Bangalore District Court
Ashwathaiah H.D., Asi vs Karle Marx on 3 February, 2025
KABC030616872021
Presented on : 02-09-2021
Registered on : 02-09-2021
Decided on : 03-02-2025
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 1 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 03rd Day of February, 2025
C.C. No.22475/2021
in
(Crime No. 89/2020)
State by Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Karlmarx,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sri Kumar,
R/at No.81/4, 3rd Cross,
Near Doddamma Temple,
Nanjamma Layout, Manorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru.
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
2. Sri Shivakumar,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Sri Shambaiah,
R/at NO.127, Varadaraja
Swamy Layout, Near Shruthika Apartment,
Singapura Layout,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru City.
3. Sri S. Babnu,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sri Subramani,
R/at No.814, 4th Floor,
3rd Cross, 1st Main, Sulthanapalya,
Nanjamma Layout, Manorayanapalya,
Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Shivashankarappa, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 13-10-2020
offence
2. Date of FIR 13-10-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 26-2-2020
4. Date of framing of 04-03-2022
charges
2
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
5. Name of Complainant Sri Ashwathaiah.H.D. ASI
of Jalahalli Police Station
6. Offences complained of Under Section 353, 332,
504 of IPC
7. Date of commencement 11/04/2022
of evidence
8. Charge Pleaded not guilty
9. Date of Judgment is 03/02/2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 03/02/2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 332, 353, 504 read with section 34 of IPC.
3KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
2. Prosecution Case: As per the government order, the CW5 namely Sri Muniraju, BBMP Marshal and CW6 namely Sri Guru Jambagi, PC of Jalahalli PS were deputed on duty for filing of cases against those who were not wearing masks and were not maintaining social distance in respect of Covid-19, on 13-10-2020, at about 1.50 p.m. when they were patrolling on duty in Hoysala 149 at Gokula Bridge of Railway Gate, at that time, the accused No.1 was walking in front of Babu Motors Garage without wearing mask, for which CW1 Sri Ashwathiah H. D. ASI of Jalahalli PS, CW5 and CW6 told him to pay fine amount for not wearing mask, for which accused No.2 came out of the said garage and with common intention accused No.1 and 2 abused them with filthiest language and accused No.3 held the hands of CW1 and accused No.2 punched of CW1's left cheek with his fist and caused simple hurt. The accused No.3 dragged CW1 by holding his uniform which caused obstructed to perform their public duty.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information lodged by CW1 Sri Ashwathaiah.H.D., ASI of Jalahalli PS, CW8/PW7 Sri Lapakhsmurthy, PSI of Jalahalli PS registered a Crime No.89/2020 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 504, 332, 353 read with Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P5, sent the same to the Court and to his Superior 4 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 Officers, conducted mahazar on 13-10-2020 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 at 12.30 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. as per Ex.P2 and seized MO1-uniform under seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from CW8, CW9/PW8 Sri Guruprasad, PI of Jalahalli PS, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses, collected the wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and one document as per Ex.P5 and submitted charge sheet against accused persons for the alleged offences.
5. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused persons was enlarged on bail by the order dated 15- 10-2020.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused persons.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused persons.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused persons, the charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 332, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, 5 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 3 in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses however examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents and MO1 and closed their side. The examination of CW3 was given up by the order dated 11/04/2022 on account of examination of CW2 as he deposes the same. During the cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for accused marked one CD as Ex.D1.
