ, ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅತ್ತಿಗೆಗೆ ಬೆವರ್ಸಿ ಮುಂಡೆ, ಕತ್ತೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಕೈಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿ, ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಕಲ್ಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಕೇಳಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ನನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಲೆ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಕೊಲೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಗಡಪಾರಿಯಿಂದ (ಹಾರೆ) 20 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 ಚುಚ್ಚಿ ಸಾಯಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದರು.
iv. PW4 deposed in the chief in examination that ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10- 00 ರಿಂದ 10-30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1 , ಚಾಸಾ 6 , ಚಾಸಾ 4ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ಮಾವ ಮೈಕೆಲ್ ರವರು ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಮನೆ ನಂ.263 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ಗಡಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕರಣೆ, ಸುತ್ತಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಶೇಖರಿಸಿದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಗಡಾರೆಯಿಂದ ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು, ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
v. PW5 deposed in the chief in examination that ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10- 30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1 , ಚಾಸಾ 5 , ಚಾಸಾ 4ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಮೈಕೆಲ್ ರವರು ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಮನೆ ನಂ.263 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ಗಡಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕರಣೆ, ಸುತ್ತಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಶೇಖರಿಸಿದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು 21 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 ಗಡಾರೆಯಿಂದ ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು, ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
vi. PW6 deposed in chief in
examination that
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10- 30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1 , ಚಾಸಾ 5 , ಚಾಸಾ 4ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಮೈಕೆಲ್ ರವರು ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಮನೆ ನಂ.263 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ಗಡಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕರಣೆ, ಸುತ್ತಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಶೇಖರಿಸಿದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಗಡಾರೆಯಿಂದ ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು, ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
Thus, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses emerges that the accused No. 1 to 4 has illegally entered into the house of PW1 with an intent to commit an offence by posing life threat to the PW1 and her family members. When there is a stay in O S No.4008/2017 in respect of the property, if the right of accused persons were affected, they were at liberty to approach the court of law for remedy.
22 KABC030510792018 CC18915/201823. It ought to be seen from order sheet produced by the counsel for the accused persons that the PW1/defendant No.8 came on record by filing vakalath through her counsel on 21/08/2017. If the PW1 and her husband violated the interim order of Civil Court in OS No. 4008/2017, they would face the consequences of contempt/violation of an interim order. No doubt, the counsel for accused persons submitted that the contempt application was filed against PW1 and her husband Michael who is none other than defendant No. 7 and 8. Merely filing of the application for contempt of court for violating the court order, the court cannot brush aside the oral testimony given by the PW1 to PW5 with the regard to the alleged incident of life threats and damaging the materials and beating the PW3. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 makes it very clear that accused No.1 to 4 entered the house of PW1 with an intention to commit the offence as they took the long metallic bar which was lying at the spot. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the accused persons entered the house of the PW1 with an intention to commit the offence under section 448 of Indian Penal Code thereby point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
24. The next accusation is that the accused persons has beaten PW3 with their hands and hence charged for an offence punishable under section 323 23 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 of IPC. Section 321 of IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt"
i.e., voluntarily causing hurt is causing hurt with intention or knowledge. Thus, either the ingredient of intention or of knowledge must essentially be present to constitute an offence under the section. The acts which fall under Section 321 IPC are punishable under Section 323 IPC.
Section 323 in the Indian Penal Code which reads as under
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.24 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
To convict a person under Section 323 IPC, the following constituents must be present:
1. The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt to another person.
2. The hurt caused must not be grave or life- threatening.
3. The act must not have been committed in the heat of passion or in exercising the right of private defence.
If all of these constituents are present, then the accused can be charged with an offence under section 323 of the IPC and may be imprisoned for up to one year, with a fine, or with both. It is important to note that the punishment may vary depending on the circumstances of the case and the severity of the hurt caused.
25. Admittedly the prosecution has not produced any wound certificate though they alleged to have taken the treatment at the K. C. General Hospital and hurt was grievous in nature but they did not produce the wound certificate as IO did not ask them as per evidence given by the PW4 ( daughter in law/ ಸೊಸೆ of PW1). If the prosecution did not produce the wound certificate,the court cannot infer that no hurt was 25 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 caused to the PW3. The evidence of PW1 depicts in the chief in examination that "ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ಮಗ ಕುಮಾರನನ್ನು ಸಾಯಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ"
PW2 deposed that ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕುಮಾರ ಎಂಬವನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.
