Bangalore District Court
Suneetha N vs Rajesh Kharvi on 18 November, 2025
KABC030386842015
DEEPA Digitally signed
VEERASWAMY by DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 02-06-2015
Registered on : 02-06-2015
Decided on : 18-11-2025
Duration : 10 years, 5 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 18th Day of November, 2025
C.C. No.13803/2015
(Crime No.257/2014)
State by Sanjaynagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Rajesh Kharvi,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Late Sri Narayana Kharvi,
2. Smt. Arathi Kharvi,
Aged about 27 years,
W/o Sri Rajesh Kharvi,
KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
Both are R/at No.501,
Ramamandira Road,
Kodigehalli,
Sahakaranagara Post,
Bengaluru City ... Accused
(Rep. by Sri B.R.Venkatesh Kamath, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 19-11-2014
offence
2. Date of FIR 24-11-2014
3. Date of Charge sheet 03-12-2014
4. Date of framing of 30-03-2017
charges
5. Name of Complainant Smt. Sunitha
6. Offences complained of U/Sec. 384 of IPC
7. Date of commencement 22-02-2018
of evidence
8. Charge Pleaded not guilty
9. Date of Judgment is 18-11-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 18-11-2025
2
KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
11. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: On 24-11-2014 at about 2.50 pm at Radhakrishna Public school, at Nagashettyhalli, within the limits of Sanjay Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, the accused No.1 and 2 by putting CW1 namely Smt. Sunitha under threat and demanded her to give cash of Rs.1,00,000/- by alleging that their son namely Master Arjun was sexually assaulted by senior students of the school in refraining from them to disclose the said information to the media for safeguarding the school's reputation.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of first information given by CW1, CW15/PW6 namely Sri Parameshwara Hegde, PI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station registered Crime No.257/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 384 3 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P14 and sent the same to his superior officer and to the court.
4. Investigation: After registration of case, CW14 produced accused No.1 before him along with report as per Ex.P13 and seized Rs.1 lakh from the possession of accused in the presence of CW4 and CW5 through mahazar as per Ex.P10 from 3.15 pm to 4.15 pm, thereafter he drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW2 and CW3 from 4.30 pm to 5.30 pm, recorded the statements, collected the documents from school as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P9 and submitted the charge sheet against accused for the alleged offence.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused.
6. At the pre-cognizance stage, the accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 27-11-2014 and accused No.2 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 03-09-2015 at the trial stage.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 and 2.
4 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/20158. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.384 of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused 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 14 witnesses and examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents and closed their side. During the cross examination of PW1, the counsel for accused has got one document as Ex.D1. The process issued against CW2 and CW3 returned with shara "left address" and hence the examination of CW2 and CW3 were dropped out by the order dated 16-11-2024. Despite execution of proclamation against CW6, CW7 and CW8, CW10 they were not appeared before the court and hence their examination was dropped out by the order dated 18-3-2025, 26-6-2025 and 07-11-2025 respectively. On account of examination of CW14, the examination of CW12 and 13 were given up by the order dated 11- 09-2025.
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 5 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 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 24-11-2014 at about 2.50 pm at Radhakrishna Public school, at Nagashettyhalli, within the limits of Sanjay Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, the accused No.1 and 2 by putting CW1 namely Smt. Sunitha under threat and demanded her to give cash of Rs.1,00,000/- by alleging that, their son Arjun was sexually assaulted by senior students of the school for them not to disclose the said information to the media for safeguarding the school's reputation thereby resulted in commission of an 6 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 offence punishable under Sec.384 of IPC?
2. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1:- 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 the witnesses which are as follows
(i) CW1 by name Smt. Sunitha, being Informant examined as PW1 deposed that she was working as a principal at Radhakrishna Public School in Basaveshwara Block, Nagashetty. The accused's son namely Master Arjun Kharvi, was studying in LKG in theier school. On 19-11-2014 at 9 am, the accused came and informed that his son had been sexually assaulted and he would publicize the case in the media and took the child to the hospital for examination. The accused demanded Rs.1.5 lakhs to 7 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 settle the case, after discussing with the school management and other parents of the school, she confirmed that the accused was blackmailing them and filed a complaint before Sanjay Nagar Police Station along with the audio and video CD of the conversation she had with the accused. Later, the accused No.1 went to her school and received Rs.1 lakh by showing medical records and demanded for remaining Rs. 50,000/-. The police were present at that time, caught him along with Rs.1 lakhs and produced him before police station where amount has been seized as per Mahazar at Ex.P2 and released the same as per photo vide Ex.P3. She identified School Registration Certificate as per Ex.P4 to 7, the NOC document issued by the government as per Ex.P8 and the attendance register as per Ex.P9.
