Bangalore District Court
State By Narona Police Station vs Sharanun @. Sharanabasappa on 14 September, 2022
1 CC.No.31403/21
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2022.
:Present:
Smt. PREETH. J., B.A.L., LLB.,
XLII Addl.CMM Judge,
(Spl. Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as
well as former MPs/MLAs,
triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka)
CC.No.31403/2021.
(Old.CC.No.618/2018)
Complainant: State by Narona Police Station,
Alland Circle, Kalaburagi.
(By Lrd. Sr.A.P.P.,)
Vs.
Accused: Sharanun @. Sharanabasappa
Salagar, S/o. Babu Salagar,
43 Years, R/o.V.K.Salagar Village,
Alland Taluk, Kalaburagi.
(By Sri.S.M., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.07.2018.
2. Date of report of offence : 04.07.2018.
2 CC.No.31403/21
3. Arrest of accused : Not applicable.
a) Date of arrest of accused : Not applicable.
b) Date of release on bail : 10.02.2022.
c) The period undergone in custody : Not applicable.
4. The name of the complainant : Sri.Gajanan K. Naik.
5. The date of recording of evidence : 25.06.2019.
6. The date of closing of evidence : 24.08.2022.
7. Offences complained of : U/s.353, 504 and
506 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty.
=============
JUDGMENT
01. That the Police Sub-Inspector of Narona Police Station, Alland Circle, Kalaburagi has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 353, 504 and 506 of IPC.
02. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
On 01-07-2018 in between 05-05 p.m., to 05.25 p.m., in the Chamber of the PSI of the Narona Police Station, the accused being the President of Bharathiya Janatha Party, 3 CC.No.31403/21 started arguing with CW1 by raising his voice and also by pointing his finger towards CW1 and saying that CW1 must work as per his instructions in respect of the dispute between CW8 and 9 and should help his supporters and he know how to handle CW1. The accused started abusing CW1 in filthy language and insulted him and also threatener him with dire consequences and thus, deterred CW1 from discharging their public duties and thereby committed the offences punishable under section 353, 504 and 506 of IPC.
03. On the basis of the complaint of CW-1, case has been registered under Cr.No.94/2018 against the accused for the offences punishable under section 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused. On receipt of charge sheet, the court took cognizance of the said offences.
04. On appearance of the accused, he was enlarged on bail. The copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused person as contemplated under section 207 of 4 CC.No.31403/21 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, heard before charge and framed charges and read over to the accused person for the said offences. He has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence.
05. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined all the 13 Witnesses as PW-01 to 13 and got marked 09 documents as Ex.P.01 to Ex.P.09. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused has denied his involvement in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
06. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.
5 CC.No.31403/21
07. The following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 01.07.2018 between 05.05 to 05.25 p.m., in the Chamber of Narona Police Station, the accused being the President of Bharathiya Janatha Party, Kalburgi Rural Mandal, argued with CW1 by raising voice and showing fingers towards CW1 stating that CW1 should work as per his instructions in respect of dispute with CW8 and 9 and should help his supporters and he know as to how to handle CW1 etc., thus, the accused detered CW1, a public servant in execution of his duty with an intent to prevent or deter him in discharging his lawful duty and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 353 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of above offence, the accused started abusing the CW1 in filthy language and insulted CW1 intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 504 of IPC?6 CC.No.31403/21
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of above offence, the accused threatened CW1 stating that he will take away his life and will see how CW1 works in the said place and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 of IPC?
4. What Order?
08. The findings of this court on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: In the Negative, Point No.3: In the Negative, Point No.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
09. Points No.1 to 3: As these points are interlinked, they are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances of the case.
10. The allegations against the accused is that he has commuted the offences punishable under section 353, 504 7 CC.No.31403/21 and 506 of IPC. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused went to Narona Police Station and went to the Chamber of CW1 and spoke to him in a raised voice and abused him in filthy language and also told CW1 that he must work as per the direction of the accused in respect of the dispute between CW8 and 9 and also threatened CW1 with dire consequences.
11. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined the complainant - CW1 as PW2. He has deposed that the there was a dispute between CW8 and 9 in respect of their land and they had come to the police station in that connection, but they later returned stating that they will resolve their dispute in the presence of the elders of their village. To discuss about this issue, CW6 came to the police station along with the accused and 10 to 12 other peoples. He has deposed that when, he was telling CW6 that CW8 and 9 informed him that they will resolve their dispute in the presence of the elders of their village and family, the accused stood up all of a sudden and pointed his finger 8 CC.No.31403/21 towards him and in a high pitch told him and he is not working as per their terms, he must help their supporters only, he must work only in their favour, but, he is not doing so, he know how to get the work done and he will do that and show. He has further deposed that the accused behaved in a manner that threatener his professional reputation and interfered with his Government Work. He has deposed that CW10 to 14 were also present in the police station when the alleged incident took place.
12. From the evidence of the complainant, it goes to show that when the alleged incident took place CW6 was also present in the police station other than the police constables CW10 to 14. At this juncture itself, it is necessary to go through the evidence of CW6, as he is the independent witness to the alleged crime. He is examined as PW3. In his chief - examination, he has deposed that from 2018, he is the MLA from BJP. He has deposed that on 01-07-2018, he had been to Narona Village to attend a House Warming Ceremony. He has deposed that when, he came to know 9 CC.No.31403/21 about the fight in between the villagers, on that village, he along with the accused had been to the police station and spoke to the Police Officer present at the police station and told him to say words of wisdom and send them back as the parties are from same village and he along with the accused left the police station. He has deposed that the accused did not fight in the police station nor he behaved indifferently. He has deposed that he had not given any statement before the I.O in respect of the incident.
13. At the request of Lrd. Sr. APP., he is treated as hostile and permission as accorded to cross - examine him. In the cross - examination done by Lrd. Sr. APP., he has denied all the suggestions put to him with regard to the alleged incident. As such, the evidence of this witness is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. The prosecution has examined two police constables as PW10 and 11, who were said to be in the 10 CC.No.31403/21 police station, when the alleged incident took place. They have deposed that CW6 along with the accused and 10 to 12 others came to their police station to discuss with CW1 with regard to a complaint given by CW8 and 9. They have deposed that when, CW6 was discussing about the same to CW1, the accused all of a sudden stood up and told CW1 in a high tone that he must help only their supporters and he must work in their favour only, but, he is not doing so and he know how to get it done. They have deposed that the accused behaved in a manner that threatened the professional reputation of CW1 and interfered with his Government Work.
15. In the cross - examination of PW10 and 11, they have deposed that CW4, 5 and 7 were also present on the said date in the police station and they have seen them. They have deposed that CW6, accused and CW7 had come to the Chamber of CW1. Rest of the cross - examination is denial of the case of the prosecution. As such, the same is to discussed.
11 CC.No.31403/21
16. On reading the evidence of PW10 and 11, it emerges that CW4, 5 and 7 had also accompanied CW6 to the police station and in the charge sheet, they are cited as eye - witnesses. They are examined as PW5, 8 and 9. They have deposed that the accused is known to them, because he is the political figure of their village. They have deposed that they do not know anything about the alleged incident. They have not given any statement before the police. They do not know about the civil dispute in between CW8 and 9. At the request of Lrd. Sr. APP., they are treated as hostile and permission as accorded to cross - examine them. In the cross
- examination done by Lrd. Sr. APP., they have denied the alleged incident. As such, the evidence of these witnesses is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
17. It is alleged that there was a civil dispute between CW8 and 9 and in connection with the same, CW6 and the accused had gone to the police station. These two witnesses are examined as PW6 and 7. They have deposed that they 12 CC.No.31403/21 know the accused, as he is a political person. They have deposed that there was no galata between them in respect of the property. They have deposed that they have not gone to the police station in connection with any property dispute. They have deposed that they do not know about the alleged incident. They have deposed that they do not know about the alleged galata that took place between the accused and the police. They have deposed that the police have not enquired them and they have not given any statement before the police. At the request of Lrd. Sr. APP., they are treated as hostile and permission as accorded to cross-examine them. In the cross - examination done by Lrd. Sr. APP., they have denied the alleged incident. As such, the evidence of these witnesses is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
18. The spot mahazar witnesses are examined as PW1 and PW4. They have deposed that the police have not drawn any mahazar in their presence. The police have obtained their signature on a document in the premises of the 13 CC.No.31403/21 police station. They have deposed that after obtaining the signature, they were taken to the Chamber of the PSI and photo was also taken. The mahazar and the photo is marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
19. The Police Officer who registered the case is examined as PW12 and the Police Officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet is examined as PW13. PW12 has deposed that on 04-07-2018, when, he was on duty as a SHO of their Police Station, CW1 came to the police station and lodged the complaint. On receipt of the same, he registered the crime and forwarded the FIR to the Jurisdictional Court. The FIR is marked as Ex.P9. PW13 has deposed that he received the case papers from PW12 for further investigation and on 05-07-2018, he visited the scene of occurrence and drew the mahazar at the spot which is shown to him by CW1 in the presence of the panchas CW2 and 3. He has also deposed that on the very same day, he has recorded the statement of CW4 to 7 and CW10 to 15 and the further statement of CW1. He has deposed that on 08-07- 14 CC.No.31403/21 2018, he visited Nalanda Police Station and recoded the statement of CW8 and 9. And on 21-07-2018, he concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet to the court.
20. The prosecution is expected to prove that the accused assaulted or caused criminal force to deter CW1 from discharging his duty as a public servant. The prosecution should also prove that the accused when doing so intentionally insulted CW1 with an intent to provoke breach of the peace and the accused has committed the offence of criminal intimidation.
21. Lrd. Sr. APP has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the commission of the offence by the accused as alleged in the complaint. She has also argued that all the witnesses have deposed about the accused visiting the police station along with CW6 in connection with the civil dispute between CW8 and 9. In other words, she has argued that the presence of the accused and CW6, in the Chamber of CW1, situated at Narona Police Station is proved 15 CC.No.31403/21 by way of oral evidence of the reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the main ingredients of the offence under section 353 of IPC are that the person accused of the said charge should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. She has also argued that the witnesses who have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution is influenced by the accused. She has drawn the attention of this court to the cross - examination of CW6, CW10 and 11 and also the cross - examination of PW13.
22. Admittedly, the prosecution witnesses who have supported the case in respect of presence of the accused in the Chamber of CW1 i.e., PW2, PW3, PW10 and PW11. Admittedly, PW2 is a Police Officer who is the complainant in this case. PW10 and 11 are the Police Officials who are working under PW2. They have no doubt supported the prosecution case by deposing about the alleged incident that has happened in the police station. Amongst the above, the 16 CC.No.31403/21 evidence of PW3 is very important, as he is the independent witness to the case on hand. He has turned aptly hostile to the case of the prosecution, by deposing about his presence in the said police station along with the accused on the date of incident. On perusal of the cross - examination done to PW2/ complainant, it goes to show that the presence of the accused in the police station along with CW6 is not disputed. In the cross - examination, it is suggested as:
"ದನನಕಕ 01-07-2018 ರನದದ ಆರರರಪತ ಮತದತ ಚಸ-6 ರವರದ ಅವರ ಬನಬಲಗರ ಜರತ ಆ ಊರನಲ ಗಗಹ ಪ ಪವರಶಕಕ ಎನದದ ಬನದದಗ ನಮಮ ಠಣಗ ಕರಡ ದ , ಬನದದದ ಅಲ ಆಗರದವ ಗಲಟಯನದ ನ ದದರ ಉಪಯಗ ಪಡಸಕರನಡದ ಆರರರಪತನ ವರದದದ ಈ ದರರನದ ನ ದದರ ಉದಶದನದ ಈ ದರರದ ಕರಟಟದನ ಎನದರ ಸರಯಲಲ".
23. As such, from the oral evidence placed before this court, it is no doubt clear that the accused and CW6 had been to the police station on the alleged date and both of them have spoken to PW2 in respect of the dispute between CW8 and 9. But, the material witnesses about the alleged 17 CC.No.31403/21 civil dispute i.e., CW8 and 9 have deposed that there was no dispute between them as such and they have also deposed that they have not gone to the police station on the alleged date. Lrd. Sr. APP has argued that CW8 and 9 are influenced by the accused. Even, if this line of argument is taken into consideration to be true, presence of the accused in the police station along with CW6 will not amount to any offence. Further, mere exchange of words between the accused and CW1/PW2 also will not constitute any offences as alleged by the prosecution.
24. Admittedly, PW2 the complainant and the other two Police Constables, PW 10 and 11, who were said to be present in the police station on the alleged date and time have deposed that the accused has all of a sudden stood up and pointed his finger towards PW2 and in a raised voice told him that he must do as they say, he must work in favour of their supporters and the accused has also told that he known how to make PW2 work as per their terms. No doubt, PW2 is an Police Officer and he was on duty on the alleged date and 18 CC.No.31403/21 time. Merely, being a public servant and he being on duty, when some words are exchange between the police men and the general public will not amount to the alleged offences.
]] Section 353 of IPC reads as follows:
Section 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".
25. Assault is defined in section 351 of the Indian Penal Code, as anyone who makes any gesture or preparation with the intent or knowledge that such gesture or preparation would then cause any person present to suspect that the person making the gesture or preparation might be about to use criminal force against that person. 19 CC.No.31403/21
26. According to the Oxford Dictionary, assault is "An act that threatens bodily damage to a person (whether or not actual harm is done)". It's a word that's simple to grasp yet complex to define. A simple threat might be seen as an attack. The essence of the crime is the psychological effect that the threat has on the victim. Words alone do not constitute an attack. However, the words a person says might give his actions or preparations such a meaning that they become an assault. The ingredients of assault are:
1. Gestures or planning: the accused must make a gesture or plan to use unlawful force.
2. Such preparations or gestures should be done in the presence of the person in whose respect it is made.
3. The conduct was done with the goal of causing fear of damage or injury;
4. The conduct made the victim fearful that he might be hurt as a result of another person's actions.20 CC.No.31403/21
27. The next word used in section 353 of IPC is Criminal Force. When a person uses force on another individual without their permission in order to conduct an offence and with the aim of inflicting harm to that individual in the form of injury, fear, or irritation, that person is said to be employing criminal force on the other person. The force that has been specified in section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essentials of section 350 are satisfied.
28. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the main ingredients of the offence under section 353 of IPC are that the person accused of the said charge should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. Now, in the case on hand, nothing is forthcoming as to how the accused prevented or deterred the complainant from discharging his duty as a public servant. As stated above mere exchange of words in the police station, when CW1 was in the police station will not constitute the offence under section 353 of IPC. 21 CC.No.31403/21
29. The other offences alleged by the prosecution is section 504 and 506 of IPC which reads as follows:
Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace:-
"Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both".
Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation:- "Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both".
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc:- and "if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fir, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a women, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 22 CC.No.31403/21 extend to two years or with fine, or with both".
30. For an offence to attract the provisions of section 504 and 506 of IPC, it should be to such a high degree that it should cause a person who has been insulted to disrupt public peace. In order for an offence to be considered under 504 of IPC, these conditions must be met:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property;
or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
And for a offense to be constituted under 506 of IPC, these conditions must be met:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some 23 CC.No.31403/21 injury to his person,reputation or property;
or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
31. Here, in the case on hand, there is no evidence before the court that the accused has used abusive words. Though, the witnesses have deposed that the accused has used filthy language, no where either in the oral or the documentary evidence, it is stated as to what are those abusive words uttered by the accused. The witnesses have also not deposed that the accused abused with intent to cause alarm to CW1; or to cause him to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as means of avoiding the execution of such threat. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to 24 CC.No.31403/21 prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt shall be extended in favor of the accused. Accordingly, Points No.1 to 3 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
32. Point No.4:- In view of my findings given on Points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 353, 504 and 506 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Typed by me directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of September - 2022).
(Preeth. J) XLII Addl. CMM (Special Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 25 CC.No.31403/21 ANNEXURES Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW.01 : Prabhu Linga, PW.02 : Gajanan K. Naik, PW.03 : Basavaraj, PW.04 : Basavaraj, PW.05 : Vishwanath, PW.06 : Sharanubasappa Savalagi, PW.07 : Amaranath Savalagi, PW.08 : Rajakumar, PW.09 : Rajakumar, PW.10 : Lakshmikanth, PW.11 : Bheemashankar, PW.12 : Shivayogi, PW.13 : H.B.Sannamani.
Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P.01 : Panchanama,
Ex.P.01(a) : Sig. of PW.01,
Ex.P.01(b) : Sig. of PW.04,
Ex.P.01(c) : Sig. of PW.13,
Ex.P.02 : Photo,
Ex.P.03 : Complaint,
Ex.P.03(a) : Sig. of PW.02,
Ex.P.03(b) : Sig. of PW.12,
Ex.P.04 : Statement of PW.05,
Ex.P.05 : Statement of PW.06,
Ex.P.06 : Statement of PW.07,
Ex.P.07 : Statement of PW.08,
Ex.P.08 : Statement of PW.09,
Ex.P.09 : FIR,
Ex.P.09(a) : Sig. of PW.12,
26 CC.No.31403/21
Material object exhibited for the Prosecution: -
- NIL -
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
- NIL -
Documents exhibited for the defence Accused:-
- NIL -
(Preeth. J) XLII Addl. CMM (Special Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 27 CC.No.31403/21