Bangalore District Court
K.G. Nagara P.S vs Tulsi on 23 July, 2025
KABC010198552022
IN THE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71)
Present:
Sri. SANTHOSH C.B., B.A., LL.B.,
L Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.CC. No. 1691/2022
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2025
COMPLAINANT : State of Karnataka
By Kempegowda nagar P.S.
Bengaluru
[By Learned Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
ACCUSED : A1 Tulsi
W/o Munishankar, Aged about 40
years, R/at N.K Homes Apartment,
5th floor, Veeraswamy garden, R K
Mata layout, K G Nagar,
Bengaluru
[By Sri. M D Paramesha. Adv.]
1 Date of Commission of offence 13.04.2022
2 Date of report of occurrence 13.04.2022
2
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
3 Date of arrest of Accused : 14.04.2022
Date of release of Accused : 06.05.2022
Period undergone in custody by 23 days
Accused :
4 Date of commencement of 06.02.2024
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 17.06.2025
6 Name of the complainant K. Sushma
7 Offences complained of Sec.341, 323, 355, 504
of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r)
(s) of SC&ST Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused found not
guilty
JUDGMENT
Sri. Srinivasamurthy B L, the Assistant Police Commissioner, V.V Puarm Sub-Division, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 323, 355, 504 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r)(s) of SC&ST Act.
2. The gist of the prosecution case as emanated from the charge sheet is that, CW1 Smt. Rashmi, an Excise Inspector was residing with her family at flat No.201, N K Homes apartment, Veeraswami garden, R K Math layout within 3 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 the jurisdiction of Kempegowda Nagar police station, Bengaluru. The accused Smt. Tulasi, was employed as a maid servant in the house of complainant and later it is alleged that she left the job after knowing the caste of complainant as schedule caste. After 15 days, when CW1 went to the terrace to dry clothes, at that time the accused started quarreling with CW1 for no reasons and insulted taking her caste name.
3. Whenever CW1 confronted the accused, the accused used to take the caste name of CW1. That on 13.04.2022 at about 8 am near the parking slot of the said apartment, CW1 wrongfully restrained CW1 and 2, started abusing CW1 taking her caste name, quarreled and all of a sudden the accused took her slipper and hit on the left hand of CW1, twisted her right hand fingers, assaulted with her hands on her body and caused injuries to CW1. CW3 and 4 who were at the scene of the alleged incident intervened to resolve the quarell, but the accused also slapped CW3 and 4 on their forehead with her hand.
4
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
4. Based on the first information lodged by the complainant, a crime case came to be registered against the accused. The accused was arrested on 14.04.2022 and she was remanded to J.C. and she was released on 06.05.2022. Completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused on 19.07.2022 before this court.
5. After receiving the final report, summons was issued to the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared and represented through her counsel Sri.S.M.R.. On 12.12.2022, the charge was framed and read over to the accused, for which she pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to 9 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to P15 and One material object was marked as M.O.1. The Accused was examined U/S.313 of Cr.P.C. and she denied all the incriminating circumstances that has appeared in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
5
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire records. On the basis of the materials available on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.04.2022 at about 8 am near the parking slot of N K Homes apartment, the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 341 of IPC?
2 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place all of a sudden the accused took her slippers and hit on the left hand of CW1, twisted her right hand fingers, assaulted with her hands on her body and caused injuries to CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC?
3 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place accused wrongfully restrained CW1 and 2 with an intention to humiliate CW1, accused hit CW1 with her slipper and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 355 of IPC?6
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 4 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place, the accused abused CW1 and CW2 in filthy language in public view and thereby disturbed the public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 504 of IPC?
5 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused abused CW.1 by taking name of her caste, intentionally insulted/intimidated with intent to humiliate the CW1, CW2 who belonged to Scheduled Caste within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3(1)(r) of SC & ST Act?
6 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused intentionally insulted/intimidated with intent to humiliate the CW1, CW2 who belonged to Scheduled Caste within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3(1)(s) of SC & ST Act?
7 What Order?
7
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
8. After the close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings to the above points are as follows.
Point No 1 to 6 : In the Negative.