PW3 deposed that ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಕಲ್ಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಕೇಳಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ನನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಲೆ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಕೊಲೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು PW4 deposed that ಆಗ ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು. ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ಬಿಡಿಸಲು ಬಂದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅವರಿಗೂ ಹೊಡೆದರು.
PW5 deposed that ಆಗ ನಾವು ಅಡ್ಡ ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 5 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದರು. ಆಗ ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು. ಗಡಪಾರೆಯಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ಅಣ್ಣನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಬಂದರು.26 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Thus, it is clear that the accused persons has beaten the PW3 voluntarily with their hands. If the small acts of body pain caused during the quarrel, would amounts to voluntarily causing hurt.
26. The learned counsel for the accused persons with the vehemence argued that the wound/medical certificate is not produced to corroborate the hurt of PW3 as he has taken treatment . The wound certificate is required to ascertain nature of injury for fixing the quantum of punishment. As per Section 319 of IPC, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause "hurt". Therefore, even causing bodily pain can be said to be causing "hurt". Merely the wound certificate was not secured by the IO/PW7 from the victims, this court cannot brush aside the oral testimony of injured and eye witnesses.
27. It ought to be seen that PW3 is injured witness and PW1, PW4 and PW5 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident of causing hurt by the accused persons to the PW3/Sri Kumar as held by this Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, evidence of an injured eye witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements cannot to be discarded lightly. The very cogent and 27 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 convincing grounds are required to discard the evidence of injured witness and the said principle is appreciated in the case of State of M P Vs Mansingh reported in (2003) 10 SCC 414(para 9); Abdul Sayeed Vs State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 259; Ram vilas Vs State of MP , (2016) 16 SCC 316 (para 6); State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 (para 27); and in the case of Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 347 (paras 20 & 21).
28. In the case on hand, right from the very beginning, all the accused were named in the FIR and their role and complicity have been established with trustworthy, reliable and cogent evidence. It is submitted that all the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention beaten the PW3/Sri Kumar. The accused persons had not taken any contention that the causing hurt to the PW3 due to the provocation or due to self defence. The accused persons were present and committed the offences of causing hurt to the PW1. As such, there is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of the injured eye witnesses/eye witnesses. Therefore the prosecution has established that the accused persons had committed an offence of voluntarily causing hurt thereby the Point No. 2 is answered in affirmative.
28 KABC030510792018 CC18915/201829. The next charge framed under section 354 of IPC. Whether the act of the accused persons falls within the mischief under Section 354 of IPC. As per Section 354 of IPC-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished.
The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC are:-
a) That the assault must be on a woman.
b) That the accused must have used criminal force on PW4 and PW5.
c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5.
The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from the birth of PW4 and PW5, they possess the 29 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 modesty which is the attribute of their sex. From the test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman and the said principle is appreciated in case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC 194.
30. Looking to the complaint and evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and victim of Section 354 of IPC i.e., PW4 and PW5 is that ನಾನು ಈ ಮೇಲೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ಗಂಡ ಮಕ್ಕಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದುಕೊಂಡು ಗ್ರಹಣಿಯಾಗಿರುತೇನೆ. ಈ ದಿನ ದಿನಕ 01- 11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳೆಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 10.30 ಗಂಟೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಟೋ ಮುನಿರಾಜು, ಆಟೋ ಮಂಜ , ಆಟೋ ನಾಗರಾಜು ಗೋರ್ಕ ಮುನಿರಾಜು ಎಂಬುವವರು ನಾವು ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿದಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ಜಗಳ ತೆಗದು ಅವ್ಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ನಮಗೆ ಬೈದು ನಮ್ಮ ಮಗಳು ಗ್ಲೋರಿಯಾ ಮೆರ್ರಿಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆ ಗೀತಾ ಎಂಬುವವರಿಗೆ ಕೈಲಿಂದ ಹೊಡದು ಎಳದಾಡ PW1 deposed in her chief in examination that 30 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 xxxxxx ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆಗೆ ಗೀತಾಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬೀಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳು ಗ್ಲೊರಿಯ ಮರ್ಸಿಗೆ ಕೈಯನ್ನು ಎಳೆದು ಮಾನಭಂಗ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
PW4 and PW5 deposed that ಆಗ ನಾವು ಅಡ್ಡ ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು, ಚಾಸಾ 6 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದರು. ಆಗ ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು. ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ಬಿಡಿಸಲು ಬಂದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅವರಿಗೂ ಹೊಡೆದರು. ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರೋ ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಪೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದರು. ನಂತರ ನಾವೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದೆವು. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದಾಗ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 6 ರವರ ದುಪ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಮತ್ತು ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಹರಿದು ಹೋದೆವು.
and ಆಗ ನಾವು ಅಡ್ಡ ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 5 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದರು. ಆಗ ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು.
