Bangalore District Court
The State By P.S.I vs Thimmaiah C.U. S/O Uttaiah on 6 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th Day of September, 2021
C.C. NO.30016/2015
Complainant:
The State by P.S.I.
High Grounds Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused:
Thimmaiah C.U. s/o Uttaiah
Age: 49 years,R/at No.290, 2nd Main
2nd Block, Ayyappanagara
Devasandra Road, K.R.Puram
Bengaluru - 560 036.
(By Sri.Dharmapal, Advocate)
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 30016/2015
2. The date of commission 10042015
of the offence
2 C.C.No.30016/2015
3. Name of the complainant Rani Karyappa
4. Name of the accused Thimmaiah C.U.
5. The offences complained U/s. 324, 354, 504, 506 and
of or proved 509 of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused is convicted
8. Date of order 06092021
JUDGMENT
The Police SubInspector of High Grounds Police Station has filed the final report against the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 10042015 at 10.00 p.m., at Bhrathiya Vidyabhavan, the accused misbehaved with CW8 by pulling her hands then CW1 raised objection then accused abused CW1 and assaulted with the wooden memento 3 C.C.No.30016/2015 on her head and by putting his hand to her neck outraged her modesty when other people tried to ask the accused he abused them also and gave life threat to them. In this regard, CW1 has given her first information before the High Grounds PS. After registering the case the High Grounds Police investigated the matter and the I.O. has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.
3. Meanwhile, the accused has been arrested and produced before the court on 22042015 and he was remanded to Judicial Custody. On 24042015 by moving bail application he has obtained bail.
4. After taking the cognizance, this Court has issued summons to the accused. In pursuance of the summons accused appeared.
4 C.C.No.30016/2015
5. The prosecution papers were furnished to the accused in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the side the charges were framed and the contents of charges were read over to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, so the case was posted for trial.
6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to 11, got marked 9 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 9 and the wooden memento as per MO1. The learned Sr.APP closed prosecution side evidence. During the cross examination the advocate for accused confronted two documents and marked as per Ex.D1 and D2.
7. The accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and not chosen to lead his defence evidence. 5 C.C.No.30016/2015
8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 10/04/2015 at about 10 p.m. at Bharathiya Vidyabhavan, Bengaluru, the accused misbehaved with PW.6 by pulling her hands and tried to outrage her modesty in the public and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s.354 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place you accused assaulted with club on the head of PW.1 thereby caused simple bleeding injuries and thereby you have committed an offence punishable U/sec.324 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, 6 C.C.No.30016/2015 time and place the accused intentionally insulted PW.1 knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.504 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused used criminal force on PW.1 and used vulgar words with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.509 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused criminally intimidated PW.1 and PW.6 thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.506 of IPC?
6. What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under: 7 C.C.No.30016/2015
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : In the affirmative
Point No.3 : In the affirmative
Point No.4 : In the affirmative
Point No.5 : In the affirmative
Point No.6 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 5: In order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken all the points together for common consideration for sake of brevity.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined the first informant/victim as PW1, mahazar witnesses as PW2 and 3, eye witnesses to the incident as PW4 to 8 and the police officer who has registered and investigated the matter as PW9, the police officer who has submitted the charge sheet asPW10 8 C.C.No.30016/2015 and the Doctor who has treated the PW1 and issued the wound certificate as PW11.
12. The case of the prosecution is that on 10042015 at about 10.00 p.m., at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavana, where there is a Bharatanatyam programme organised by the Kodagu Committee, for that all the community people including the witnesses herein and the accused were gathered. After, the function at 10.00 p.m., it is alleged that the accused misbehaved with PW6 by pulling her hands and tried to outrage her modesty then PW1 has raised objection to the accused for that the accused abused PW1 in filthy language and also assaulted to her with the wooden memento given to him in the function and ran away from the spot by giving life threat to her and the witnesses tried to pacify the quarrel. 9 C.C.No.30016/2015
13. PW6 stated about the assault made by accused against PW1 and also identified the memento used to assault PW1 by the accused but she has not stated about pulling her hand by the accused. So the learned Sr.APP treated her partly hostile and cross examined wherein she admitted that the accused has pulled her hand and misbehaved with her. This aspect was not at all denied by the accused by suggesting any question to the PW6.
14. So also PW1 has categorically stated about the incident and filing of first information statement as per Ex.P1 and she also identified the memento which was used by the accused to assault her as per MO1. PW4, 5, 7 and 8 have also stated in the same line as of PW1 and clearly identified the accused as well as the memento which was used by the accused to assault PW1.
10 C.C.No.30016/2015
15. PW.11 being the Doctor deposed that on 10042015 at 10.45 p.m., PW1 came to Victoria Hospital on the history of assault and he medically examined her where she sustained;
(i) cut lacerated wound over the forehead in the middle 1X1 cm
(ii) cut lacerated would over left frontal reason of scalp 1X1 cm
(iii) Abrasion over the left side of the nose. He was of the opinion that the said injuries are simple in nature and has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P9.
16. The PW9 being the IO deposed about receiving of this case file from further investigation and conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, recording the statement of witnesses, deputing his staff to trace out the accused by issuing Memo as per Ex.P4 and arresting of the accused after producing him by his staff as per their report as per Ex.P5. He also recorded the voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P6 and seized the memento as 11 C.C.No.30016/2015 shown by the accused during seizure mahazar as per Ex.P7 and received the wound certificate as per Ex.P8.
17. PW10 who is the further IO has deposed that after receiving case file from PW9 as the investigation has been completed he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
18. The learned advocate for accused has contended that the husband of PW6 by name Kushalappa was having illicit relationship with wife of the accused in this regard the accused has filed complaint before the K.R.Puram Police Station, which was admitted by PW6 during her cross examination. The PW6 has also admitted about the documents confronted to her during her cross examination which are the true copy of the first information statement lodged by accused as per Ex.D1 and the true copy of the statement given by her husband Kushalappa in the said case marked as per Ex.D2. On the 12 C.C.No.30016/2015 basis of the same, the counsel for the accused contended that as there is previous enmity between Kushalappa and the accused so he got filed this false case against the accused. However, this suggestion has been denied by all the witnesses.
19. The another contention of the advocate for the accused is that in the chief examination itself PW1 stated that on that day when accused has touched the body of CW9 then she asked the accused for that the accused assaulted on her. On the basis of this version he contended that as per the prosecution case it is CW8 but the first informant has not stated properly. Of course, in the chief examination it is typed as CW9 but in order to verify the same the accused has not put any question to PW1 during the cross examination. So, it may be a typographical mistake. On the other hand, PW6 who has clearly stated that the accused has misbehaved with her and abused to her then the PW1 raised objection for that the 13 C.C.No.30016/2015 accused assaulted with the MO1. So, the evidence of PW6 and all other eye witnesses goes to show that the accused has initially misbehaved with PW6 when the PW1 objected the accused, he has assaulted to the PW1 with the MO1.
20. The advocate for accused has also made every effort to say that the MO1 is given by PW1 and not of the accused. But this suggestion has been clearly denied by all the witnesses and they have clearly stated that at the time of assault made by the accused the MO1 was with him. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the PW1 has given the MO1 to the police is not at all acceptable.
21. PW2 and 3 being the witnesses to the mahazar has stated about conducting of spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. PW2 has also identified the memento used by the accused to assault on PW1 as per MO1. Though, PW2 denied for having given his 14 C.C.No.30016/2015 statement as per Ex.P3 and admitted that he put his signature on Ex.P2 in the police station but he identified the accused as well as MO1.
22. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 because during the cross examination she has stated that she has not got written exactly the accused touched to whom as she had sustained injury to her head and the witnesses accompanied her have got written the first information. She also admitted that Kushalappa is the husband of PW6 and who was also present in the police station at the time of lodging the first information statement. However, she categorically denied that as per the say of Kushalappa she has lodged the false case against the accused. The counsel contended that the Ex.P1 has not got written by PW1 and there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW7. Hence, he contended that it is the 15 C.C.No.30016/2015 false case filed at the instance of Kushalappa and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
23. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 to 8 that is the first informant and the other eye witnesses of course there is minor discrepancy. But, they have categorically denied that as there is enmity between accused and the husband of PW6, so at his instance the false case has been filed and they were deposing falsely against the accused. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2019 AIAR (Criminal) 321 Balvir Singh v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it is held that The minor discrepancies which do not shake the version of the prosecution case may be discarded, the discrepancies which due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given 16 C.C.No.30016/2015 importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance.