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 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;
6KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13-10-2020, at about 1.50 p.m. when CW1 Ashwathiah.H.D. ASI of Jalahalli PS, CW5 Sri Muniraju, BBMP Marshal and CW6 Guru Jambagi, PC of Jalahalli PS were patrolling on duty in Hoysala 149 at Gokula Bridge of railway gate, in front of Babu Motors Garage with common intention accused No.1 and 2 abused CW1, CW5 and CW6 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?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above date, place and time, in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 voluntarily hit on the face of CW1 being a public servant with his fist and caused hurt 7 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.332 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 accused No.1 to 3 obstructed CW1, CW5 and CW6 from discharging their public duty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.353 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order 8 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 3: 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 has examined witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 by name Sri Ashwathaiah being Informant and the then ASI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW1 deposed that, on 13-10-2020, SHO deputed him and CW6 to duty in Hoysala vehicle, when they patrolling and along with CW5, a BBMP marshal, at 10.50 a.m. near Railway Bridge in Gokula, the accused No.1 was walking in front of Babu Garage without wearing a mask. While guiding him that he could not walk without wearing mask due to Covid, he had to pay fine, for which accused No.1 and 3 abused him, accused No.3 caught him and accused No.1 punched him on the left eye with his fist and also grabbed his uniform and torn vigil guard and left pocket. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken to the police station and complaint was filed as per Ex.P1, police have conducted spot mahazar at 12.30 to 1.30 p.m. as per Ex.P2 and produced the uniform at the police station which was seized under seizure mahazar Ex.P3. Further he identified his 9 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 signatures as per Ex.P1(a) and 3(a) and uniform as MO1.
ii. CW2 Sri Laskhman, mahazar witness examined as PW2 deposed that he identified his signatures on Ex.P2- mahazar as Ex.P2(b), which was drawn by the police on 13-10-2020 near Gokul Railway Bridge and identified his signature on Ex.P3 seizure mahazar as Ex.P3(c) which was drawn at police station and seized MO1.
iii. CW6 Sri Guru Jambagi, the then PC of Jalahalli PS, examined as PW3, who accompanied with CW1 deposed the same tone of PW1.
iv. CW7 Dr. Sri Sridhar.S., examined as PW4 deposed that on 13-10-2020 at 7 p.m., CW1 came to the hospital for treatment with the history of assault by the accused. When he examined and found to have pain and swelling on the left side of CW1's face. As per his opinion, the said injury is simple in nature, hence he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and identified his signature thereon as per Ex.P4(a). The said injury is likely to have been caused if a person punched his face with the hand.
v. CW4 by name Sri Suresh, examined as PW5 deposed that on 13-10-2020 at 10.45 am, there was a quarrel amongst the police and the accused near 10 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 Gokula Railway Gate over the issue of fine imposed for not wearing a mask. The accused persons grabbed the uniform of police, dragged them, abused and beaten them. The police were wearing MO1 on the said day.
vi. CW5 Sri Muniraju examined as PW6 deposed that he worked as a marshal in BBMP four years ago and was assigned to register cases against those who were walking without wearing masks along with Jalahalli police personnel during the Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, on 13-10-2020, while on duty in Hoysala vehicle near the railway track in Gokula, the accused No.2 namely Babu was working in the garage without wearing mask. When he questioned him about the same, he picked up quarrel with him and accused No.3 grabbed the uniform of CW1 and dragged him and accused No.1 hit on left side of CW1's face and obstructed them to discharge their public duty.
vii. CW8 by name Sri Lepakshamurthy the then PSI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW7 and deposed that on 13-10-2021, he received report from CW1 and on the basis FIR was registered as per Ex.P5, on same day he conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 from 12.30 to 1.15 p.m. and seized MO1 uniform under the seizure mahazar as Ex.P3 drawn from 2 pm to 2.45 p.m. in the presence of CW2 and CW3.
11KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 He identified his signature as Ex.P1(b), 5(a), 2(c) and 3(c).
viii. CW9 Sri Guru Prasad, the then PI of Jalahalli PS, examined as PW8 deposed that after receipt of the case papers from CW8, he recorded the voluntary statements of accused and the statements of witnesses, collected the wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and duty report of CW1 and CW6 as per Ex.P5 and after completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused. He identified his signatures as per Ex.P4(b) and 5(a).
15. Before adverting into the factual matrix of the case, it is relevant to discuss on the point No.2 and 3 to consider and analyze the necessary ingredients of Section 353 of IPC of IPC which reads as under:-
"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 12 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 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 duty of the prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use of criminal force restraining public servant from performing his official duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty. In order to make out a case under section 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities or with the goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties.
16. To establish as to whether the PW1 has assaulted the complainant or used any criminal force upon him, 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 13 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 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: 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.14
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 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 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 15 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 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 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.16
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 Section 332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. - Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that 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 three years, or with fine, or with both.