Point No 7 : As per the final order:
for the following:
REASONS
9. Points No. 1 to 6. : Since these points are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and findings.
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution had cited 16 witnesses in the charge sheet and examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9. PW.1, 2 and 4 are the eye witness to the alleged incident. PW.3 is a witness to Ex.P3/spot mahazar.
PW.5 is the WPC who traced the accused and produced her before the I.O.
8
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 PW.6 is the Doctor who examined the complainant and issued wound certificate.
PW.7 and 9 are the Investigation Officers who registered the case and conducted the entire investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
PW.8 is the complainant cum injured eye witness to the incident.
11. It is settled proposition of law that the burden in a criminal trial is always on the prosecution to prove the indictment doubt. This burden unless modified by legislative interference, continues on the shoulders of the prosecution from the beginning to the end of every criminal trial, whatever be the nature of evidence - direct or circumstantial and whatever be the defence taken up by the accused. In the light of the afore said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the evidence of PW.1 to 9 coupled with the documentary evidence, the prosecution needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
9
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
12. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a Special enactment is designed to address the systemic discrimination, social exclusion, and violence faced by marginalized communities of Schedule Castes ("SC") and Scheduled Tribes ("ST"). This was enacted to prevent crimes and atrocities against members of SC/ ST classes in India.
13. As per Section 8 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which deals with presumption as to offences. It provides that if the accused was acquainted with the victim/family, the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless proved otherwise. However, in order to give rise to presumption, there should be an allegation that the victim belongs to SC/ST community and then accused is not a member of SC/ST community and he committed the offence with the knowledge that the victim is a member of SC/ST community. It is only when these foundational facts are disclosed, the presumption under section 8 of act could be 10 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 drawn. Bearing these principles in mind, the case of the prosecution needs to be assessed.
14. As per Ex.P14/Complaint, the complainant - Smt.K.Sushma, working as an Excise Inspector at 8 th Sub- Division, Bengaluru, stated that she belongs to Adi Karnataka Schedule Caste and she had 2 children. Her husband is a Senior Pharmacist and from the past one year, she is residing with her family at Flat No.201, N.K.Apartment, 3 rd Floor, Veeraswamy Garden, R.K. Math Layout, K.G.Nagar, Bengaluru. She had purchased the said Flat for her own residential use from the Joint Venture owner Munikrishna. Thereafter, the accused Smt.Tulasi being the wife of her Vendor Munikrishna used to work as a maid servant in the house of the complainant from May, 2021. The accused said to have worked for 5 -6 months and after coming to know about the caste of the complainant, she left the job.
15. After 15 days, when the complainant went to Terrace to dry the clothes, the accused without any reasons 11 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 picked up quarrel and abused her by calling as prostitute and as 'Holeyaru'. The accused always used to abuse the complainant where ever she finds her. On 13.04.2022 at 8 a.m., in the morning the complainant was taking her daughter S.Manojna to Herbal Life Clinic at Vijayanagar. When the complainant and her daughter arrived at the basement of the apartment near their Innova Car, the accused seeing the complainant abused her by taking her caste.
16. All of a sudden, she picked up quarrel with the complainant and her daughter, she removed a slipper and slapped on her left hand and twisted her right hand fingers and assaulted with hands. When CW.3 and 4 came to rescue the complainant, the accused assaulted them with hands and also slapped them. As she was injured, she went to KIMS Hospital and obtained treatment on OPD basis. After discussing with her husband, she lodged the complaint belatedly on 13.04.2022 at 20.50 hours as per Ex.P14.
12
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
17. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the incidentally allegedly took place on 13.04.2022 at 8 a.m., in the morning in the basement of the apartment. The quarrel said to have been pacified by CW.3 and 4. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1, 2, 4 and 8 assumes greater importance in assessing the case of the prosecution. Since the complainant is the prime witness of the prosecution, I proceed to discuss her evidence first.