24. The above ratio is aptly applicable to the instant case because the incident took place in the year 2015 and the evidence of the witnesses have been recorded in the year 2018 and there is gap of 3 years. So there may be some minor discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and other eye witnesses, but that will not affect the case of the prosecution.
25. The counsel for the accused also contended that the prosecution has not properly proved seizure of MO1 under Ex.P7 as it has not examined the mahazar witnesses. It is settled principle of law that the evidence of mahazar witness if not available then evidence of Investigating Officer who has conducted mahazar can be relied upon. This proposition of law find support from the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court 17 C.C.No.30016/2015 reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 513 High Court of Karnataka V/s Syed Mohammed Ibrahim.
26. In this case though the prosecution has not examined the mahazar witnesses of Ex.P7 but the PW9 being the IO, who has conducted the mahazar and seized MO1 under Ex.P7 as per voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P.6 has deposed before the court. Apart from that, PW1, 2 and 4 to 8 have categorically stated that at the time of assault made on PW.1 by accused the MO1 was in his hand and it has not given by PW1. Under such circumstances, the above ratio is aptly applicable to the present case. So, in this case, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused has assaulted on PW1 with the MO1.
27. It is also settled principle of law that the evidence of injured is having some weight. In this regard, it is pertinent to 18 C.C.No.30016/2015 mention the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (1) Crimes 216 Vijaya Shankar Sinde V/s State of Maharashtra wherein, it is held that:
"The evidence of injured witness lends more credence because, normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant".
28. Here PW1 being injured and her evidence is corroborated with the evidence of other eye witnesses and even PW11 the doctor who has given treatment to her. Under such circumstances, the above ratio is aptly applicable to the present case and evidence of injured witness lends more credence in this case.
29. Of course PW6 admitted that the accused has lodged complaint against her husband and her husband has also given the statement in the said case, which were marked as 19 C.C.No.30016/2015 Ex.D1 and D2. But, mere filing of case by accused against the husband of PW6 the version of PW1 who is the injured in this case, cannot be brushed aside. Moreover, the PW6 though initially not stated about the misbehaviour caused by the accused to her but after treating her partly hostile when Sr.APP cross examined her she has admitted the misbehaviour of accused but that was not denied by the advocate for accused during the cross of PW6.
30. Looking to the entire evidence placed on record, PW6 has clearly stated about misbehaviour of accused by pulling her hand. That is the reason for PW1 to object the accused of his misdeed then the accused has assaulted to PW1 with the MO1 and also by putting his hand on her neck has caused the outraging of her modesty. Even he has abused in filthy language and gave life threat to PW.1 and PW.6. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused has committed 20 C.C.No.30016/2015 the offence punishable u/s 354, 324, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC. Hence, I answer the above points in the affirmative.
31. Point No.6: In view of the above discussion and my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is hereby convicted of the offences punishable U/s. 324, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., Call later for hearing on sentence. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 6th day of September 2021.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU 21 C.C.No.30016/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard on sentence.
2. Learned Sr.A.P.P. prayed this Court to impose maximum sentence provided for the offence.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is the only bread earning member in his family. He has to look after his family members, who are depending upon the income of the accused for their livelihood.
He has no criminal antecedent. Hence prayed the Court to take lenient view and prayed to give benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Having regard to the nature and manner in which offence is committed, I am of the opinion that the accused is not entitled for the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act. 22 C.C.No.30016/2015
5. Section 324 of IPC provides for punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both, Section 354 of IPC provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 504 and 506 of IPC provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both. Section 509 of IPC provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also with fine.
6. It is settled principle of law that sentence imposed shall respond to the cry of the society. Here in this case, the accused has committed offence against PW6 and PW1 both are women. 23 C.C.No.30016/2015
7. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court State V/s Sanjeev Nanda AIR 2012 S.C.3104 wherein it is held, "Law demands that the offender should be adequately punished for the crime, so that it can deter the offender and other persons from committing similar offence. Nature and circumstances of the offence; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offence; to afford adequate deterrence to the conduct and to protect the public from such crime are certain factors to be considered while imposing the sentence."
8. Keeping in mind the mitigating factors against the accused and considering the above ratio it requires some leniency while passing the sentence. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
24 C.C.No.30016/2015
ORDER The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s 324 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 506 of IPC and 25 C.C.No.30016/2015 also liable to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s 509 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
Acting under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code out of the fine amount of ₹ 3,000/ (Rupees Three Thousand only) be paid to the PW1/Rani Karyappa and ₹2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand only) be paid to the PW6/Ponnamma as compensation.
All sentences shall run concurrently.
The bail bond of the accused shall stands canceled. Office is to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru 26 C.C.No.30016/2015 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
P.W.1 : Rani Karyappa w/o Karyappa P.W.2 : Thammaiah s/o Uttappa P.W.3 : Uttappa s/o Pemmaiah P.W.4 : Monnappa s/o Pemmaiah P.W.5 : Radha w/o Biddappa P.W.6 : Ponnamma w/o Kushalappa P.W.7 : Renu w/o Thammaiah P.W.8 : Seethamma w/o Kushalappa P.W.9 : Shivarudraiah s/o Tanaiah P.W.10 : Ravi M S s/o Shekarappa P.W.11 : Dr.Mahammad Mujatab s/o Riyaz Ahamad
2. Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : First Information Statement
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P2(c) : Signature of PW3
Ex.P2(d) : Signature of PW9
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW2
Ex.P4 : Memo
Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW9
Ex.P5 : Report
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW9
27 C.C.No.30016/2015
Ex.P6 : Voluntary statement of accused
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW9
Ex.P6(b) : Signature of accused
Ex.P7 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW9
Ex.P8 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P8(a) : Signature of PW11
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : T.C. of First information of K.R.Puram Ex.D2 : T.C. of Statement of husband of PW6
5. Material Objects:
MO1 : Memento
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru
28 C.C.No.30016/2015
Accused present
Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separately
ORDER
Accused is hereby convicted of the offences punishable U/s. 324, 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., Call later for hearing on sentence.
VIII Addl. CMM, BENGALURU ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Heard on sentence.
2. Learned Sr.A.P.P. prayed this Court to impose maximum sentence provided for the offence.
29 C.C.No.30016/2015
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is the only bread earning member in his family. He has to look after his family members, who are depending upon the income of the accused for their livelihood. He has no criminal antecedent. Hence prayed the Court to take lenient view and prayed to give benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Having regard to the nature and manner in which offence is committed, I am of the opinion that the accused is not entitled for the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.
5. Section 324 of IPC provides for punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both, Section 354 of IPC provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to 5 years and shall 30 C.C.No.30016/2015 also be liable to fine. Section 504 and 506 of IPC provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both. Section 509 of IPC provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also with fine.
6. It is settled principle of law that sentence imposed shall respond to the cry of the society. Here in this case, the accused has committed offence against PW6 and PW1 both are women.
7. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court State V/s Sanjeev Nanda AIR 2012 S.C.3104 wherein it is held, "Law demands that the offender should be adequately punished for the crime, so that it can deter the offender and other persons from committing similar offence. Nature and circumstances of the offence; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect 31 C.C.No.30016/2015 the seriousness of the offence; to afford adequate deterrence to the conduct and to protect the public from such crime are certain factors to be considered while imposing the sentence."
8. Keeping in mind the mitigating factors against the accused and considering the above ratio it requires some leniency while passing the sentence. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s 324 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC and also 32 C.C.No.30016/2015 liable to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 506 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 1 month.
The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable U/s 509 of IPC and also liable to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for 2 months.
Acting under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code out of the fine amount of ₹ 3,000/ (Rupees Three 33 C.C.No.30016/2015 Thousand only) be paid to the PW1/Rani Karyappa and ₹2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand only) be paid to the PW6/Ponnamma as compensation.
All sentences shall run concurrently.
The bail bond of the accused shall stands canceled. Office is to supply free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.