The essential ingredients of
Section 504 IPC-
(i) Intentionally insulting a person and thereby giving provocation to him;
(ii) The person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation will cause 17 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
With this background, this court has gone through the record wherein the PW1 along with one BBMP employee Sri Marshall Muniraj was directing the accused No. 1 to pay the fine for non-wearing of masks during pandemic period of Covid 19 and hence the alleged incident dated 13/10/2020 was taken place at 10.50 am and the said incident was reported to the Police Station at 11.50 am in the station house diary and the crime No. 89/2020 under section 353, 332,504 R/w Section 34 of IPC was registered. The station house diary depicts that the PW1 was deputed to day duty on 08.30am on 13/10/2020 however the prosecution i.e., IO(PW8) did not produce any single document that he was deputed for the duty for collection of fine for non-wearing of masks from the General Public.
17. It was the case of prosecution that the accused No. 1 to 3 have punched the face of PW1 thereby there was deterrence to his public duties however the PW1 deposed in the cross examination ನಾನು ದಿ. ೧೩-೧೦-೨೦೨೦ ರಂದು ಬೆಳೆಗೆ ೦೮.೩೦ ರಾತ್ರಿ ೦೮.೩೦ ಗಂಟೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
18KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 thus, it is clear that there was no obstruction to the public duties of PW1 by the accused No. 1 to 3.
18. The prosecution has not established that the accused No.1 to 3 had any criminal intention to assault or use the criminal force upon the PW1 at the time of discharging the public duties.
19. Added to which, the root cause of alleged incident was that the accused No. 1 and 2 were not wearing the masks however the bills was not produced to corroborate the alleged incident nor the said amount was recovered by the BBMP official on or subsequent alleged date.
20. Whether this court give any evidentiary value to the wound certificate produced by the prosecution as per Ex. P. 5 who is said to have taken treatment from K C General Hospital on 13/10/2020 at 7 pm i.e., after a gap of 9 hours from the alleged incident? In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon Ex. D. 1 i.e., CD. The learned APP has argued that the CD requires authenticity certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act to rely upon. However the PW1 himself 3 ಜನ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನಾನು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು 19 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ನನ್ನ ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ದಿನ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ಹರಿದು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಸ್ವಯಿಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ನನ್ನ ಅಂಗಿಯನ್ನು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. xxxxx ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ಲೇ ಮಾಡಿ ತೋರಿಸಿ ಸದರಿ ವಿಡಿಯೆಾದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಜರ್ಕೀನ್ ಧರಿಸಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
PW3 admitted in the cross
examination that
ದಿ.13-10-2020 ರಂದು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಕೃತ್ಯ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಜರ್ಕಿನ್ ಧರಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಜರ್ಕಿನ್ ಧರಿಸಿರುವುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಪೂಟೆಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಕಡತದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿಯವರು ತಂದಿರುವ ಲಾಪ್ ಟಾಪ್ ಗೆ ಹಾಕಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಅದರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದು ಲ್ಯಾಪ್ ಟಾಪನ್ನು ತೆರೆದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತೆರೆಯಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಿದ ನಂತರ ಸದರಿ ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಲಾಪ್ ಟಾಪ್ ಗೆ ಹಾಕಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಆ ದಿನ ದ್ವಿಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂತಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಎಂದು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದಾಗ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸದರಿ ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು 20 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 ನೋಡಿದ ನಂತರ 5 ನಿವಿುಷಗಳ ಕಾಲ ಸಮಯ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಜರ್ಕಿನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರೇ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊಡಿದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರ ಕೆಳಗಡೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
And PW6 in his cross
examination deposed that:
ದಿಃ 13-10-2020 ರಂದು ನನ್ನ
ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವನ್ನು ಅಚ್ಚುಕಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ನೆರವೇರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಮೇಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ನನಗೆ ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಲೋಪ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ಯಾಕೆ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು ನಾನು 8 ಗಂಟೆಗಳ ಕಾಲ ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವನ್ನು ಅಚ್ಚುಕಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಿನ ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅಡಚಣೆಯಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, the said CD was admitted by the PW1 and PW3 who were present at the scene of occurrence and did not dispute the authenticity of the CD(Ex. D. 1) and such being the case, the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not required for proving 21 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 the authenticity. On watching the CD coupled with the admission of the PW1 and PW3, it is clear that the PW1 was beating the accused No. 1 and was holding his collar neck and taking him to the Police Station and such being the case, PW1 had admitted the person in the CD was him and PW2 too admitted the alleged action of PW1 towards the accused No. 1. Added to which, on the date of alleged incident, the PW1 was wearing jerkin and such being the case, how the uniform and whistle guard could be torn by the accused No. 1.
