Bangalore District Court
Turuvekere Ps vs Krishnappa.M.T on 25 July, 2025
KABC030879642022
Presented on : 06-12-2022
Registered on : 06-12-2022
Decided on : 25-07-2025
Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADL.CJM, BENGALURU.
Present: Shri.K.N.SHIVAKUMAR, B.Sc.,(Agri), L.L.M.,
Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
C.C.No. 37527/2022
COMPLAINANT: State by Turuvekere Police Station,
Tumakuru District,
(By learned Sr.A.P.P.)
-Vs-
ACCUSED:
Krishnappa. M.T
S/o. Late Thimmaiah. M
Aged about 68 Years,
Mutsandra Village,
Mayasandra Hobli,
Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumakuru District,
TUMAKURU.
(Represented by Sri. HSS Advocate).
2 C.C.No.37527/2022
JUDGMENT
This case arose out of Crime No.18/2017 of Turuvekre Police Station, Tumakuru District for the Offences P/U/S.353, 504, 509 of IPC. After the investigation the Dy.S.P, Tumakuru, Sub-Division, has submitted the Charge-sheet/final report.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; That on 02/01/2017 in front of Turuvekere Police Station, the Accused being MLA of Turuvekere Constituency while addressing 250-300 protesters gathered in front of Turuvekere Police Station in the backdrop of incident that had taken place on 01/01/2017 during APMC Elections in Turuvekere, without mentioning the name of CW-1. Smt. Netravati in the speech, intentionally by referring to her abused her by stating " ಟೌನ್ ಪಂಚಾಯ್ತಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ವರೆ ಯಾವಳೋ ಒಬ್ಬ ಳು ಕಿತ್ತ ೋದವಳ್ನ ಗೆಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿದ್ದೆ ನಾನೇ. ಅವಳು ಓಡೋಗ್ಬಿಟ್ಲು , ಎಂ.ಪಿ. ಜೊತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅವನೇನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ನೊ ೕ ಅವಳಿಗೆ ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಒಂದ್ ಸೀಟ್ಗೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ 3 C.C.No.37527/2022 ಬಿಜೆಪಿಯವರ ಜೊತೆ ಬಂದು ವೋಟ್ ಹಾಕ್ತಾ ಳೆ " and thereby insulted her so as to outrage modesty of CW-1 and also abused CW-2 - G.Ramachandra, Circle Inspector of Police of Turuvekere, who was in bandhubast duty in respect of said protest by stating that "ಇವನೊಬ್ಬ ನಾಮರ್ದ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ಇನ್ಸ್ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ಆಗವ್ನ ೇನ್ರಿ ಇವ್ನು ಹೇಲ್ತಿಂದವ್ನೆ ಸೂಳೇಮಗ ಇನ್ನೂ ಸಾವಿರಾರು ಜನ ಬರ್ತಾರೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ಡಿಮ್ಯಾ ಂಡ್ ಇಷ್ಟ ೇ. ಇವ್ನು 307 ನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಟ್ರಾ ಕ್ಟ್ ಆಗಲ್ಲ ಅಂತಾನೆ, ಆ ಮುಂಡೆ ಮಗ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ಇನ್ಸ್ ಪೆಕ್ಟ ರ್ ಅವನೇನ್ ಸಾರ್ ಎನ್.ಸಿ ಕೊಡಿ ಅಂತಾನೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಜನಕ್ಕೆ ಹುಟ್ಟಿ ದವ್ನು ಸೂಳೆ ಮಗ ಇವ್ನು ಒಬ್ಬ ಎಂ.ಎಲ್.ಎ.ಗೆ ಎನ್.ಸಿ ಕೊಡಿ ಅಂದ್ರ ೇ ಏನ್ ಅರ್ಥ ಇದು ಎಷ್ಟು ಜನಕ್ಕೆ ಹುಟ್ಟಿ ದವ್ನು ಸೂಳೆ ಮಗ ಇವ್ನು ದಲಿತನೇ, ಇಂತ ದಲಿತ ಶೆಂಡ ನನ್ನ ಮಕ್ಕ ಳು ಬೇಡಾ ಕಣೋ" and also by doing so he has obstructed CW2 and his staff working in the said Police station from discharging their duties. Accordingly, the accused has committed the offences P/U/Sec.353, 504 & 509 of IPC.
3. After taking cognizance of alleged Offences on the basis of Charge-sheet materials, summons were issued to the accused. On receipt of summons, the accused has 4 C.C.No.37527/2022 entered appearance before the Court and enlarged on bail. The relevant copies of charge sheet were furnished to him in compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The charges U/s. 353, 504 & 509 of IPC against the accused were framed, explained and read over to him, upon which the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial against accused.
4. In the instant case, the prosecution side has examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to 14 and got marked 24 documents at Ex.P1 to 24. The accused was examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the incriminating evidences appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution. During the course of cross- examination of PW-2, the accused got marked one document as Ex.D1 by way of confrontation. The accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. 5 C.C.No.37527/2022
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused and perused the materials available on record. The counsel for the accused has relied on the decision in support of his argument;
Crl.MC No.4854/2021 Leshappa Shivappa Alur V/s Ganesh @ Ganappa & Others in Criminal Appeal No.10000062/2016
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, that on 02.01.2017 in front of Turuvekere Police Station, in the public place, the Accused intentionally insulted CW1 -
Nethravathi by uttering abusive words and statements relating to her character so as to outrage her modesty and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.509 of Indian Penal Code ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, time and place the Accused by using criminal force obstructed CW2 & his staff working in the said Turuvekere Police station from discharging their public duties and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.353 of Indian Penal Code ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on the aforesaid date, 6 C.C.No.37527/2022 time and place the accused intentionally insulted CW-2 - G.Ramachandra, Circle Inspector, Turuvekere Circle, by abusing in filthy languages so as to provoke him to cause breach of public peace or to commit an offence and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec.504 of Indian Penal Code ?