Thus, it is clear from the oral testimony of alleged victims i.e., PW4 and PW5 that they went to stop the acts of accused persons from breaking the 31 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 granites and window glasses with the hammers and long metallic bar at that time the accused persons were pushed the PW4 and PW5 and at the time of pushing the PW4 and PW5, dupata/vale (ದುಪಟ್ಟಾ) and clothes were torn. The statement given by the PW4 and PW5 goes to show that the accused persons made an attempt to outraging the modesty which is contrary to the oral testimony.
31. It is relevant to mention the decision in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC (Cri) 1059 in paragraph 17 and in the case of Vidhyadharan Vs state Of Kerala reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 260 in paragraph 14 held that
17. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being states of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case.
Since, however, in the instant 32 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 case we are only at the incipient stage we have to ascertain, only prima facie, whether Mr Gill by slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior, in the background detailed by her in the FIR, intended to outrage or knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty, which is one of the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The sequence of events which we have detailed earlier indicates that the slapping was the finale to the earlier overtures of Mr. Gill, which considered together, persuade us to hold that he had the requisite culpable intention. Even if we had presumed he had no such intention he must be attributed with such knowledge, as the alleged act was committed by him in the presence of a gathering comprising the elite of the society- as the names and designations of the people given in the FIR indicate. While on this point we may also mention that there is 33 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 nothing in the FIR to indicate, even remotely, that the indecent act was committed by Mr Gill, accidentally or by mistake or it was a slip. For the reasons aforesaid, it must also be said that - apart from the offence under Section 354 IPC-an offence under section 509 of IPC has been made out on the allegations contained in the FIR as the words used and gestures made by Mr. Gill were intended to insult the modesty of Mrs. Bajaj."
and
10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected.
Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of 34 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A Victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. xxxx In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence coupled with the aforesaid decisions, the accused persons did not enter the house of PW1 to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5 rather from the evidence (chief in examination of PW4 and PW5) makes it very clear that they went to stop from breaking the granites and window glasses, at that time the accused persons pushed the PW4 and Pw5. This Court is of opinion that the pushing the PW4 and PW5 by the accused persons during the heat of quarrel accidentally in a wrongful manner, the same cannot be said to be with an intention to outrage their modesty and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sumit Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal decided in CRR 3236 of 2014, decided on 22.04. 2014.
35 KABC030510792018 CC18915/201832. Added to which, there is no single whisper in the complaint that the accused persons made an attempt to outraging the modesty as the complaint seems to be prepared with the full knowledge and ingredient of other offences as such so neatly and definitely the complaint was not written by the PW1 as her signature appears to be of one uneducated person. It is an afterthought i.e., 02/11/2017 the statement was given as accused persons jointly made attempt to outraging modesty (ಮಾನಭಂಗಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದಾಗ) at that time PW3/Kumar interfered and was beaten him by the accused persons with their hands.
33. The statement given by the PW4 and PW5 before the magistrate under section 164 of CRPC on 05/01/2018 makes it very clear that whilst questioning the acts of accused persons, accused persons pushed them. Thus, it is clear that the facts of the case coupled with the oral testimony of PW4 and PW5 do not disclose that any assault or criminal force was used on them intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that their acts would outrage their modesty. The action of accused persons can be attributed to the fallout of a heated quarrel which culminated in the PW4 and PW5 pushing them down and at 36 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 that time of pushing them down, their clothes were torn.
34. Added to which, the accused persons as soon as entered into the house of the PW1 did not go and immediately held the hands of PW4 and PW5 and torn their clothes to infer that the accused No. 1 to 4 entered the house of PW1 for outraging of modesty of PW4 and PW5. Thus , the informant may complain of outraging the modesty of PW4 and PW5 but cannot complain of a definite apriori intention on the part of the accused persons to outrage the modesty of PW4 and PW5 on 01/11/2017.
35. Furthermore, there is no surrounding circumstances exist to convince this Court that the accused persons arrived at the spot with an intention to outrage the modesty of the PW4 and PW5. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove/establish that the accused persons entered into the house of PW1 for outraging the modesty of PW4 and PW5 by using criminal force thereby the point No. 3 is answered in negative.