21. The evidence of PW4- doctor is immaterial as the alleged Ex.P4 came into existence only after the registration of FIR i.e., an after thought document and not prior to the registration of the FIR as per Ex.P5. The time gap had taken by PW1 to take the treatment was almost 9 hours from the alleged time of incident though he deposed in the cross examination as he was very much working from 8.30 am to 8.30pm and hence the question of taking the treatment at the hospital at 7 pm and no whisper about the visit of PW1 to the hospital in the CD (Ex.P5). Therefore, the alleged assault by the accused No.1 to 3 to the PW1 and the acts of accused persons resulted in the obstruction to the public duties was not established by the prosecution rather appears that the PW1 had beaten the accused No. 1 and had taken the accused No. 1 by holding the collor neck to 22 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 the Hoysala vehicle. It could be hardly any evidence placed on record that the accused No.1 to 3 has beaten the PW1 and prevented his public duties.
22. Mahazar witness namely PW2 deposed that he signed in the police station after typing the same to the Ex. P. 2 and hence the same cannot be given any credential value.
23. The delay in furnishing the property form No. 86/2020 though seizure mahazar was dated 13/10/2020 raises the doubt in the mind of the court as it was submitted to the court on 24/10/2020. The delay in non-reporting of the seizure forthwith vitiates the seizure and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Shento Varghese Vs Julfikar Husen and others reported in (2024) 6 SCR 409.
24. Added to which, there is no single whisper about the shirt and whistle guard being torn in the complaint as per Ex.P1.
25. The Prosecution has produced the MO1- uniform under Ex. P. 3 having seized on 13/10/2020 from 2 pm to 2.45 pm however whether the said uniform was belongs to the PW1 was not proved by the prosecution as PW1 had to take the permission from his higher authority to obtain the uniform in 23 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 substitute of the same or should have informed to the superior authority about the production of uniform in this case. When there is no single piece of documentary evidence is produced by the prosecution, how this court believe the version of prosecution that the uniform belongs to the PW1.
26. The vital factor/prime ingredients is the the criminal intention of accused No.1 to 3 to assault PW1, PW3, PW6 to obstruct their public duties not established by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 353 and 332 of IPC thereby the Point No. 1 and 2 is answered in negative.
27. As far as the Section 504 of IPC is concerned, 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 the mere fact that the accused abused the PW1, PW3, PW6 is not sufficient by itself to warrant a 24 KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 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.
28. 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 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 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, the PW1, PW6, CW7 and CW10 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC who claims to be an victim and eyewitness. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out and hence this court answers the Point No. 3 in the negative.
25KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
29. 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, 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 No. 1 to 3 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, this Court cannot presume that the accused was present at the scene and had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, THIS COURT ANSWERS THE POINT NO.1 TO 3 IN THE NEGATIVE.
30. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 3 this Court proceeds to pass the following:
26KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 332, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused 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 appeal period, MO1 being worthless shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my loptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of February, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
27KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Ashwathaiah PW2 : Sri Lakshman PW3 : Sri Guru Jambagi PW4 : Dr. Sri Sridhar.S. PW5 : Sri Suresha PW6 : Sri Muniraju PW7 : Sri Lepakshamurthy PW8 : Sri Guru Prasad
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Report/complaint/PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar /PW1 Ex.P3 : Seizure Mahazar /PW1 Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate /PW4 Ex.P4 : FIR/PW7 Ex.P5 : ಠಾಣಾ ದಿನಚರಿ/PW8 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Uniform
28
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : CD/PW1
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
29
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
03-02-2024
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Sec. 332, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused 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 appeal period, MO1 being worthless shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.30
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021 VIII ACJM, B'luru City 31