4. What Order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 to 3: In the Negative Point No.4: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1 to 3 :- It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused intentionally in order to outrage modesty of woman - CW1 abused her in the public place in front of Turuvekere Police station in the presence of public at large. Further it is also alleged that, the accused in front of said Police station and in the presence of large public intentionally abused CW2 - CPI of said Police station in filthy languages, so that it would 7 C.C.No.37527/2022 provoke - CW2 to commit any offence or to cause breach of public peace. More so, he also intentionally insulted the then Member of Parliament - Sri. Muddahanumegowda by abusing in filthy languages. Further it is alleged that, the accused by setting a protest with 250-300 protesters in front of the Turuvekere Police station and abusing the CPI of said Police station who was there in Bandubasth duty, deterred him and his staff of said Police station from discharging their duty as public servants. Accordingly, the accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/sec. 509, 504 & 353 of IPC.
9. Prosecution has alleged that the accused has committed the offence P/U/S. 509 of IPC, for which it is necessary to prove that, the accused uttered any word, made any sound or gesture or exhibits any object with the intention to insult the modesty of a woman intending 8 C.C.No.37527/2022 that such word or sound shall be heard or such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman. The prosecution also alleged the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC, for which it is necessary to prove that he has intentionally insulted somebody and thereby gave provocation to him intending or knowing that the same is likely to cause such person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. The prosecution also alleged an offence punishable U/sec. 353 of IPC, for which it is necessary to prove that, the accused has assaulted or used criminal force to somebody who is a public servants in execution of his duty as such public servants or with the intention to prevent or deterred such person from discharging his duty as such public duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharging of his duty as such public servant. 9 C.C.No.37527/2022
10. In order to prove the above allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14. PW1 is stated to be the complainant cum victim of this case, PW2 is stated to be one of the victims and eye witness to the alleged incident, PW3 is stated to be an independent eye witness to the said incident, PW4 & 13 are stated to be police constables cum eye witnesses to the said incident, PW8 is the additional SP who stated to have done a preliminary enquiry on the complaint filed by PW1 before the SP, Tumakuru, PW11 is the PSI, Turuvekere Police station, who stated to had registered the FIR in this case on the basis of order of SP, Tumakuru and handed over the investigation to CPI - PW2, PW12 is the investigating officer of this case who took investigation from PW2 and after partial investigation handed over to CW33 who intern handed over the same to PW7, PW7 is the I.O who took charge of investigation as per the order of SP, 10 C.C.No.37527/2022 Tumakuru and handed over the same to PW10 upon his transfer, PW10 is the I.O of this case who took investigation from PW7 and after partial investigation handed over to PW6, the PW6 is the investigating officer who took investigation from PW10 and after partial investigation handed over to PW9, PW9 is the investigating officer who took investigation from PW6 and completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet, PW5 is stated to be a witness who stated to had forwarded alleged video of said incident to the husband of PW1 and PW14 is stated to be one of the panch witnesses to spot mahazar - Ex.P5 conducted in the alleged place of incident by the I.O.
11. Let us examine as to whether the testimony of PW1 to 14 would prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. As stated herein above, the CW1 / PW1 is the victim and the complainant of this case. In 11 C.C.No.37527/2022 her testimony she has deposed that, the accused while doing protest in front of Turuvekere Police station on 02/01/2017 in connection with not arresting the accused
- Kondajji Vishwanath in a case registered in the said Police station with regard to the incident occurred at the time of APMC Elections between the accused and said Kondajj Vishwanath, he has abused her in abusive language intentionally to insult her and her modesty. She also deposed that, he has also abused the then circle inspector - PW2 and also the then Member of Parliament
- Sri. S.P. Muddehanumegowda in filthy languages. She further deposed that, at the time of said incident she was not there in the alleged place of incident, but on 09/01/2017 she came to know about the same, when the public have organized a protest against the accused in relation to said incident and displayed the video of alleged incident in the Circle at Turuvekere and also when the video of said incident was forwarded to mobile phone of 12 C.C.No.37527/2022 her husband from one Trijesh - PW5. She also deposed that, on 09/01/2017 based on the public protest, the media persons came to her house and asked about said incident, wherein she told them that, she would lodge complaint against the accused and thereafter she directly lodged complaint before S.P, Tumakuru as per Ex.P4. She also deposed that, after a week of lodging complaint, the police took her to alleged place of incident and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of mahazar witnesses CW22 & 23. Further, she stated to had given her further statement as per Ex.P6 to the police wherein she has narrated about the type of words or language used by the accused for abusing her. She further deposed that, the video sent to mobile phone of her husband by PW5 through whatsapp was downloaded into her laptop and copied to a DVD at Ex.P8, which was furnished to SP, Tumakuru along with her complaint. 13 C.C.No.37527/2022