(ii) CW4 namely Sri Dorai Swamy, pancha witness examined as PW2 identified his signature on mahazar at Ex.P10 as Ex.P10(a) and pleaded ignorance about the contents of the said documents. In this regard, the learned Sr. APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before police is marked as Ex.P11.
8 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015(iii) CW5 namely Sri Ashok Kumar, pancha witness examined as PW3 identified his signature on mahazar at Ex.P10 as Ex.P10(b) and pleaded ignorance about the same. In this regard, the learned Senior APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before police is marked as Ex.P12.
(iv) CW9 namely Sri Mallikarjun, teacher, examined as PW4 deposed that CW1 informed him about the alleged incident and demanded Rs.1 lakhs for settle the case. CW1 called accused No.1 through his phone in respect of this matter.
(v) CW14 namely Sri G.L.Anjinappa, HC examined as PW5 deposed that, he along with CW12 and CW13 went to Radhakrishna Public School at 1 pm, apprehended the accused along with Rs.1 lakh and produced him before CW15 and submitted the report as per Ex.P13.
(vi) CW15 namely Sri Parameshwara Hegde, PI examined as PW6 and deposed that on 24-11-2014, he received complaint from CW1 being Principal of Radhakrishna Public School, registered a case and deputed his staff to arrest the accused, in turn they 9 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 produced accused No.1 before him with report as per Ex.P13, he seized Rs.1 lakh from the possession of accused in the presence of CW4 and CW5 from 3-15 pm to 4-15 pm thorugh Ex.P10 panchanama. Thereafter, he conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, recorded the statements of witnesses were, secured the documents as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P9 from the school and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against accused.
15. The accused was charges for the offence u/Sec. 384 of IPC, which read as:
383. Extortion.-- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
384. Punishment for extortion.--
Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
10 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/201516. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dhananjay @Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 14 SCC 768 laid down the following essentials of Section 383 of IPC as under:
"A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would demonstrate that the following ingredients would constitute the offence:
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
4. Such inducement must be done dishonestly."11 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
17. In the instant case, the PW1 has narrated the complaint version is 12 pages for demanding her to part money of Rs. 1 lakhs to the accused persons however PW1 deposed that she has given the audio and video CD of the conversation along with the complaint and the best known reasons why PW6/IO did not furnish the same along with the final report for this court to ascertain whether any fear was instilled in the mind of the PW1 to damage the reputation of Radhakrishna Public school.
18. Prior to the alleged date of incident, the son of accused No.1 and 2 namely Master Arjun was complained with the history of of sexual assault as per Ex.D1 so such being the case, IO/PW6 could have investigated about the said aspect which goes to show that the version of accused No.1 and 2 was not taken into consideration at the time of investigation of case. It is highly impossible for any parents who was born in the land of India could have demanded the money for such incidents particularly when the child was 3 ½ years old was subjected to sexual assault by his senior students. Rather prima-faciely appears from the record, the PW1 has lodged the complaint only to cover the misdeeds committed by the senior students. The accused No.1 and 2 being parents that too born in the land of India cannot imagined and was not an acceptable version that he demanded the Principal of Radhakrishna Public School i.e., PW1 to pay Rs.
12 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/20152,50,000/- when they were in pain for having such incident has taken place.
19. The major grievance of prosecution case was that PW1 was put in fear to part her money to safeguard the reputation of Radhakrishna Public School by the accused No.1. If such incident was or was not taken place, why the PW1 should give the money to accused No.1 as the PW1 being in authoritative position i.e., principal should address grievance as per law and added to which, when such incident of sexual assault upon the child was taken place however no such enquiry being conducted by her. If such was so, why the PW1 did not take any action immediately on the receipt of threat being alleged to have posed by the accused No.1.
20. If there was a demand from the accused No.1 to part the money of Rs.2 lakhs 50 thousand, then why she had to pay Rs.1 lakh to accused on 24/11/2014 and how and when the said money was paid by the PW1 from her pocket when there was board of management for Radhakrishna Public School.