18. The complainant Smt. K.Sushma is examined as PW.8 on 21.03.2025. She deposed straight about the incident that on 13.04.2022 at 8 a.m., she along with her daughter, came to apartment parking place, where they found the accused. All of a sudden, the accused started abusing her by calling her as "Holeyalu, sulemunde', removed the chappal and assaulted on her left hand. She further twisted her right hand fingers. When her driver and maid came to her rescue, the accused slapped her driver. On the same day, she went to KIMS Hospital, obtained treatment and she went to P.S. and wrote the complaint as per Ex.P14 and lodged the same. PW.8 13 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 also deposed about the I.O. drawing mahazar in the crime scene, snapping Ex.P3 and P4/photographs. She identified the chappal used in the assault as MO.1. PW.8 deposed that she does not know why the accused assaulted her and she thought that may be because of her caste, the accused might have abused and assaulted her.
19. In the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.8 deposed that at the time of incident, except herself, her daughter and her car driver, none were present. She deposed that the complaint was written by her driver and the driver stayed with her till lodging of the complaint. PW.8 admitted that she did not state the name of the accused before the Doctor and did not disclose her husband's name before the Doctor. PW.8 further agreed that at the time of drawing mahazar on 14.4.2022, the accused was very much present in her house, but she did not showed her to the police.
20. PW.8 admitted that the husband of the accused as the owner of the apartment and also as her vendor. PW.8 14 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 denied the presence of CCTV Camera in the apartment and the security guard. PW.8 pleaded ignorance about the salary being paid to the accused. But she denied that she had not paid any salary to the accused and because of which she left the job as a maid servant. PW.8 denied that she insisted the accused to come and join again as a maid servant and to look-after her daughter. But the accused went on refusing the same. Because of which, she lodged a false complaint against the accused.
21. PW.2 - Miss. Manojna, daughter of the complainant, deposed that she does not know the caste of the accused. But she used to work in their house as a maid servant. She further deposed that she does not know why the accused left the job. On 13.4.2022, she was not keeping well and intended to visit Herbal Life Clinic and hence, she went to the basement car parking. There the accused assaulted her mother with slipper, twisted her left hand and assaulted with her right hand. Accused abused as 'Holeya Jathiyavaru'. At that time, the car driver Balaraju and maid servant Pushpa were also present on the spot.
15
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
22. In the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.2 admitted that the accused sold all the flats in order to clear her loans and retained one Flat on 5th floor of the building for her occupation. PW.2 admitted that the accused was having good cordial relationship with them when she was working as a maid servant. PW.2 further admitted that except herself, her mother, maid servant Pushpa and Car driver Balaraju, none were present during the incident. But she deposed that all the apartment residents came and saw the incident. PW.2 admitted the presence of CCTV camera and security guard in the apartment.
23. PW.1 - Mr.Balaraju, Car driver of the complainant and an eye witness to the incident, deposed that on 13.04.2022 at 8 a.m., he was waiting in the basement car parking as instructed by the complainant to take them to the Hospital. Soon after arrival of the complainant and her daughter, the accused all of a sudden started to abuse the complainant by calling her as 'Holeya Jathiyavalu'. She removed the slipper and assaulted the complainant her her left hand, twisted hand fingers of the 16 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 complainant. When he and Pushpa went to rescue the complainant, the accused assaulted them. He identified MO.1/slipper and the accused before the Court.
24. In the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.1 deposed that he is working from the past 8 years with the complainant as Car driver and he receives his salary by cash. He admitted that his house rent is also paid by the complainant. PW.1 deposed that they went to the Police Station at 9 a.m. in the morning, again after medical examination, he dropped the complainant at 11 a.m., in front of the P.S. But he does not know at what time, the complaint was lodged. PW.1 admitted that at the time of incident, only CW.3 was present with the complainant and he denied the presence of other residents of the apartment during the incident. PW.1 admitted that the police recovered MO.1/chappal in his presence and it was furnished by the accused.
25. PW.4 - Smt. Pushpa, another eye witness to the incident and maid servant of the complainant, deposed that on 17 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 the date of incident at 11 a.m., she heard shouting noise in the basement of the apartment. Later she went and pacified the quarrel, at that time, the accused slapped on her cheek. Because of which she got frightened and left the spot by crying. She was not aware about the abuse hurled by the accused on the complainant. With this, she was treated partly hostile and subjected for cross-examination.