12. On perusal of the complaint lodged by PW1 at Ex.P4, her further statement at Ex.P6 and her evidence before this court, it appears that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies as to the facts and circumstances stated therein. In her further statement she says that, she came to know about said incident on 09/01/2017 when there was a public protest at the circle in Turuvekere and the media persons coming to her house and enquired about said incident. But, this material fact was not stated either in her complaint - Ex.P4 or her statement U/sec. 164 at Ex.P7. She deposes that, said video was forwarded to the mobile phone of her husband by PW5 through whatsapp, but said PW5 in his evidence neither supported case of the prosecution nor corroborated evidence of PW1. More so, it is pertinent to note that, though she has categorically stated in her complaint as well as evidence that said video clip was forwarded to the mobile phone of her husband, the I.O 14 C.C.No.37527/2022 has not chosen to examine her husband in the course of investigation. Similarly, in her further statement - Ex.P6 she states that, as she has supported the Congress candidate in the Election to President of Pattana Panchayath during 2016 and not supported the JDS candidate, the accused who was the then MLA from JDS party was showing his revenge against her. As such he has made such allegations and abused her in the said public protest. But, this fact of accused having grudge or revenge against complainant was not stated in her complaint - Ex.P1 as well as in her examination in chief. In the course of her cross-examination, when it was suggested to her as to what prevented her from giving complaint to said Turuvekere Police station instead of giving the same to SP, Tumakuru, she gives an explanation that as the accused was the then MLA of Turuvekere constituency, there were no chances of said police taking any action and as such she has directly filed 15 C.C.No.37527/2022 said complaint before the SP. But, this fact was also not stated in her complaint - Ex.P4. More over, on considering said explanation, the same appears to be not convincing, because the CPI of said Police station was also one of the victims. More so, admittedly the accused was not mentioning her name in the alleged speech in particular.
13. The PW2 who is also stated to be a victim of said incident and the CPI of said Police station during said period, in his evidence deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. He has categorically stated in his evidence that, during alleged protest the accused was abusing the then MP - Sri. S.P Muddehanumegowda in filthy languages and also abusing the then Member of Pattanapanchayath, Turuvekere - CW1 in filthy languages. Thereafter the accused abused him in filthy languages as stated in the complaint. He further deposed 16 C.C.No.37527/2022 that, the accused was also abusing Sri. Kondajji vishwanath - one of the accused in Crime No. 246/2016 of said Police station in filthy languages. As such, he felt mentally hurt and as such he had been inside the Police station. He also deposed that, the higher officers like, Dy.SP, Addl. S.P & SP of Tumakuru District also visited the said place of protest and convinced the accused. In his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that, with regard to alleged incident or abusing him, he has not lodged complaint against the accused. Rather, he admits that there was no law & order problem during said protest and also no bad incidents took place. Further he also admits that, alleged incident stated to had occurred in front of the Police station and against the police officers including himself, but the same was not entered in the station house diary which was produced as Ex.D1.
17 C.C.No.37527/2022
14. The PW3 who is stated to be an independent witness to alleged incident in his evidence deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. In the course of his cross-examination he admits that the accused was not mentioning the name of CW1 in his speech. The defence counsel tried to elicit that this witness is an interested witness in the course of cross-examination, wherein it was put to him that the brother of complainant
- CW1 - Mr. Jagadish is known to him and he came along with said Jagadish to the court on the date of his evidence, which was admitted by him. Though this witness simply states that said Jagadish is not his friend, he categorically stated that, said Jagadish is known to him since 10-15 years. That apart, the defence counsel in the course of his cross-examination by confronting his statement given to I.O U/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C., elicited several improvements in his examination in chief. 18 C.C.No.37527/2022
15. The PW4 who is stated to be a police constable who was on Bandubasth duty in the alleged place of protest on that day, in his evidence deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, except eliciting that, he is a subordinate staff of PW2 and also that the accused was not mentioning the name of CW1 in his speech during said protest, nothing was elicited to disbelieve or discredit testimony of this witness.
16. The PW5, who is stated to be the person who forwarded the video of alleged incident to the mobile phone of husband of CW1 through Whatsapp, in his evidence not supported the case of the prosecution. He has categorically deposed that though he knows accused, CW6 & said Muddahanumegowda, he do not know anything about alleged incident. He also stated that, he has not been enquired by the police in connection with 19 C.C.No.37527/2022 said incident and he has not given any statement before the police. Though this witness was treated as hostile witness and subjected to cross-examination by the Ld.Sr.APP, nothing was elicited to support the case of the prosecution as well as the alleged fact of he forwarding alleged video to the husband of CW1. Rather, it was suggested to him that, somebody sent said video to his mobile phone. But, neither the investigating officer nor the prosecution did any investigation or enquiry as to who forwarded said video to this witness.
17. The PW8 who is the then Addl.S.P, Tumakuru, who stated to have conducted preliminary enquiry as per the directions of S.P, Tumakuru on the complaint given by the complainant - PW1, in his evidence deposed about conducting preliminary enquiry as per the directions of S.P. Tumakuru and submitting the preliminary enquiry report as per Ex.P15. Though the report of this witness 20 C.C.No.37527/2022 was only a preliminary enquiry report made prior to registering the FIR for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether there is a prima-facie case for investigation, as the investigating officer of this case have relied on said report in filing this charge-sheet, it appears relevant for discussing the testimony of this witness. In his examination in chief, he deposed that, during his preliminary enquiry he has recorded statement of witnesses including the complainant and at that time he received two DVDs from the complainant, which were submitted to the S.P. Tumakuru along with his report. In his cross-examination he deposes that, the S.P. Tumakuru had furnished a DVD along with his order for preliminary enquiry, but he has not seized any DVD from the complainant - PW1. Further, he has stated that in the course of his preliminary enquiry he has not enquired the victim - CW2 - the CPI, MP - Sri. Muddahanumegowda, the husband of complainant - PW1 21 C.C.No.37527/2022 to whom alleged video was forwarded by one Trijesh and also said Trijesh. More so, he also admits that during alleged speech the accused had not mentioned name of CW1.