21. Added to which, what was the best interest for PW1 to give her money to protect the reputation of Radhakrishna Public School. If the accused No. 1 and 13 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 2 visited the school on 19/11/2014, could have given the CCTV to IO/PW6 as the CCTV was in existence from date of formation of school. More so over, PW1 deposed in page 8 and 9 of her cross examination that ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ದಿ.21-11-2014 ರಂದು ಹಣ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುವಂತೆ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಶಾಲೆಯ ಮ್ಯಾನೇಜ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಪೋಷಕರ ಬಳಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಒಂದು ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂ ಹಣ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನಿಂದ ಡ್ರಾ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅದು ನಮ್ಮದೇ ಹಣ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಹಣ ನಮ್ಮ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಹಣ. ಆ ದಿನ ಒಂದು ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ನನ್ನ ವಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ದಾಖಲೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವಾಗ ಭಾವಚಿತ್ರ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ . ನಮ್ಮ ಶಾಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಶಾಲಾ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾದ ದಿನದಿಂದ ಇದೆ.
ದಿ.19-11-2014 ರಂದು ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಮ್ಮ ಶಾಲೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಲು ವಿಡಿಯೋವನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸ್ವತಃ ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ನನ್ನ ಕೊಠಡಿಗೆ ಬಂದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆ ದಿನ ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಇಲ್ಲ, ನಂತರದ ದಿನಗಳ ವಿಡಿಯೋವನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ದಿ.19-11-2014 ರಂದು ಬಂದು ಹೋದ ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಕೊಠಡಿಗೆ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ದಿ.19-11-2014 ರಿಂದ ಒಟ್ಟು ನಾಲ್ಕು ಬಾರಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನ ಕೊಠಡಿಗೆ ಬಂದು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ 14 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 ಮಾತ್ರ ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಹಣ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬಂದಿದ್ದ. ನಾನು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೆರೆ ಹಿಡಿದಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
she has taken photograph at the time of giving the money to the accused No.1 and the same was captured in the CCTV in page No.9. if such was so, why the PW1 or PW6 did not make any attempt to produce the same to corroborate their version.
22. When no piece of paper was produced by the prosecution to show that PW1 was having and given money of Rs.1 lakhs, how the version of prosecution to be believed that she had parted Rs.1 lakhs to the accused No.1 on 24/11/2014.
23. Though the PW1 lodged the complaint on 20/11/2014 as per Ex.P1, then why she asked him to come to the school for giving Rs. 1 lakhs which itself clear that the PW1 has foisted the complaint. The cross examination of PW1 has been reiterated as under ನಾನು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರನ್ನು ದಿ.24-11- 2014 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-00 ಗಂಟೆಯೆಾಳಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದೂರು ಕೊಡುವ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ವಾಪಾಸ್ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ದಿನ ಮದ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 01-00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಶಾಲೆಗೆ ಬಂದರು.
15 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಬಂದು ಹಣ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಲು ದಿ.22-11-2014 ರಂದು ಪೋನ್ ಮೂಲಕ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೆ.
and ನಾನು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರನ್ನು ದಿ.24-11- 2014 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-00 ಗಂಟೆಯೆಾಳಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದೂರು ಕೊಡುವ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ವಾಪಾಸ್ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ದಿನ ಮದ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 01-00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಶಾಲೆಗೆ ಬಂದರು. ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಬಂದು ಹಣ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಲು ದಿ.22-11-2014 ರಂದು ಪೋನ್ ಮೂಲಕ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಇಟ್ಟು ಕೊನೆಗೆ ರೂ.1,50,000/- ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು. The said complaint came into existence before parting the money to the accused No.1 and the PW1 despite lodging the complaint, how she could have given the money on demand of fear to the Accused No.1
24. Added to which, the prosecution has not explained why the accused No. 2 was implicated in this case. It appears from the record that the complaint was lodged to overcome the complaint given by the accused No.1 and 2 in respect of their child abuse.