26. In the cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW.4 denied that the incident took place with regard to drying of the clothes in the terrace. She further denied about the accused assaulting the complainant with slipper, twisting her fingers and abusing her by taking the name of her caste. She denied to have given statement as per Ex.P7 before the police.
27. PW.3 - Mr.Mahesh, a witness to Ex.P3/mahazar deposed about the I.O. drawing Mahazar in his presence in the place of incident on 14.4.2022 and also identified Ex.P5 and P6 18 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 photographs. PW.3 also deposed about the recovery of MO.1/slipper from the spot.
28. In the cross-examination made by the learned defence counsel, PW.3 admitted that the police recovered MO.1/slipper which was lying on the spot.
29. PW.5 - Smt.Annapoorna, WPC deposed about tracing and apprehending the accused on 14.4.2022 and producing her before the I.O.
30. In the cross-examination made by the learned defence counsel, PW.5 deposed that she apprehend the accused from her house.
31. PW.6 - Dr.Shashidhar, KIMS Hospital, deposed that on 13.04.2022 at about 9.40 a.m., he examined the complainant with history of pain over neck and right hand. He treated the patient and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P12 stating that the injuries as simple in nature. 19
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
32. In the cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused got to elicit that the husband name of the patient is not mentioned in the wound certificate. Further admitted that the history of the assault is not recorded in the wound certificate.
33. PW.7 - Srinivas D.B., ASI, deposed that on 13.4.2024 at 8.50 p.m., he received Ex.P14/complaint and registered a crime case as per Ex.P15/FIR and handed over the further investigation to ACP.
34. In the cross-examination made by the learned defence counsel, PW.7 admitted that he did not record the reasons for delay in lodging the first information in the FIR.
35. PW.9 - Mr.B.L.Srinivasamurthy, ACP, deposed that on 14.04.2022, he received the case file, visited the crime scene, conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P3 and recovered MO.1/slipper furnished by the complainant and snapped Ex.P5 and P6 photographs, recorded the statements of witnesses and caused the arrest of the accused and remanded her to J.C. He collected the wound certificate, sketch and caste certificates of 20 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 the parties. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet.
36. In the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.9 denied that the wound certificate does not pertains to the complainant. Ex.D1 to D3 documents were marked by confronting to the witness. PW.9 admitted that MO.1/slipper cannot be seen in Ex.P5 and P6 photographs. PW.9 denied the presence of CCTV camera in the apartment. He denied that CW.1 to 4 are belonging to the same family.
37. This is all the evidence placed by the prosecution in support of its case. In the instant case, the accused is charged for abusing the complainant in filthy language and by taking name of her caste and also for assaulting the complainant with slipper and with hands. It is not in dispute that the complainant belongs to Adi Karnataka Schedule caste and the accused belongs to Okkaliga Caste. It is alleged that the incident took place when the complainant and her daughter arrived at the basement car parking at 8 a.m. in the morning. 21
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
38. As per the averments made in the complaint, soon after arrival of the complainant with her daughter to the basement car parking, the accused seeing the complainant, said to have abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with slipper. Further, she twisted the hand and fingers of the complainant. As per Ex.P14/complaint, the incident took place at 8 a.m. in the morning, but the complaint was lodged at 8.50 p.m. in the evening. However, no reason for the delay is recorded in the F.I.R. as per the mandate of the law. But the complainant stated in her evidence that she discussed with her husband about lodging of the complaint and hence there was a delay in lodging the complaint. However, to substantiate the same, the husband of the complainant is not examined before the court.
39. PW.1 - Balaraj, car driver of the complainant, deposed that he went to the P.S. with the complainant at 9 a.m. and again at 11 a.m. in the morning. But no information was recorded in the P.S. The complainant is not an ordinary woman and she is an Excise Inspector working at Bengaluru in Division 22 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 No.5. When such is the case, she was well aware of the fact that the complaint need to be lodged soon after the incident. No such efforts are made and hence no concession can be given. Lodging the complaint within time is a prime requirement to the prosecution case.
40. As argued by the learned defense counsel there are some suspicious circumstances surrounding lodging of the complaint. The complainant PW.8 deposed that she herself wrote the complaint in the P.S., the relevant statement is " ನಂತರ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಸ್ವ ತಃ ನಾನೇ ಬರೆದು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟೆರುತ್ತೇನೆ ". But In the cross-examination, she admitted that the complaint was written by her car driver, the extracted statement is that " ಸದರಿ ದೂರನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಚಾಲಕ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾನೆ". However, PW.1 car driver who alleged to have wrote the complaint did not whisper anything in his evidence regarding writing Ex.P14/complaint in the P.S. PW.1 categorically admitted that he was present with the complainant till lodging of the complaint, but he did not depose about going to the P.S. at 8.50 p.m. on the date of incident and about writing the complaint on the instructions of the 23 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 complainant. These contradictions occurred in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.8 creates serious suspicion in the preparation of complaint and the very genesis of the prosecution case.
41. That apart, PW.7 - ASI who received the complaint deposed that he received the complaint which was personally written by the complainant. Therefore, there are 3 contradictory versions with respect to the preparation of the complaint and its lodging.
42. Be that as it may, after lodging of the complaint, the I.O. - PW.9 deposed in his evidence that he recovered MO.1/chappal in the presence of the pancha witnesses which was furnished by the complainant at the crime scene by drawing Ex.P4/Mahazar. However, PW.8 - Complainant deposed in her evidence that she herself went to the P.S. and gave the slipper along with the complaint to the police. But PW.1 car driver deposed in his cross-examination that the police recovered the slipper in his presence furnished by the accused, but did not arrest the accused on the spot, the 24 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 relevant portion is extracted as "ಪೋಲಿಸರು ಮುದ್ದೇಮಾಲನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡರು. ಸದರಿ ಚಪ್ಪ ಲಿಯನ್ನು ತುಳಸೀಯವರೇ ತ o ದು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ರು". As per Ex.P4, MO.1/slipper is recovered on the next day of the incident from the crime scene in the presence of pancha witnesses. To this effect, the mahazar witness PW.3 deposed that he was present at the time of drawing mahazar and MO.1/slipper was lying on the spot and it was taken by the police voluntarily. There are 4 different versions in respect of seizure of MO.1/slipper and the prosecution has not made clear as to which version needs to be believed and which version needs to be discarded. If at all, the complainant had given the slipper along with the complaint to the police, then how MO.1 appeared on the next day of the incident in the crime scene, is not explained by the prosecution. This version of the evidence creates much doubt in the case of prosecution.
43. Coming to the occurrence of the incident is concerned, PW.1, 2 and 8, deposed in a very simple manner that the accused all of a sudden seeing the complainant and her daughter, abused and assaulted with MO.1/slipper, but the maid 25 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 servant of the complainant PW.4 - Smt.Pushpa who was present in the crime scene did not support the prosecution case. She deposed that she heard shouting noise from the basement and when she tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused slapped on her face. The evidence of PW.4 does not disclose anything about the incident. However, PW.1 and 2 deposed that the incident took place on the alleged date and time when they arrive at the basement car parking. Even the complainant also deposed that the incident took place when she arrived with her daughter to the basement. However, in the cross-examination, PW.1 and PW.8 denied the presence of security guard in the apartment and the installation of CCTV cameras in the apartment and also the presence of the residents of the apartment during the incident. But, PW.2 daughter of the complainant admitted in the cross-examination that the residents of the apartment were present at the time of incident. If such is the case, none of the independent eye witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Except PW.2 and PW.8, PW.1 is the only supporting eye witness to the incident. However, he 26 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 admitted in the cross-examination that he worked as a car driver for 8 years with the complainant and his house rent is also paid by the complainant herself. Therefore, PW.1, 2 and 8 are all related to each other as a family. In the back ground of the suspicious circumstances surrounding lodging of the complaint, a serious doubt arises to accept the sole evidence of the complainant.
