Bangalore District Court
Suresh.P vs Kiran @ Kiran Kumar on 27 January, 2026
KABC030016082023 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 11-01-2023
Registered on : 11-01-2023
Decided on : 27-01-2026
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 16 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 27th Day of January, 2026
C. C. No.962/2023
(Crime No.149/2022)
State by J.C.Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Kiran,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sri Late Jagadish,
R/at No.178, Gangabhavani Layout,
M R S Palya, J.C. Nagar,
Bengaluru City ... Accused
(Represented by Sri Mohan.C., Advocate)
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
1. Date of commission of 20-11-2022
offence
2. Date of FIR 20-11-2022
3. Date of Charge sheet 28-12-2022
4. Name of Complainant Sri. Suresh.P.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 341, 323,
324, 326, 504, 506 of
IPC
6. Date of framing charge 30-01-2023
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 25-07-2025
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 27-01-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 27-01-2026
11. Final order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
2
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of J.C.Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 20-11-2022 at 7 pm whilst CW1 namely Sri Suresh.P. was going to home at 7up Circle, Marappa Garden, within the limits of J.C. Nagara Police Station, the accused wrongfully restrained CW1, abused him with filthiest language, forced him to give the money, when CW1 refused to give money, the accused hit on the head of CW1 with knife from back side and caused severe blood injury and threatened him with life consequence.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW7/PW2 namely Sri Lakshmipathy, HC of Hebbala Police Station registered Crime No.48/2021 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 504, 506, 509 read with Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P3 and handed over the case papers to CW8.
3KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers, CW8/PW1 continued the investigation, drawn spot mahazar on 23-03-2020 as per Ex.P1 from 10.20 am to 11.35 am in the presence of CW5 namely Sri Mani and CW6 namely Sri Venkatesh, on 21-06-2021 his staff produced the accused No.1 and No.2 before him, he recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statement of CW2 to CW4 and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 30-05-2023. Thereafter the accused produced under execution of warrant and he was remanded to judicial custody.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused charge for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known 4 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 11 witnesses and examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents and closed their side. Despite issuance of proclamation against CW2 and CW1, their presence could not be secured and hence they were given up from examination by the order dated 02-09-2025 and 25-09-2025 respectively. On account of examination of CW9, the examination of CW8 is given up by the order dated 20-12-2025. Despite giving sufficient opportunities for execution of bailable warrant against CW10 and CW11 (who are doctor and police official) failed to tender for examination and hence his examination was given up by the order dated 14-01- 2026.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he 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.
5KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 20-11-2022 at 7 pm at 7up Circle, Marappa Garden, within the limits of J.C. Nagara Police Station, the accused wrongfully restrained CW1 namely Sri Suresh.P thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.341 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, the accused abused CW1 with filthiest language, knowingly such abusive language will break the public peace thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.504 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time the accused had 6 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 voluntarily beaten CW1 with his hands and caused simple hurt to him thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.323 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, the accused voluntarily hit on the head of CW1 with knife from back side and caused grievous blood injury thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable u/Sec.324, 326 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on said date, place and time, the accused threatened CW1 with life threat thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC?
6. What order?
7KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-5 : In the Negative Point No.6 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1-5: 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. CW4 Sri Nandeesh, pancha witness examined as PW1 identified his signature on Ex.P1 seizure mahazar as Ex.P1(a) and deposed that 2-3 years ago, knife was found lying in a vacant place in MRS Palya and the same was seized by the police in the presence of the accused at around 12 noon. He pleaded ignorance whether the accused or anyone else signed to the Ex.P1 and identified the knife as MO1. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness wherein he admitted on 19-12-2022 from the vacant place of Manorayanapalay, the police have 8 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 seized one knife in the presence of himself and CW5 as MO1.
ii. CW5 Sri Eshwar, pancha witness examined as PW2 identified his signature on Ex.P1 seizure mahazar as Ex.P1(b) deposed that 2-3 years ago, knife was found lying in a vacant place in MRS Palya and the same was seized by the police as per Ex.P1 from 12 pm to 1 pm and he affixed his signature at the police station. He pleaded ignorance whether the accused or anyone else signed the same and he identified the knife as MO1. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness wherein he admitted on 19-12-2022 from the vacant place of Manorayanapalya, the police have seized one knife in the presence of himself and CW5 as MO1.
iii. CW3 by name Sri Babu, spot mahazar witness examined as PW3 identified his signature on Ex.P2 spot mahazar as Ex.P2(a) deposed that 3 years ago the police obtained his signature in Chinnappa Garden. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answer has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case.
9KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 iv. CW6 by name Sri Varun Kumar, eye witness examined as PW4 and CW7/PW5 Sri Ravi, pleaded ignorance about the case of prosecution. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined these witnesses by treating them as hostile witnesses however no favorable answer have been elicited from them to support the prosecution case. Their denial of statements given before the police are marked as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
v. CW9 by name Sri Thimmachari, HC examined as PW6 and deposed that on 19-12-2022, CW11 deputed him and CW8 to trace out the accused by issuing the intimation as per Ex.P5 who in turn they apprehended the accused from his house situated at Ganga Bhavani Layout and produced him before CW11 and submitted Ex.P6 report.
15. It ought to be seen that the informant cum Victim failed to appear before this court to adduce evidence on the alleged incident despite taking coercive steps to secure his presence.