16 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/201525. The version of complaint as per Ex.P1 has been extracted as under
.......ಶಾಲೆಗೆ ಬಂದ ತಕ್ಷಣವೇ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಸುದ್ದಿ ಕೇಳಿ ಆಘಾತವಾದರೂ ಶಾಲೆಯ ಉಸ್ತುವಾರಿ ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕಾದುದು ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವಾದ ಕಾರಣ ಶಾಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉಸ್ತುವಾರಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ನನಗಿದ್ದ ಪಾಠವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ನನ್ನ ಕೊಠಡಿಗೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿನ ದುಗುಡವನ್ನು ತಾಳಲಾರದೆ ದೂರವಾಣಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆನ್ನುವಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಾಗುತ್ತಿರುವ ಆತಂಕವನ್ನು ಅರಿತ ನನ್ನ ಸಹೋದ್ಯೋಗಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ಮಲ್ಲಿಕಾರ್ಜುನರವರು ಸುಮಾರು 11.00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಅವರದೇ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ನಿಂದ ದೂರವಾಣಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದರು. ಆದರೆ ರಾಜೇಶ್ ಕಾರ್ವಿಯವರು ದೂರವಾಣಿಯನ್ನು ತೆಗೆಯಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಪುನಃ ರಾಜೇಶ್ ಕಾರ್ವಿಯವರೇ ಶ್ರೀ ಮಲ್ಲಿಕಾರ್ಜುನ್ ರವರ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಗೆ ದೂರವಾಣಿ ಮಾಡಿದರು. .....
the chief in examination of PW4 ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಎಲ್ ಕೆ ಜಿ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ಓದುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಅರ್ಜುನ್ ಕಾರ್ವಿ ರವರ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಯಾದ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅವರ ಮಗನಾದ ಅರ್ಜುನ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಸೀನಿಯರ್ ಸ್ಟೂಡೆಂಟ್ ಗಳು ಅಸಹಜ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ದೌರ್ಜನ್ಯ ಎಸಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಈ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಮಾದ್ಯಮದವರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸುವುದಾಗಿ ಶಾಲೆಯ 17 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015 ಆಡಳಿತ ಮಂಡಳಿಯವರನ್ನು ಹಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಒತ್ತಾಯಿಸಿ ಶಾಲೆಯವರಿಂದ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ ಅವರನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರು ದಸ್ತಗಿರಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೀನಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಈ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
and Cross examination of PW4 ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಅರ್ಜುನ್ ಕಾರ್ವಿಯನ್ನು ಎಂದೂ ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿ.27-11- 2014ರಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಕಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಪೊಲೀಸರೇ ಶಾಲೆಗೆ ಬಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲು ಹೋಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಹೇಳಿದ ನಂತರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಅವರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊನೆಯ 4ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳು ದಿ.27-11-2014ರಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, it is clear that the version of PW4 does not corroborate their version as he came to know about the demand of money from PW1 so the participation of the PW4 with the negotiation through his mobile was not proved.18 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
26. Mere furnishing the photograph i.e., PW6 handing over the money to the PW1 cannot be construed that the fear was put in the mind of PW1 by the accused No.1 and the signature of accused No.1 was not obtained at the time of seizing the money from the accused No.1.
27. Added to which, the independent witness namely PW2 did not support the prosecution as far as the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4 dated 24/11/2014.
28. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 is guilt of alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court answers point No.1 in the Negative.
29. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
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 offence punishable U/Sec.384 of IPC.19 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
(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) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer system, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of November, 2025) Digitally signed DEEPA VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Sunitha/Informant PW2 : Sri Dorai Swamy/pancha witness PW3 : Sri Ashok Kumar/pancha witness PW4 : Sri Mallikarjuna/Teacher PW5 : Sri G.L.Anjinappa/HC PW6 : Sri Parameshwara Hegde/PI/IO 20 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint/PW1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar/PW1 Ex.P4-7 : Registration Certificates (copy)/PW1 Ex.P8 : Certificate (NOC) (copy)/PW1 Ex.P9 : Attendance register (copy)/PW1 Ex.P10 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P11 : Statement of PW2 Ex.P12 : Statement of PW3 Ex.P13 : Report Ex.P14 : FIR/PW6
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : ಇಎಸ್ಐ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯ ತಜ್ಞವೈದ್ಯರ ತಪಾಸಣೆಗಾಗಿ ಚೀಟಿ DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.21 KABC030386842015 CC 13803/2015
18-11-2025 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 offence punishable U/Sec.384 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) Ordered accordingly.
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
22