18. The PW11 who was the then PSI of said Turuvekere Police station, who stated to had registered the FIR in this case, in his evidence deposed that, on 17/01/2017 at about 9-30 pm while he was in-charge of the Police station, he received an order of S.P. Tumakuru through E-mail along with complaint and on the basis of the same registered the FIR as per Ex.P19. This witness got marked Ex.P18 as the complaint which was received by him along with the order of S.P through E-mail. But, in the course of his cross-examination, he categorically admits that, said Ex.P18 is not the complaint lodged by PW1, rather that was a copy of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by PW8 to the S.P. Tumakuru. He also 22 C.C.No.37527/2022 categorically stated that, after registering the FIR he did not made any attempt to secure said original complaint given by PW1 to the office of S.P. Tumakuru. More so, though this witness states that, he received the order of S.P through E-mail bearing No. ASP / Tumakuru / General Petition - 2/2017, he has not produced any such separate order of S.P. Rather, said order bearing No. ASP / Tumakuru / General Petition - 2/2017 was nothing but the reference Number of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by PW8. This shows that this witness though a police officer of the rank of PSI, he is so incapable of understanding a document. Further, from the testimony of this witness it can be gathered that, he has registered an FIR without the original complaint. However, as rightly argued by Ld.Sr.APP, as he had received the copy of preliminary enquiry report, in which there was information in detail about alleged incident, there is no infirmity in registering the FIR on the basis of 23 C.C.No.37527/2022 such information. No doubt, it may not be necessary for a written complaint to register an FIR, rather an FIR could be register even on the basis of an information about commission of an offence.
19. The PW12 who was the then CPI, Tilak park Circle, Tumakuru, who stated to had done investigation in this case in his evidence deposed that, as per the order of S.P. Tumakuru, he took over the investigation of this case from CPI, Turuvekere on 21/01/2017. He deposed that in the course of his investigation he has recorded further statement of complainant - PW1 as per Ex.P20, conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the alleged place of incident in the presence of mahazar witnesses - CW22 & 23, which was corroborated by the testimony of CW22 who was examined as PW14. He also stated to had collected the extract of diary of CW2 and also station house diary of said Police station as per Ex.D1 & 24 C.C.No.37527/2022 Ex.P21. He also stated to had recorded the statement of witnesses, the statement of CW1 U/sec.164 of Cr.P.C.,. But, as admittedly there was an interim order of stay of investigation by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka in Crl.Petition No. 923/2017 from 27/01/2017 to 12/06/2020, said part of investigation as to recording the statement of witnesses - CW21, CW11, CW12 & CW19 on 28/01/2017 & 01/02/2017 and also recording of statement of CW1 U/sec.164 of Cr.P.C., on 04/02/2017, have to be excluded from the evidences or materials in this case. Similarly, he deposed that, in the course of his investigation he has seized a DVD as per Ex.P23 containing video recording of alleged incident from CW3 on 04/02/2017 and sent the same to FSL Bengaluru on 16/03/2017. But, as stated herein above, as the same was also during the stay of investigation, said DVD cannot also be included in the evidence of this case. This is also admitted by this witness in his cross-examination. 25 C.C.No.37527/2022 In the course of his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that, in the course of investigation he had not seen the original complaint and also the same was not found in the records. Thus, it is evident that, what ever the investigation done by this witness was not on the basis of allegations of the complaint. He also categorically admitted that, in the FSL report on said DVD at Ex.P23 it was stated that, the video files in the said DVD are not original video files and they were edited.
20. The PW7 who was the then CPI, Tilak park circle, Tumakuru in her evidence stated that, on 27/07/2019 she took the investigation of this case from CW33 and on 12/08/2020 she received an intimation from the SP, Tumakuru as to stay of investigation in this case by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka and as such she did not do any further investigation in the matter. 26 C.C.No.37527/2022 Thereafter, on 17/08/2020 as she was transferred, the investigation was handed over to CW35.
21. The PW10 who was the then CPI, Tilak park circle, Tumakuru, in his evidence deposed that, on 17/08/2020 he took investigation of this case from CW34. Thereafter, as it was revealed that the accused also committed offences under 'the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989', he took permission from the court and transferred the investigation to CW36 as per order of SP, Tumakuru.