44. In so far as the injury sustained by the complainant is concerned, PW.6 - Doctor deposed that the complainant sustained pain in the right hand and neck and accordingly, he issued Ex.P12/wound certificate. Ex.P12 also indicates tenderness over right hand and neck. Whereas in the complaint, the complainant stated that she was assaulted on her left hand. Therefore, the injuries stated in the wound certificate does not correspondence to the contents of the complaint and also the evidence given by the complainant.
45. It is also elicited in the evidence of the complainant that the accused and her husband are the owners of the entire 27 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 building, because of financial constraints, the accused worked as a maid servant in the house of the complainant for 5-6 months and during that no untoward incident occurred between the complainant and the accused. However, the complainant deposed that the accused left the job after coming to know about the caste of the complainant. In the background of this allegation, if the entire evidence deposed by the complainant, her daughter and PW.1 is considered, nowhere it is forthcoming that for what reason the accused assaulted the complainant with slipper. Though in the complaint, it is stated that there was a quarrel took place between the complainant and the accused when the complainant had been to dry her clothes on the terrace. But except the said instance, no other instances are brought on record. If at all the evidence deposed by the complainant is accepted as true that the accused left the job after she coming to know the caste of the complainant, then a serious doubt arises in the mind of this court as to how the sale transaction took place between the complainant and the accused. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased her flat 28 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 from the husband of the accused and thereafter, they started to reside in the same building with the accused and it cannot be ignored that the accused was not aware of the caste of the complainant during the sale transaction period. Considering these factors, the evidence deposed by the complainant coupled with the contradictions discussed above, I feel it not safe to accept the interested version of the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 8.
46. The delay in lodging the complaint is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, the same would go to the very root of the matter that too when the complainant being a Police Inspector working in the Excise Department. The seizure of MO.1/slipper is surrounded with full of suspicious circumstances and as contended by the learned defence counsel, false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out fabricating the evidence. PW.2 claims that eye witnesses are present at the time of incident, but PW.1 and PW.8 claim that no eye witnesses are present during the incident. Hence, with these contradictions and inconsistencies occurred in the 29 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is not safe to accept the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 8 and the benefit of these doubts occurred in the prosecution case needs to be enured in favour of the accused. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 to 6 in the Negative.
47. Point No.7:- In view of my findings on above points and the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under S.235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is acquitted of the charge brought against her.
The bail bonds of the accused and that of her sureties shall continue for a period of six months in terms of S.437(a) of Cr.P.C., to ensure her appearance before the higher court in case of any appeal or revision.
MO.1/Slipper being worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
*** 30 Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022 (Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and computerized by him, Script corrected and then pronounced in open court on this day of 23rd day of July, 2025.) Digitally signed by C B SANTHOSH CB SANTHOSH Date:
2025.08.14 12:33:58 +0530 [Santhosh C.B.], c/c LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF
OF PROSECUTION
PW.1 Balaraju
PW.2 Manojna
PW.3 Mahesh
PW.4 Puspa
PW.5 Annapoorna
PW.6 Dr. Shashidhar
PW7 Shrinivas D B
PW8 K Sushma
PW9 B L Srinivasmurthy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 Notice
Ex.P1 (a) Signature of PW 2
31
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
Ex.P.2 Statement of PW2
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P3 Pancha notice
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW 3
Ex.P.4 Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW 3
Ex.P.5,6 Photographs
Ex.P.7 Statement of PW4
Ex.P.8 Caste certificate of accused
Ex.P.9 Caste certificate of complainant
Ex.P.10 Sketch
Ex.P.11 Statement of PW5
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW 5
Ex.P.12 Wound certificate
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.13 Requisition
Ex.P.14 Complaint
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.15 FIR
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 Chappal
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of Order issued by DCP
Ex.D2 and 3 : MLC
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & M.OS
MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
32
Spl.C.C.No.1691/2022
-Nil- Digitally
signed by C B
SANTHOSH
CB
SANTHOSH Date:
2025.08.14
12:34:10
+0530
[Santhosh C.B.],
C/c LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.