37 KABC030510792018 CC18915/201836. The accused persons were charged for an offence punishable under section 427 of IPC. The expression "mischief" has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person causes the destruction of any property etc. Section 427 IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both."
PW1 had given the complaint that there was a loss of Rs. 10,000/- on account of breaking of granites and window glasses and during the course of evidence deposed that she incurred loss of Rs. 1 lakhs. The accused persons has cross examined PW1 for non furnishing the estimation of report of loss. It ought to be seen that the PW1 to PW6 deposed that the accused persons have broken the granites window glasses. The estimation of report as to the value is not required as the cost of granites cannot be imagined would be less than value of Rs. 50/-. So such being the case, the PW1 to PW5 who are belongs 38 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 to the same family deposed about the damaging the granites and window glasses.
37. PW6 is an independent witnesses deposed about damaging the granites and window glasses. Added to which, the accused persons had not elicited anything from him during cross examination how his evidence cannot be trustworthy rather suggested in the cross examination about the pendency of civil case and denied the prosecution case. Admittedly, no report of actual loss of breaking the window glasses and granites was produced. It can safely be presumed that the accused persons even though did not intent to cause any harm to the breaking granites and window glasses, it can be said that they knew that they are likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to PW1 and thereby, caused damage by breaking the window glasses and granites thereby diminishing its value and accordingly, committed mischief. Hence, the ingredients of Section 427 of IPC are proved against the accused persons thereby the point No. 4 answered in the affirmative.
38. The another offence was charged with the criminal intimidation by entering into the house of PW1 illegally as it was punishable under section 506 of IPC. On the relevant date, time and place, the accused persons made criminal intimidation to 39 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 eliminate the family members of PW1. The evidence of PW1, PW3 to PW6 is clear that accused persons whilst going after causing damage to the granite and window glasses that they have threatened them by showing the iron metallic bar. 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 persons, which should be with an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause that person to do any act which they are not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. It has been held in the case of MANIK TANEJA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the ingredients of Section 503 and 506 of the IPC as under ''11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "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 40 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 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 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.'' From the foregoing proposition of law, it is clear that in order to constitute offence of criminal 41 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the PW1 and her family members 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. However, the accused persons came home on 01/11/2017, beaten the PW3 and broken the granites and window glasses and whilst going, they posed the life threat to PW1 and her family members. Therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are made out against the accused No.1 to 4 thereby the point No. 5 is answered in the affirmative.
39. The learned counsel for the accused persons with the vehemence argued by relying upon cross examination of PW1 ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ದೂರು ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡುವ ಮೊದಲೇ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿ 2015 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮುನಿರಾಜುರವರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ನಂ.9497/2015 ನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. .. ಸದರಿ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆ ಹಾಕುವ ಮೊದಲು ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಕೊಳವೆ ಬಾವಿ ಕೊರೆಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುನಿರಾಜುರವರು ಬೋರ್ ವೆಲ್ ಹಾಕದಂತೆ ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ನಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಒಂದು ದೂರು ಸಹ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ 42 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 ದೂರಿನ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನಮ್ಮ ಹಾಗೂ ಮುನಿರಾಜುರವರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನಮ್ಮಿಬ್ಬರಿಗೂ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗುವಂತೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ತದನಂತರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ತದನಂತರ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ ಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಅವರ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಕರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಹಾಗೂ ನಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ದ ವಿಭಾಗ ಕೋರಿ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ನಂಬರ್ 4008/2017 ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. PW1 had filed the suit bearing OS No. 9497/2015 and the said case was ended in her favour. Such being the case, why the PW1 had to wait against the accused No.1 for such long time to counter the said civil case.
40. There are minor contradictions with the regard to the timings varies as the PW1 to PW2, PW4 and PW5 deposed about the timings of incident was 10.30 am to 11.30 am but the PW3 deposed about the timings was 9 to 9.30 am. Merely the timings deposed by the PW3, the evidence of PW1, 2, 4 and 5 cannot be ignored.
41. Added to which, the contention of the accused persons that the complaint is of civil nature cannot be accepted as the Civil Court did not issue any direction for the accused persons to enter into 43 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 house of the PW1. Merely the PW1 was violating the interim order granted by the Civil Court, the accused persons cannot take the law into their hands.
42. No marking was made at the time of seizure of MO1 to MO3 cannot be a ground to ignore the oral testimony given by the PW1 to PW6 before this court on oath as to the incident dated 01/11/2017.