22. The PW6 who was the then Dy. SP, Tumakuru city sub division in his evidence deposed that, he took charge of investigation of this case on 19/10/2020 from CW35 as per the order of SP, Tumakuru. He deposed that, after taking investigation of this case, he enquired 27 C.C.No.37527/2022 CW1 & 2 and as they have already given their statements before the earlier investigating officers, he again video recorded their statements. He also deposed to have collected the information and certificate about the caste of CW1, 2 & the accused from the Tahashildar, Turuvekere and the Tahashildar, Tumakuru. Thereafter, he stated to had submitted the charge-sheet on 24/11/2020 keeping further investigation pending. But, the charge-sheet filed by him to the extent of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was quashed by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka and ordered for further investigation in respect of other offences. In his cross-examination, he also categorically admits that, the original complaint was not there in the records and the FIR in this case was not registered on the basis of original complaint. He also admits that as there was an order of stay from 27/01/2017 to 12/06/2020 by Hon'ble High 28 C.C.No.37527/2022 Court of karnataka, the investigation done during the said period and the evidences collected during said period including the DVD at Ex.P23 and the FSL report in respect of said DVD will not be valid. Though this witness admits that in the FSL report it was stated that, the video files in the said DVD are not original video files but, they were edited video files, when it was suggested to him that, in any edited videos there are chances of addition, deletion & manipulation, he says that, addition and deletion can be done but not manipulation. However, as admittedly said DVD was seized during the operation of stay order of Hon'ble High Court of karnataka, neither the said DVD nor the FSL report on said DVD could be admissible in evidence.
23. The PW9 who was the then Dy. SP, Tumakuru sub-division in his evidence deposed that, he took investigation of this case from CW36 on 22/01/2021 and 29 C.C.No.37527/2022 summoned the preliminary enquiry report submitted by CW30 / PW8 from the office of SP, Tumakuru. He deposes that, on 07/08/2021 he has submitted the charge-sheet with a request for permission to file additional charge-sheet U/sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C.,. He further deposes that, on 24/11/2021 he received the preliminary enquiry report from the office of CW30 along with its enclosures, like the office memorandum of SP, Tumakuru, the original complaint given by CW1, a DVD in sealed cover, the statements of CW1 & other witnesses recorded by CW30 and also a CD submitted by CW30 along with his report. He has identified the original complaint at Ex.P4, the DVD submitted along with the complaint at Ex.P8, the report of CW30 at Ex.P15 and the CD submitted along with his report at Ex.P16. He further deposed that, on 17/10/2022 he received the order of Hon'ble High Court of karnataka in the said Crl.Petition No.1268/2022 dated: 23/08/2022. He 30 C.C.No.37527/2022 stated to have got recorded the statement of CW1 U/sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., as per Ex.P7 and also enquired the CPI - CW2 and recorded his statement during his investigation. Thereafter, he deposed to have completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet on 06/11/2022. From his evidence it is revealed that, he has submitted the charge-sheet on 07/08/2021 for the first time and thereafter he received the preliminary enquiry report Ex.P15 along with its enclosures. As such, as on the date of filing the first charge-sheet, the original complaint filed by PW1 was not there, which was admitted by him. But he has not given any reasons or explanation as to why he did not secure those documents prior to filing the charge-sheet on 07/08/2021. Even the investigating officers earlier to him have also not secured those documents during their investigation. As per testimony of this witness there are two DVDs along with the preliminary enquiry report, one was stated to have been 31 C.C.No.37527/2022 produced by CW1 along with her complaint and the other one was stated to have been produced by CW30 along with his report as per Ex.P8 & 16 respectively. But, the CW30 who was examined as PW8, as already discussed herein above in his evidence categorically stated that, he has not seized any DVD from CW1, rather he stated to had received a DVD from the SP, Tumakuru. If so, how come said preliminary enquiry report was containing two DVDs. There is no explanation for the same, either by this witness or said CW30. This witness also categorically admitted that, in his investigation he has not examined the M.P - Sri. Muddahanumegowda. More so, he has stated that, in the course of investigation he has not asked CW2 - the CPI, Turuvekere who is also stated to be a victim of alleged incident as to why he had not lodged any complaint against the accused. Further, he says that, he has submitted two DVDs and a CD in his final report and also says that the same were obtained 32 C.C.No.37527/2022 along with the preliminary enquiry report - Ex.P15. But, he categorically states that, he had not enquired CW30 / PW8 as to from whom those DVDs & CD were seized. As already stated herein above, said CW30 / PW8 has categorically denied to have received any such DVDs or CDs from CW1. More so, this witness himself in his examination in chief, states that he received a DVD & a CD at Ex.P8 & 16, but in his cross-examination he deposes to have submitted two DVDs and CD along with his report. If so, how he got another DVD and where from said DVD was obtained, there is no explanation for the same by this witness. That apart, it is pertinent to note that, as admitted by him though he is the investigating officer of this case, who filed charge-sheet against the accused, he has not viewed the video in the said DVD or CD. More so, it is pertinent to note that, the CW1 in her further statement recorded by this witness states that, the original DVD of said incident was 33 C.C.No.37527/2022 with her. But, this witness being I.O of this case appears to have not made any attempt to seize said original DVD from CW1. Similarly, though it is the specific case of the complainant that, the video contained in said DVDs was received by her husband in his mobile phone through Whatsapp from one - Trijesh - CW3, this witness being the I.O of this case ought to have examined the husband of CW1 and recorded his statement to ascertain said fact and also ought to have made an enquiry and investigation to trace the original source of said video, whether it was originally recorded by said Trijesh or somebody. Similarly, the PW1 in her statements and evidence categorically stated that, on 09/01/2017 there was a protest by the public in the city of Turuvekere at the circle against the accused with regard to alleged speech, wherein alleged video of said incident was played in public. Thereafter the media persons had been to her house and enquired about the same. If so, this witness 34 C.C.No.37527/2022 being the investigating officer should have enquired any such public who either organized said protest or participated in the said protest and also the media persons who had been to house of PW1 to enquire about the same. But, for the reasons best known to him, he has not done so.
24. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that, as the very FIR registered in this case was without the basis of original complaint and there is a delay of 16 days in lodging the complaint, which vitiates the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused. Further, it is argued that, the material evidences produced in this case like, the statement of witnesses, statement U/sec.164 of the complainant - CW1, seizure of alleged DVD and its scientific examination through FSL were done during the operation of stay order by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka in Crl.Petition No. 923/2017, as such none 35 C.C.No.37527/2022 of those materials and evidences are admissible in this case and as ordered by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka in the final order passed in the said case such evidences have to excluded from the charge-sheet. Further, he has argued that, the de-facto complainant herein is not a direct witness to the alleged incident, rather, she is a hearsay witness. As such, her testimony cannot be believed unless the same is fully corroborated with independent, substantive evidences. But, the only substantive material based on which she lodged complaint against the accused is the video of alleged incident which was stated to have been forwarded to her husband by one Trijesh. But, said Trijesh has denied the same and also the investigating officer has not enquired husband of CW1 and not done any investigation to collect the original source of said video which was produced in the DVD at Ex.P8. Therefore, the source of information to CW1 who is an hearsay witness is also not established 36 C.C.No.37527/2022 by the prosecution. He also argued that, though it is alleged that, the PW2 who was the then CPI of Turuvekere Police station was also a victim and aggrieved person of alleged incident, he has not chosen to lodge any complaint against the accused immediately after the alleged incident. As such, this allegation of the prosecution cannot be accepted. The other eye witnesses to the alleged incident i.e., the PW4 & PW13 were the then police constables belong to said Police station, who were working under PW2. As such, they are the interested witnesses in this case. Therefore their testimony needs to be corroborated by independent witness and substantive evidences. Further, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses apart from PW3. Though PW3 deposed in support of case of the prosecution, as elicited in his cross-examination, he is also an interested witness as he is a friend of brother of CW1. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to 37 C.C.No.37527/2022 established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Further, it is argued that, the allegations of complaint does not attract the offence punishable U/sec. 509 of IPC as they would not satisfy the ingredients of alleged offence. In support of his argument he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of Anson I.J V/s State of Kerala & Others, in Crl.M.C. No. 4854/2021 dated: 30/09/2024. He also argued that, there are no ingredients of the offence punishable U/sec. 353 of IPC in the entire allegations of prosecution as well as the complainant. More so, the allegations also not satisfy the offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC as there was no action by PW2 and as the other victim alleged by the prosecution Mr. Muddahanumegowda & Konddajji Vishwanath were not present at the time of alleged incident and abusing by the accused.
38 C.C.No.37527/2022
25. In the light of the contentions raised by the defence counsel on careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced and procured by the prosecution in this case, it is evident that, as rightly argued by the defence counsel the de- facto complainant in this case i.e., PW1 is not a direct witness of alleged incident, rather admittedly she is an hearsay witness who stated to had came to know about alleged incident through a video clipping that was forwarded to the mobile phone of her husband through Whatsapp by one Mr. Trijesh - CW3. As such, her testimony has to be supported by the substantive evidences. But, as argued by Ld.defence counsel the investigating officer of this case in the course of investigation not chosen to enquire or examine the husband of CW1 who stated to had received alleged video through Whatsapp. Further, said CW3 - Trijesh though examined as PW5, as already discussed herein above, he 39 C.C.No.37527/2022 has not supported the case of the prosecution as well as said video. That being the case, it was the duty of I.O to collect materials to show that said video clipping was forwarded to husband of CW1 by said Trijesh - CW3. But, admittedly except collecting the DVD from CW1 alleged to be containing said video, the I.O has not chosen to collect or seize the mobile phones of said CW3 and husband of CW1 to ascertain said fact and to make scientific examination about the same. More so, it is pertinent to note that, though the prosecution has produced the DVDs at Ex.P8 & P16 alleged to be containing said video clipping, the original source of said video clipping is neither disclosed nor collected in the course of investigation. As suggested by the Ld.Public prosecutor in the course of cross-examination of PW5 said video was sent to mobile phone of PW5 by somebody, which was forwarded to the mobile phone of husband of CW1 through whatsapp. If so, who is that somebody. 40 C.C.No.37527/2022 There is no investigation in that regard. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the genuineness of video clipping produced under the DVDs at Ex.P8 & 16. That apart, it is pertinent to note that, the DVD stated to had been seized from CW3, which is produced as Ex.P23, was seized during the operation of stay order by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka as discussed herein above. As such, the evidence under said DVD shall be excluded from the charge-sheet. More so, the FSL report on said DVD produced at Ex.P1 shall also be excluded from the charge-sheet as the same was done during operation of stay order by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka. However, it may appear relevant for discussing about the opinion expressed in the said FSL report in the light of lack of evidence or material regarding the original source of the video clipping produced by the prosecution. Admittedly, in the said FSL report it was stated that the video files contained therein Ex.P23 are not the original 41 C.C.No.37527/2022 video files. Rather, they are the edited video files and as per the opinion of expert said files were edited using Womble multimedia, Inc. software. This opinion and report was neither disputed nor denied by the prosecution. Therefore, it can be held that the complaint allegations and the evidence of PW1 which is based on alleged video clipping is not supported by the substantive evidence of the original of said video clippings. As such, as rightly argued by the defence counsel, the evidence led by PW1 can be held to be an hearsay evidence, which is not corroborated by a substantive material.