16. The first charge is the accused wrongfully restrained the CW1 and the relevant provision of law is that Section 341 IPC-
10
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
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 restrained the CW1 from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that he restrained the CW1 when proceeded to his house at 11 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 Chinnappa Garden, JC Nagara and the said 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.
17. The next charge is that the accused abused the CW1 with abusive language. Section 504 of IPC reads as under
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.
The essential 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 12 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
(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 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 CW1 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.
18. 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 13 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 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 CW1 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 Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, CW1 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.2 is answered in negative.
19. The case of the prosecution is that the accused beaten up the CW1 with his hands during the quarrel and hence charged for an offence punishable under section 323 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 14 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 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.
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.
15KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
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 IPC and may be imprisoned for up to one year, with fine, or with both. It is important to note that the punishment may vary depending on the circumstances of case and the severity of the hurt caused.
20. However, the prosecution has produced wound certificate of CW1 however CW1 informant cum injured and CW10 Dr.Nanda Kumar.G., who treated CW1. It appears from the wound certificate dated 09/02/2022 that the CW1 namely Sri Suresh has taken treatment on 20/11/2022 at 4.20 pm for the alleged incident was taken place on 20/11/2022 at 3.20 pm however the wound certificate does not reflect the usage of knife and the name of assailants was not reflected in the wound certificate. Added to which, the CW1 did not subject himself for examination and eye witnesses namely PW4 and PW5 did not support the prosecution case as to the alleged incident. Unless the CW1 deposed before this court, this court cannot give any credential value to the complaint and wound certificate to ascertain whether the alleged act of beating him by the accused with his 16 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 hands was an voluntary or not or the acts was result of any provocation thereby the point No.3 is answered in negative.
21. Section 324 and 326 deals with offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both 17 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 Section 326 provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also with a liability to pay a fine.
Sections 324 and 326 of IPC like the two Sections immediately preceding, provide the ordinary punishment and punishment under certain aggravating circumstances of the offences mentioned thereunder. The two latter Sections apply to the case of causing "grievous hurt" and the immediately preceding two Sections to the case of 'hurt'.
18KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
22. "Grievous hurt" has been defined in Section 320 IPC, which read as follows: "
320 Grievous Hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous"-
First - Emasculation.
Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly - Privation of any
member or joint.
Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any members or joint.
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."19
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 Some hurts which are not like those hurts which are mentioned in the first seven clauses, are obviously distinguished from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious. Thus a wound may cause intense pain, prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim, although it does not fall within any of the first seven clauses. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly.
23. The expression "any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" has to be gauged taking note of the heading of the Section. What would constitute a 'dangerous weapon' would depend upon the facts of each case and no generalization can be made. The heading of the Section provides some insight into the factors to be considered. The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 are : (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha (2000(7) SCC 249) that there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for 20 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 committing murder or for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in some provisions e.g. Sections 324 and 326 expression "dangerous weapon" is used. In some other more serious offences the expression used is "deadly weapon" (e.g. Sections 397 and 398). The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case Section 324 or Section 326 would be applicable. The above preposition was highlighted in the case of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005 (2) JT
365). It ought to be seen that Mo1 was produced before this court however the IO/CW11 did not secure the opinion of the CW10 by showing the MO1 whether the alleged injury I..e, lacerated wound measuring 6 cm x 0.5 cm bleeding scar and the age of injury was 20 minutes to 2 hours was possible to occur by injuring the CW1 and no opinion was secured to corroborate that MO1 was sharp enough to lacerate the head of CW1.
24. It appears from the complaint that the CW1 was trying to run away from the spot however the accused came behind him and caused injury on his head. If the accused tries to attack the CW1, the 21 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 height of accused and the height of CW1 is very crucial in this case, however such particulars were not provided by the prosecution to corroborate whether the accused was taller than CW1 to cause such injury on his head by using knife.
25. Usage of knife in the alleged assault cannot come to a conclusion that MO1 was dangerous weapons unless the particulars of sharpness of knife was produced by the prosecution to ascertain that the alleged knife was a dangerous or not.
26. The CW1 had taken the treatment at 4.20 pm on 20/11/2022 and went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint at 7 pm however there was no permanent deprivation of any parts of body of CW1 and no treatment was taken by hospitalization for at least 21 days as the alleged injury was simple in nature. Thus, the ingredients of Section 324 or 326 of IPC was not proved by the prosecution.
27. 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 22 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 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 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 CW1 by the accused, 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 23 KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 under section 506 IPC for the offence of criminal intimidation.
28. In order to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the CW1 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 CW1 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 has threatening CW1. 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 CW1 and therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC was not proved against the accused persons thereby the point No.5 is answered in negative.
29. Looking to the materials placed on record, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against accused beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answer the point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
24KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
30. Point No.6:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 to 5, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) The jail authority is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, after obtaining his personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/-, in compliance of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C..
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 shall be destroyed.25
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27 th day of January, 2026) DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1: Sri Nandish Pancha witness PW2: Sri Eshwar Pancha witness PW3: Sri Babu Spot mahazar witness PW4: Sri Varun Kumar Eye witness PW5: Sri Ravi Eye witness PW6: Sri Thimmachari HC Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Seizure Mahazar PW1
Ex.P2: Spot mahazar PW3
26
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023
Ex.P3: Statement of PW4 PW2
Ex.P4: Statement of PW5 PW5
Ex.P5: Memorandum PW6
Ex.P6: Report PW6
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Knife Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.27
KABC030016082023 CC No.962/2023 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 341, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) The jail authority is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, after obtaining his personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/-, in compliance of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C..
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
28