43. The accused persons has not rebutted the evidence of prosecution witnesses with any other cogent evidence.
44. IO/PW8 deposed about the registration of complaint and drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P2 and the PW7 deposed about the drawing of mahazar at the spot and the same was deposed by the PW1 as there are signatories to the mahazar witness. No doubt PW7 deposed that he signed the mahazar at the police station and does not know who signed with him in the cross examination but he deposed in cross examination of PW1 that someone was standing at the spot in his front.
45. Advocate for accused has relied upon the cross examination of PW2 that she did not given any statement before the police but she deposed about the incident dated 01/11/2017.44 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
46. The cross examination of the accused as to the PW3 is the foster son of PW1 and the said Michael is not material for this case to decide on the commission of offence on the incident dated 01/11/2017.
47. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 were argued that there are no independent witnesses to the incident but the PW4 deposed that there were none present apart from them. PW6 is the independent witnesses who spoken about the incidnet dated 01/11/2017 and his evidence was not demolished by the prosecution in any manner or nothing favourable answers were elicited from the mouth of PW6. It appears from the Ex. P. 2 (spot mahazar), the alleged spot was bounded on the East by church, west by vacant site, North by residential house belongs to Munikrishnappa and South by II Cross. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 with vehemence argued that if such incident was taken place,the neighbours could have been present at the time of incident. There is no single suggestion posed to the availability of neighbours on the date of incident when it was a government holiday.
48. Merely the husband of PW1 Sri Michael was observing this court on every hearing date, the court 45 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 cannot come to conclusion that it is a foisted and false complaint as he being husband of PW1 and father of PW5 has every right to know about the status of the complaint.
49. In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 5, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Acting Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 to 4 is convicted for the offences punishable under section 448, 323, 427, 506 read with Sec.34 of IPC
ii) Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No. 1 to 4 are acquitted from the offences punishable under section 354 read with Sec.34 of IPC
iv) Accused No.1 to 4 shall be heard on the sentence under Sec.
248(2) of Cr.P.C.
(Typed from the reasons by me in my laptop, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of June, 2025.) (Deepa.V.), 46 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
47 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018Heard on sentence from APP and the advocate for accused No. 1 to 4.
:ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Accused No.1 to 4 submitted that they are aged and are bread earner of the family and their family are totally depended upon them for their livelihood and prays to take a lenient view.
2. The learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor has replied that considering the magnitude of offence, maximum possible sentence be imposed on the accused No.1 to 4. He also further has argued that the accused is liable to compensate the victim PW1 towards the loss suffered by him. The question is whether the accused No.1 should be sentenced to maximum possible sentence or fine or any leniency can be shown to him? Admittedly the accused No.1 to 4 are aged above 45 years. Having regard to the magnitude of offence and taking into consideration the circumstances obtaining in the case, this court deem it just and expedient to pass the following sentence.
ORDER
i) For the offence under Section 448 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of 48 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for three months.
ii) For the offence under Section 323 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for one months.
iii) For the offence under Section 427 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for three months.
iv) For the offence under Section 506 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for three months.
v) Under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C., the 50% of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid 49 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 as compensation to the PW1. The remaining 50% shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses.
vi) After the expiry of appeal period, MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed and MO3 confiscated to State.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled.
viii) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused No.1 to 4 at free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of June, 2025.) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Stella Geetha Informant PW2 : Smt. Suja Eye witness 50 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 PW3 : Sri Kumar Eye witness PW4 : Smt.Geetha Eye witness PW5 : Kumari Gloria Eye witness PW6 : Sri Mahesh Eye witness PW7 : Sri Babu Pancha witness PW8 : Sri Mestri Nayak IO Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P3: FIR PW8
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO1: Granite MO2: Window glass pieces MO3: long metallic bar (ಕಬ್ಬಿಣದ ಹಾರೆ)
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.51 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
18-06-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER
i) Acting Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 to 4 is convicted for the offences punishable under section 448, 323, 427, 506 read with Sec.34 of IPC
ii) Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No. 1 to 4 are acquitted from the offences punishable under section 354 read with Sec.34 of IPC
iv) Accused No.1 to 4 shall be heard on the sentence under Sec.
248(2) of Cr.P.C.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
52 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018Orders on Sentence pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER
i) For the offence under Section 448 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for three months.
ii) For the offence under Section 323 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for one months.
iii) For the offence under Section 427 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for three months.
iv) For the offence under Section 506 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are 53 KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018 convicted and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for three months.
v) Under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C., the 50% of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the PW1. The remaining 50% shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses.
vi) After the expiry of appeal period, MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed and MO3 confiscated to State.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled.
viii) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused No.1 to 3 at free of cost.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
54