26. Further, with regard to the evidence of PW2, it is pertinent to note that, this witness was the then CPI of said Turuvekere Police station in-front of which alleged incident was stated to have taken place. Further, it is pertinent to note that, as alleged by the prosecution the accused has abused this witness in the alleged incident 42 C.C.No.37527/2022 with filthy languages. But, this witness admittedly has neither taken any action on the spot nor lodged any complaint against the accused after the incident. More so, he has not given any explanation as to why he did not chose to do so. This witness being in an authoritative position in the said Police station, if any such incident had really happened, what prevented him to take any action or lodge complaint against the accused. Adding to this, as admitted by himself, he has not entered about alleged incident and the alleged abusing by the accused either in his diary or the station house diary. On considering the nature of alleged abusive words stated to have been used by the accused at the time of said abusing, it appears that no prudent man would keep quiet upon hearing such words. That being the case, it is highly unbelievable that the PW2 being the CPI of said station had not taken any action against the accused and not filed any complaint against him in-spite of directly 43 C.C.No.37527/2022 witnessing said incident and hearing such abusive words. Therefore, this allegations of the prosecution create doubt.
27. Further, with regard to the evidence of PW3, it is pertinent to note that, this witness though denies that he is not friend of brother of CW1 - Jagadish, he categorically states that, he knows him since 10-15 years. That apart, in his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that, he was sitting along with said Jagadish outside the court hall on the date of his evidence before this court. More so, it is pertinent to note that, this witness is a farmer and resident of Biganenahalli Village. But, the CW1 is the resident of Turuvekere Town. If so, how this witness without there being any friendship or acquittance know about the brother of CW1. This shows that, though this witness is well known to the CW1 and a friend of her brother and 44 C.C.No.37527/2022 also though he came along with her brother to the court, he was intentionally deposing that he is not friend of brother of CW1. Therefore, a doubt would arise as to why not this witness can be considered to have been tutored or induced by CW1 or her brother who appears to have accompanied him to the court. That apart, as elicited by the defence counsel in his cross-examination, there are several improvements in his evidence as compared to his statement before the I.O in respect of alleged incident as well as the specific abuses made by the accused. Therefore, the testimony of this witness as an eye witness to an alleged incident creates a doubt.
28. Further, even though discarding the documentary evidences under the DVDs at Ex.P8, 16 & 23 and also discarding the above stated inconsistencies, discrepancies, lapses & the doubts in testimony of witnesses, the investigation & the case of the 45 C.C.No.37527/2022 prosecution, it can be accepted that the prosecution has proved that the alleged incident had occurred and the accused has abused CW1, CW2 & said Muddahanumegowda, Konddajji Vishwanath, whether the allegations made in the complaint and the charge- sheet would satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged U/sec. 509, 504 & 353 of IPC has to be verified.
29. In this regard, firstly, it is pertinent to note that, the prosecution has alleged that, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 509 of IPC as he had outraged the modesty of woman - CW1. But, admittedly, at the time of alleged incident and abusing by the accused, CW1 was not there. More so, admittedly she had not heard said abusing directly. As provided U/sec. 509 of IPC and also as held by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the decision stated supra, there are two parts in the said Sec.509 of IPC, 'firstly, there should be 46 C.C.No.37527/2022 utterance of any word, making any sound or gesture or exhibiting any object with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman. Secondly, such overt acts should have been done with the intention to intrude upon the privacy of such woman'.
30. In the light of the above, on analyzing the facts and allegations in the present case, it appears that at that particular point of time, the accused might not be having any such intention to insult the modesty of CW1. Because, admittedly he was doing a protest against the police specifically the CPI - CW2 of said Police station for having not arrested the accused - Konddajji Vishwanath in Crime No. 246/2016 of said Police station, but not on any issue as against CW1. More so, it can be inferred that, as the accused was doing said protest in front of 47 C.C.No.37527/2022 said Police station, where CW1 was not there, he might not be having the intention that, such abusive word or sound should be heard by CW1 and such protest should be seen by her. Therefore, there are no ingredients to satisfy the offence punishable U/sec. 509 of IPC in the case of the prosecution.
31. The prosecution also alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 504 of IPC as he was abusing CW2, M.P - Mudddahanumegowda & one Konddajji Vishwanath. But, as already discussed herein above, the prosecution has not examined said Muddahanumegowda & Konddajji Vishwanath. More so, though CW2 was examined as PW2, admittedly he has neither taken any action against the accused nor lodged any complaint against him either at the time of alleged incident or thereafter. The important ingredients of Sec.504 of IPC are that, 'one should intentionally insult 48 C.C.No.37527/2022 any person and there by should give provocation to such person, intending or knowing that such provocation would likely to cause such person to break public peace or to commit any offence'. In the light of the same, on analyzing the facts and allegations made in this case, no doubt the prosecution has established that the accused in the course of his protest used abusive words as against CW2, Muddahanumegowda & Konddajji Vishwanath. There are and cannot be direct evidence to show that the accused was having such an intention to insult them and as such, the prosecution shall show such circumstances which enable this court to draw an inference as to such intention of the accused. More so, apart from the insult, it is necessary that, such insult should give provocation to such person, which may cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. But, no such circumstance is brought out in the course of trial by the prosecution. Firstly, it has not 49 C.C.No.37527/2022 chosen to examine said Muddahanumegowda & Konddajji Vishwanath to ascertain as to whether the abuse made by the accused in the said protest has given any such provocation to them or was likely to give such provocation to them, so that if they were present at that time they would have did some overt acts that would break the public peace or constitute an offence. More so, though prosecution has examined CW2 as PW2, as already discussed herein above, though he was in such a authoritative position in the said Police station, he has neither taken any action in the spot to prevent the accused from doing so nor lodged any complaint against him for abusing him with such abusive words. If at all, CW2 was so insulted as to get provocation from such words, definitely he would have taken any such recourses or done any overt acts that would break public peace or commit an offence. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the prosecution has failed to prove any such provocation 50 C.C.No.37527/2022 with any such circumstantial evidences as to the intention of accused to insult said CW2 and others.
