Bangalore District Court
Keshavamurthy, Hc-876 vs Harry on 29 September, 2025
KABC030844732019
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 14-11-2019
Registered on : 16-11-2019
Decided on : 29-09-2025
Duration : 5 years, 10 months, 15 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 29th Day of September, 2025
C.C. No.27323/2019
(Crime No.93/2019)
State by J.C. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Harry,
Aged about 21 years,
S/o Sri John Francis,
R/of 3rd Cross, Geetha
Mandira Street, Benglauru.
KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019
2. Sri Arun,
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Sri Shivakumar,
R/at No.121, Gangabhavani
Quarters, MRS Palya,
J.C.Nagara, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Rep.by Sri Vinu.N.S., Adv for Accused No.1 and 2)
1. Date of commission of 09-10-2019
offence
2. Date of FIR 09-10-2019
3. Date of Charge sheet 30-10-2019
4. Name of Complainant Sri Keshavamurthy,
HC-876 of J.C. Nagara
PS, Bengaluru.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 353, 341,
504, 506 read with
Sec.34 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 09-12-2021
charges
7.Charge Pleaded not guilty
2
KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019
8. Date of commencement 21-10-2022
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 29-09-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 29-09-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of J. C. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 09-10-2019 at 9 am, CW1 namely Sri Kesavamurthy and CW8 namely Sri Manjunath, the Head constable of J.C. Nagara PS, whilst patrolling near Shivanna Circle within the limits of J.C. Nagar Police Station, on the occasion of Dasara festival observed that the accused No.1 and 2 were threatening the public by holding knife and long, when they questioned, the accused No.1 and 2 with common intention wrongfully restrained CW1 3 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 and CW8, abused them with filthiest language and threatened them thereby caused obstruction for discharging their public duties and ran away when they tried to catch them.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1, CW11 Sri Rangaswamaiah, ASI of J.C. Nagar P S registered Crime No.93/2019 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 323, 504, 506 R/W Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR and drawn spot mahazar on 09-10-2019 at 10.30 to 11.30 pm in the present of CW2 namely Sri Janardhan and CW3 namely Sri Hanja as per Ex.P2 and thereafter handed over the case papers to CW12 Sri B. K. Manjaiah.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from CW11, CW12/PW7 continued investigation, CW6 Sri Rajanna produced the accused persons before him along with report (Ex.P3) and seized the knife from the possession of accused through seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4 from 9.30 pm to 10.30 pm in the presence of CW4 namely Sri Kaleel and CW5 namely Sri Shabaz, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019
5. The accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail at pre-cognizance stage by the order dated 11-10- 2019.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the alleged offences against the accused No.1 and 2.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the charge for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 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 12 witnesses however examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents and MO1 and closed their side. The examination of CW11 was given up by the order dated 10-06-2025 as he was said to have died on 27-02-2021 as per death certificate. On account of examination of CW9, the examination of CW13 was given up by the order dated 08-07-2025. The presence of CW3 and CW4 5 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 could not be secured despite due execution of proclamation and hence their examination was dropped up by the order dated 20-09-2025 and 25- 09-2025 respectively.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 09-10-2019 at 9 am, the accused No.1 and 2 with common intention wrongfully restrained CW1 namely Sri Kesavamurthy and CW8 namely Sri Manjunath, the Head constable of J.C. Nagara PS, near Shivanna 6 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 Circle within the limits of J.C. Nagar Police Station thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/Sec.341 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.1 and 2 abused CW1 and CW8 with filthiest language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 504 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 and 2 obstructed CW1 and CW8 from discharging their public 7 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 duties thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/Sec.353 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.1 and 2 threatened CW1 and CW8 with dire consequences thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/Sec.506 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order 8 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 4: 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 witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 by name Sri Keshavamurthy being informant examined as PW1 deposed that on 09-10- 2019, while he along with CW8 were patrolling on the occasion of Dasara festival, the accused were holding knives and swords near Suvarna Circle and threatening the public, when he questioned them, the accused persons abused and obstructed their duty, when they went to arrest them, they escaped and ran away when they tried to catch them. Since the accused persons were localized and he found out their names and addresses and came to the police station and filed a complaint as per Ex.P1.
ii. CW2 Sri Lakshmi Janardhan, pancha witness examined as PW2 identified his signature on Ex.P2 as Ex.P2(a) and deposed that he signed on to the said document at the request of police, he does not know the content of Ex.P2, no mahazar has been 9 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 conducted in his presence. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness and in his cross examination, he deposed that on 09-0-2019 at 10.30 am to 11.30 am at Shivanna circle, J.C. Nagara Main road, the police conducted mahazar in his presence.
iii. CW6 Sri A.Rajanna, the then ASI of J.C. Nagar PS examined as PW3 deposed that on 10-10- 2019, he along with CW7 near the TV Tower apprehended the accused No.1 and seized one knife, produced the knife and accused before CW12 and submitted report as per Ex.P3.
iv. CW5 by name Sri Shahabaaz, pancha witness examined as PW4 deposed that on 10-10-2019, the police produced the accused persons before police station and seized a knife from accused No.1. In this regard, the police called him to station and seized the said knife as per MO1.
v. Sri Manjunath.G. the the HC of J.C. Nagara PS examined as PW5 who accompanied PW1 during patrolling duty, deposed the same version of PW1.
vi. CW9/Sri Gous Khan Pasha, the the HC of J.C. Nagara PS examined as PW6 deposed that, on 09-10-2019 at 9.15 am, the accused persons were 10 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 making galata near Shivanna Circle by holding a knife and long and told the CW1 and CW8 to go to the police station and file a complaint against accused persons.
vii. Sri B.K.Manjaiah, the then PI of J.C. Nagara PS examined as PW7 deposed that after receipt of case papers from CW11, he continued investigation, CW6 produced the accused before him along with report as per Ex.P3, he seized the knife from the possession of accused through Seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4 from 9.30 pm to 10.30 pm, in the presence of CW4 namely Sri Kaleel and CW5 namely Sri Shabaaz, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He identified his signatures on Ex.P3 and Ex. P.4 as Ex.P3(b) and 4(b), MO1.
15. Before adverting into the factual matrix of the case, it is relevant to discuss on the point No.3 to consider and analyze the necessary ingredients of Section 353 of IPC which reads as under:-
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever 11 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 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."
Thus, the above section makes it very clear that in order to attract the offence, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use of criminal force restraining public servant from performing their official/public duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter CW1/PW1 and CW8/PW5 from discharging their duty. In order to make out a case under section 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet out essential requirements that public servants must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when they were carrying out their responsibilities or with the object of preventing or deterring them from discharging their duties.
12KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019
16. To establish as to whether the PW1 and PW5 have assaulted or used any criminal force upon them it is necessary to examine the definition of 'force', 'criminal force' and 'assault', which are defined in Sections 349, 350 and 351 of IPC which are as under:-
Section 349: Force-- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:13
KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 First.--By his own bodily power.
Secondly.--By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly.--By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
A reading of above Section makes it clear that a person is said to use force in any of the three methods mentioned above. The exertion of energy or power that causes a movement or change in the external environment is known as force. The term "force" as defined in this Section refers to force exerted by a person on another human.
Section 350: Criminal force-- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or 14 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
From perusal of the above section, it is clear that the force that has been specified in Section 349 changes into a criminal force when the essential of Section 350 are satisfied. The essentials of Section 350 are intentional / deliberate use of force against any one; without consent, when the claimed assault involves illegal conduct and the force has to be utilized in order to conduct an offence or to cause hurt or fear to another person.
Section 351: Assault-- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation 15 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
Explanation.--Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
By keeping the aforesaid provision of law with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja and another Vs State of Karnataka and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 held that the person accused of offence under section 353 of IPC should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servants from discharging their duty and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
"12. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or 16 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant.
By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the accused persons to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the accused No.1 and 2 either assaulted the PW1 or PW5 or used criminal force to prevent them from discharging their official/public duties.
17. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused No.1 and 2 had assaulted the police officials (PW1 and PW5) or used criminal force with an intention to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties. Even assuming that there was some gesture or preparation to use such criminal force, the same cannot be considered as assault or using of criminal force to deter them from discharging their duties. Considering the above fact, this court is of the view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of IPC was not proved.
18. The next accusation is the accused persons wrongfully restrained the PW1 and PW5 and the relevant provision of law is that Section 341 IPC-
17
KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019
Punishment for wrongful
restraint.-- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both the wrongful restraint has been defined under Section 339 of IPC which reads as under
"Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed, is said to wrongfully to restrain that person."
To constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC, a person must have wrongfully restrained another person from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits. In the instant case, there is no allegation or material on record that the accused No.1 and 2 restrained the police personnel (PW1 and PW5) from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the police personnel from discharging their duties and the said 18 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 principle is appreciated in the case of SYED ESA IBRAHIM and another vs STATE BY CHANNAPATNA EAST PS and another reported in NC:
2023:KHC:38832 vide CRL.P No. 10483 of 2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 02/11/2023 thereby the Point No. 1 is answered in negative.
19. The next accusation is that the accused persons abused the PW1 and PW5 with abusive language. The following ingredient of Section 504 of IPC comprises as follows;
(a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and
(c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
Thus, the intentional insult must be of such an extent that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to 19 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and mere fact that the accused abused the PW1 and PW5 is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC and the said principle is appreciated in the case of FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44.
20. It is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in order to a conclusion that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a PW1 and PW5 should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under 20 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1 and PW5 have not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC was not proved and hence the point No. 3 is answered in negative.
21. The next accusation is under Section 506 of IPC which reads as under
Section 506 IPC- Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation 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 fire, 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 woman, shall be punished with 21 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both Thus, in order to satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of PW1 and PW5 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 he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. If such act was exerted, then it could be punished under section 506 IPC for the offence of criminal intimidation.
22. In order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the PW1 and PW5 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 and PW5 or to make them to do, or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act within the definition of criminal intimidation and the said principle is appreciated in the case of MANIK TANEJA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423. It appears from the Ex.P1 that the accused No.1 and 2 have threatening public by showing the long and knife however has not threatned the PW1 and PW5 22 KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 whilst on duty. The prosecution has not establish the prime ingredients i.e., intention which is the explicit for conviction under section 506 of IPC for causing alarm to PW1 and PW5 and therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC was not proved against the accused persons
23. IO did not secure any best evidence as a matter of proof to prove the prosecution case except registration of complaint, drawing of spot mahazar and recording the statement of witnesses.
24. None of the public were made as witnesses in this case as to the alleged incident dated 09/10/2019.
25. The seizure of knife (MO1) was not at the date of alleged incident rather was on 10/10/2019.
26. Though it is alleged that the accused No.1 and 2 are obstructed their public duties by abusing them, utmost may constitute an offence under Section 186 of IPC however the prosecution failed to put forth any ingredients as to Section 186 of IPC and never explained how their public duties were obstructed.
23KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019
27. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of accused No. 1 and No.2, the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sri T. P. Basavaraju Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2534. In the absence of any material evidence to corroborate the alleged offences levelled against the accused No. 1 and No. 2, this Court cannot presume that the accused accused No. 1 and No. 2 was present at the scene and had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, this court answer point No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
28. Point No.5:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 4 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
24KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 353, 504, 506 read with sec. 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appear period, MO1 shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29 th day of September, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.25
KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Keshavamurthy/Informant PW2 : Sri Lakshmi Janardhan/Mahazar witness PW3 : Sri A.Rajanna/ASI PW4 : Sri Shabaaz/Mahazar witness PW5 : Sri Manjuanth.G./HC PW6 : Sri Gous Khan Pasha/HC PW7 : Sri B.K.Manjaiah/PI/Partly IO Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint/PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar/PW Ex.P3 : Report/PW3 Ex.P4 : Seizure Mahazar/PW4 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Knife Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.26
KABC030844732019 CC No.27323/2019 29-09-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 353, 504, 506 read with sec. 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appear period, MO1 shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 27