32. The prosecution also alleged that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 353 of IPC as he has done alleged protest in front of the Gate of said Police station, where by he has prevented the officers and officials of said Police station including CW2 who were on duty from discharging their duties. But, the prosecution has not produced any materials to show that, on that day and at that particular time of protest there was an obstruction to any officers or officials including CW2 of said Police station for discharging their regular works in specific. Though the witnesses like, PW2, PW4 & PW13 who were working in the said Police station in their evidence simply stated that, during said protest the accused caused obstructions to their duties, none of them have specifically stated as to how and to 51 C.C.No.37527/2022 which of their duties said protest had obstructed. To constitute the offence punishable U/sec. 353 of IPC, one should use assault or criminal force to any public servant in execution of his public functions or with intention to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty. Further, as defined U/sec. 351 of IPC assault means making any gesture or any preparation intending or knowing that such gesture or preparation would cause any person present there to apprehend that he who makes such gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to him. But, in the present case on hand, there is no such allegation as to the accused making any such gesture or preparation during alleged protest. As provided under explanation to said Sec.351 of IPC mere words do not amount to an assault. Similarly, as provided U/sec. 350 of IPC criminal force means intentionally using 52 C.C.No.37527/2022 force to any person without consent of such person in order to commit any offence or intending thereby to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause a fear of injury or annoyance to such person. Further, as defined U/sec. 349 of IPC force means causing motion or change of motion or cessation of motion to any person or causing such motion to any substance or change of motion or cessation of motion with regard to such substance to make it to come into contact with any part of body of such person. But, in the present case, there are no such allegations that, the accused during alleged protest intentionally used any such force as defined U/sec.349 of IPC, which amounts to criminal force as defined U/sec. 350 of IPC. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the allegations of the complaint as well as the case of the prosecution would not satisfy the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC.
53 C.C.No.37527/2022
33. From all the above discussed facts, circumstances, evidences and the lapses / defects in the investigation and the investigating officers and also in the light of the specific defence of the accused that, due to political vendetta and motive, a false complaint was filed implicating this accused who is a leader of opposition party, a doubt arises as to the case of the prosecution and the allegations made against the accused. As per the cardinal principles of criminal justice administration, the benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution shall go in favour of the accused. Hence, by giving the benefit of such doubt in the case of prosecution to the accused, this court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences P/U/Secs.353, 504 & 509 of IPC. of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
54 C.C.No.37527/2022
34. Point No.4- In view of the above findings on point No.1 to 3, the following order is passed;
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences P/U/Secs.353, 504 & 509 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 25th day of July, 2025).
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW.1 - Nethravathi PW.2 - Ramachandra PW.3 - Ravindra Kumar B.S PW.4 - Thimmaraju PW.5 - Thrijesh. B.S PW.6 - H.J. Thippeswamy PW.7 - Parvathamma PW.8 - G.B. Manjunath PW.9 - Srinivas. H PW.10 - Muniraju PW.11 - Honnegowda 55 C.C.No.37527/2022 PW.12 - Raghavendra K.R PW.13 - Nagaraju PW.14 - Mahesh. T.P Witnesses examined for the Defence:
- Nil -
Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 - FSL Report Ex.P2 - Statement of PW5 Ex.P3 - Order dated: 14/10/2020 Ex.P4 - Complaint Ex.P5 - Spot Mahazar Ex.P6 - Statement Ex.P7 - 164 Statement Ex.P8 - DVD Ex.P9 - Letter dated: 27/10/2020 Sec.91 of Cr.P.C., Ex.P10 - Letter issued by Tahashildar Ex.P11 - Letter issued by Dy. Commissioner of police dated: 27/10/2020 Sec.91 of Cr.P.C., Ex.P12 - Letter dated: 23/11/2020 issued by Tahsildar Grade - II Ex.P13 - DVD Ex.P14 - Certificate U/sec.65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P15 - Letter dated: 16/01/2017 Ex.P16 - CD Ex.P17 - Letter dated: 20/11/2021 Ex.P18 - Letter dated: 16/01/2017 Ex.P19 - FIR Ex.P20 - Statement Ex.P21 - True copy of Inspector's report Ex.P22 - True copy of Staff details Ex.P23 - DVD Ex.P24 - Certificate U/sec.65B of the Indian Evidence Act 56 C.C.No.37527/2022 Documents exhibited for the defence: Ex.D1 - Station House Diary Material objections: - Nil - (K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru
(Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 57 C.C.No.37527/2022 (Order pronounced in open court Vide Separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences P/U/Secs.353, 504 & 509 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stand canceled.
( K.N. SHIVAKUMAR ) XLII Addl. CMM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka)