Bangalore District Court
Stella Geetha vs Muniraju Alias Auto Muniraju on 18 June, 2025
Digitally
KABC030510792018 DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 11-07-2018
Registered on : 11-07-2018
Decided on : 18-06-2025
Duration : 6 years, 11 months, 7 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 June, 2025
C.C. No.18915/2018
(Crime No.304/2018)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Muniraju @ Auto Muniraju,
Major in Age,
S/o Sri Late Muniyappa,
R/at No.235, 1st Main ,
1st Cross, N.S.Halli,
Bengaluru.
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
2. Sri Manjunath @ Auto Manja,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri Muni Anjinappa,
R/at No.236, A.K.Colony,
N.S.Halli, Bengaluru.
3. Sri Nagaraj @ Auto Nagaraj,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri Late Muniraju,
R/at No.239, A.K.Colony,
N.S.Halli, Bengaluru.
4. Sri Muniraju @ Gurkha Muniraju,
Major in Age,
S/o Late Sri Muniraju,
R/at No.239, A.K.Colony,
N.S.Halli, Bengaluru. ......Accused
(Represented By Sri K.M.Thippeswamy, Advocate )
1. Date of commission of 01-11-2017
offence
2. Date of FIR 01-11-2017
3. Date of Charge sheet 15-02-2018
4.Name of Complainant Smt. Stella Geetha
2
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
5. Offences complained of Under Section 448, 323,
354, 506(b), 427 read
with Sec.34 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 17-08-2019
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 03-03-2021
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 18-06-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 18-06-2025
11. Final Order Accused No. 1 to 4
Convicted for the offence
punishable under section
448, 323, 427 and 506 of
IPC and acquitted from
the offence punishable
under section 354 of IPC
12. Date of sentence -
3
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1
to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 448,
323, 354, 506(b), 427 read with Sec.34 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 01-11-2017 at 10.30
pm, at the house No.263 situated at Nagashettyhalli,
Manjunath Layout, II Cross, Bangalore within the
limits of Sanjaynagar Police Station, the accused No.1
to 4 were with common intention picked up quarrel
with CW1 namely Smt. Geetha Stella abused her with
filthiest language in respect of construction of house
and trespassed into the house of CW1 and beaten
CW5 namely Smt. Geetha and CW6 Kumari Gloria
with their hands, dragged their clothes with an
intention to outrage their modesty. When CW4
namely Sri Kumar try to pacified the quarrel all the
accused persons who in turn beaten him with hands
and accused No.4 destroyed the window glass and
granite with long mettalic bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) and caused
loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to CW1 and
threatened CW1, CW4 and CW5 with dire
consequences by showing iron fist.
4
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
3. First Information Report: On the basis of
first information given by CW1, CW9/PW8 namely Sri
Mestri Naik, PSI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station
registered Crime No.304/2017 against accused No.1
to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 448,
323, 354, 504, 506(B), 427 read with Sec.34 of IPC,
prepared FIR as per Ex.P3 and sent the same to the
Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: Thereafter he drawn spot
mahazar on 01-11-2017 from 4 pm to 5 pm as per
Ex.P2 in the presence of CW7 and CW8 and seized
MO1 to MO3, recorded the statement of requisite
witnesses, collected the documents and submitted
charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the
offences punishable under Section 323, 448, 354,
506(B), 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
5. The accused No.1 to 4 were enlarged on bail
by the order dated 23-11-2018.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court has
taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the
accused persons.
5
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused persons.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused No.1 to 4, charge for the offences
punishable U/Sec.323, 448, 354, 506, 427 read with
Section 34 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 9 witnesses,
examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents
and MO1 to MO3 and closed their side. Despite of
execution of process, CW8 failed to appear to give
evidence and hence given up from examination by
the order dated 25-02-2025.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of
Cr P C: After completion of evidence of prosecution,
the statement of accused No.1 to 4 were examined as
per section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied all
incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of
prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal
evidence.
6
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
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 01-11-2017 at
10.30 pm, at house No.263,
Nagashettyhalli, Manjunath
Layout, II Cross, Bangalore
within the limits of Sanjaynagar
Police Station, the accused No.1
to 4 were with common intention
trespassed into the house of CW1
thereby resulted in commission of
the offence punishable u/Sec.448
read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention the accused No.1 to 4
had voluntarily beaten CW5
namely Smt. Geetha, CW6 Kumari
7
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Gloria and CW4 namely Sri
Kumar with their hands and
caused simple hurt thereby
resulted in commission of the
offence punishable u/Sec.323
read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention, the accused No.1 to 4
dragged the clothes of CW5 and
CW6 being women with an
intention to outrage their modesty
thereby resulted in commission of
the offence punishable u/Sec.354
read with Sec.34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention, the accused No.4 had
destroyed the window glass and
granite with long metal bar
(ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) and caused loss to the
8
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
tune of Rs.10,000/- to CW1
thereby resulted in commission of
the offence punishable u/Sec.427
read with Sec.34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention, the accused No.4
threatened CW1, CW4 to CW6
with dire consequences by
showing iron fist (ಕಬ್ಬಿಣದ ಹಾರೆ)
thereby resulted in commission of
the offence punishable u/Sec.506
read with Sec.34 of IPC?
7. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1, 2, 4 & 5: In the affirmative
Point No. 3: In the negative
Point No.6: As per final order9
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 5: These points are taken up
together for the purpose of common discussion in
order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the
same part of transaction. In support of prosecution
case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the witnesses which are as
follows
(i) CW1 by name Smt. Stella Geetha, being
informant examined as PW1 deposed that on 01-11-
2017 at 10.30 am, the accused No.1 to 4 came to her
house, destroyed tiles and window glasses with long
metal bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ), beaten her daughter-in-law
Geetha and pulled her daughter Gloria’s hand and
and tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her
foster-son Kumar. They did this for getting money
from her. Hence, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P1,
police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2, seized
tiles, glass pieces and long metallic bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ) , as
per MO1 to MO3. Further she identified her
signature as Ex.P1(a) and (2).
(ii) CW2 by name Smt. Suja, the sister of CW1
examined as PW2 deposed that, on 01-11-2017 at
10.30 am, accused NO. 1 to 4 came to her sister’s
10
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
house. When she went there, the accused were
beating Kumar//PW3, trying to hit her sister with
hammer, hitting Geetha on the leg and making her
fall, dragging her sister’s daughter Gloria by the
hand, and then breaking the tiles and window
glasses. She identified accused persons and MO1 to
MO3.
(iii) CW3 by name Sri Kumar, eyewitness
examined as PW3 deposed that, on 01-11-2017,
between 9 am and 9.30 am, while he, his foster father
Michael, his mother CW1, CW6, CW5, CW3 Mahesh
an electrician were working on the construction of his
foster father’s house in Manjunatha Layout,
Sanjaynagar, the accused persons came and abused
them in filthy language, held their hands and grabbed
their clothes and dragged them, destroyed the granite
and window glasses with hammer and stones. When
he went to ask them, they beaten him and his father
and threatened them with dire consequences.
(iv) CW5 by name Smt. Geetha and Smt.
Kumari Gloria, eye witnesses examined as PW4 and
PW5 respectively deposed that, on 01-11-2017, while
they along with CW1 and CW4 were at their father-in-
law Michael’s house No.263 in Nagashettihalli, the
accused came with hammer and long metallic rod,
abused CW1 and destroyed granite and window
11
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
glasses, when to try to pacify the quarrel, the accused
pushed them and tried to hit CW4 with long metallic
rod.
(v) CW3 by name Sri Mahesh, eye witness
examined as PW6 and deposed that on 01-11-2017,
he went to do electrician work to the house of Michael
in Manjunathanagar, Nagashettihalli. When he
returned after drinking tea, the accused were
quarreling near Michael’s house, they broke the
window glass and granite, grabbed CW1’s hand and
tore her clothes, and abused her in filthy language.
He had given statement to the police about the
incident.
(vi) CW7/PW7 Sri Babu, deposed that on 01-
11-2017, he was working as an electrician at the
Ivenjika Outreach Mission Church in Nagashettihalli,
and that the accused persons took the gadapare
(ಗಡಪಾರೆ), broke the granites and glasses of window
and pushed the women there down. He identified the
signature on Ex.P2 (spot Mahazar) as Ex.P2(b) and
MO1.
(vii) CW9 by name Sri Mestri Nayak, the then
PSI of Sanjay Nagara PS examined as PW8 and
deposed that on 01-11-2017 he received written
12
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
complaint from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P3,
conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 from 4 pm to
5.00 pm in the presence of CW7 and CW8, seized
glass and granite pieces, long mettalic bar (ಗಡಾಪಾರೆ)
and subjected to property form No.116/2017,
recorded the statements of CW2 to CW6, recorded the
statements of CW1 and CW6 under Section 164
CrPC, secured the tax receipt in respect of CW1’s
house and after completion of investigation he
submitted final report against the accused persons.
He identified his signatures as Ex.P1(b), 2(c) and 3(a).
15. It is the case of prosecution that this
criminal complaint was lodged on account of the
outcome of the civil dispute filed against the accused
No.1 to 4. It ought to be seen that the accused
persons are nowhere party to the civil proceedings
bearing O.S. No. 4008/2017. Added to which, the
accused No.1 to 4 has not explained how they are
related to the informant or her husband Micheal or to
the parties mentioned in the suit therein. Though the
accused No.1 to 4 has denied the prosecution case
however admitted in the cross examination that they
went to the incident place 01/11/2017 on the ground
of stopping the construction work on account of stay
granted in O.S. No. 4008/2017 on 16/06/2017
whereas the alleged incident was taken place on
01/11/2017 so this interim order does not have any
13
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
bearing upon the rights of accused persons as they
are not related to the civil suit in anywhere.
16. It is relevant to mention the parties in O S
No.4008/2017 are that the plaintiff namely Sri
Srinivasa Murthy S/o. Late Hanumantha filed the
suit against the defendants namely Smt. Arasamma,
Sri Srinivasa, Smt. Mahadevamma, Sri Muniraju, Sri
Ramesh, Sri Jayamma, Smt. Nandini, Sri S. Michael
and Sri Stella Geetha for partition and separate
Possession of the and hence the name of
assailants /accused persons in this case was not
mentioned from the documents produced by the
counsel for the accused persons.
17. It is relevant to extract the cross examination
of PW3 in page No.6 and PW5 in page No.3 wherein it
was suggested that
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ
ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶ
ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಗಂಡ
ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಈ ರೀತಿ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವಾಗಿದೆ, ಮನೆ
ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ಅವರ
ಮೇಲೆ ಈ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಕೇಸನ್ನು ದಾಖಲೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಈ ರೀತಿ ಕೇಳಲು ಬಂದಾಗ
14
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1 ಹಾಗೂ ಇತರರು
ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಮೇಲೆ ದೌರ್ಜನ್ಯ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಸದರಿ
ವಿಚಾರಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ಒಂದು ದೂರು
ನೀಡಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದರ ಕ್ರೈಂ
ನಂ.305/2017 ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಪರಿಶಿಷ್ಟ ಜಾತಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದವರು
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನೀಡಿದ ದೂರಿನ
ಮೇಲೆ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಬಿ ರಿಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
PW5 deposed that in paragraph
No. 3 that
ಸದರಿ ಆದೇಶ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ನಾವು ಕಟ್ಟಡ
ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು
ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊದಲೇ ಕಟ್ಟಡ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು
ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆ ಕೇಸು ಹಾಕಿದ ನಂತರ
ನಾವು ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವಿದ್ದರೂ ನಾವು
ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅದನ್ನು
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಡಿ
ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡರೂ ಸಹ ನಾವು
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ದಿಕ್ಕರಿಸಿ ಮನೆ
ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
15
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Thus, from the aforesaid suggestion made to
PW3 and PW5 makes it very clear that the accused
No.1 to 4 went to the house of the PW1. In this
regard, the accused persons lodged the complaint in
crime No. 305/2017 however they did not challenge
the said report rather chosen to remain uncontested.
Merely, the accused persons lodged the complaint,
the court cannot infer that the alleged incident could
not have taken place. It appears from the record that
there is an inconsistency defence taken by the
accused persons as one hand had taken defence that
they never gone to the house of PW1 whereas on the
other hand accused persons had gone to the house of
the PW1 from stopping the PW1 from proceeding with
the construction.
18. The First charge is against the accused
persons were for having entered the house of the PW1
unlawfully with intention to commit the offence and
hence they are charged under section 448 of IPC
provides punishment for house-trespass which is
defined under Section 442 of the IPC which states
that
“whoever commits criminal
trespass by entering into or
remaining in any building, tent or
vessel used as human dwelling or
any building used as a place for
16
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
worship, or as a place for the
custody of property” meaning
thereby to constitute house
trespass, it must be a criminal
trespass.
Criminal trespass is defined under Section 441
of the IPC. Basic ingredient to satisfy criminal
trespass is (i) entry into or upon property in the
possession of another, (ii) if such entry is lawful then
unlawfully remaining upon such property, (iii) such
entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent (a) to
commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult or
annoy the person in possession.
19. In order to constitute offence under Section
441 of IPC, the accused persons must enter into
property in the possession of another with intent to
commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy
any person in possession of such property. It is clear
from the wording of the section that there can be no
criminal trespass unless the “intent” specified in the
section is present. The phrase “any person in
possession of such property” is also to be
remembered. The intent to annoy and intimidate
must be not with respect to any and every person
connected with the property but with respect to any
17
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
person in actual possession of such property. It is
aimed to protect possession and not the ownership.
20. Mere entry upon another’s land, under
however preposterous a claim of right or even without
any claim of right, is no offence unless this entry is
accompanied by one of the specific intents provided
for in Section 441 of IPC.
21. The presence of such criminal intent may be
manifested by the act or may be inferred from other
circumstances. But in either case there must be an
intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult
or annoy any person in possession of such property.
22. Admittedly, the possession of the PW1 in the
spot was admitted by the accused persons from the
suggestions put forth to the prosecution witnesses.
The another ingredient to be proved/established by
the prosecution was that whether the accused
persons entered into the property of the PW1 with an
intention to commit an offense. In this regard, it is
relevant to analyses the prosecution witnesses which
are extracted as under
I. PW1 (informant) deposed in her
chief in examination that18
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-30
ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಆಟೋ ಮುನಿರಾಜು , ಆಟೋ ಮಂಜು,
ಆಟೋ ನಾಗರಾಜು, ಗೂರ್ಕ ಮುನಿರಾಜು ನಮ್ಮ
ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದರು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ
ಮುಂದಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಬಂದ
ನಂತರ ನಮಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದರು. ಗಡಪಾತಿ (ಹಾರೆ)
ಯನ್ನು ತಂದು ಹೊಸದಾಗಿ ಹಾಕಲು ತಂದು ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ
ಟೈಲ್ಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಕಿಟಕಿಯನ್ನು
ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆಗೆ ಗೀತಾಗೆ
ಹೊಡೆದು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬೀಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
II. PW2 (sister of PW1) in page No.
2 of chief in examination deposed
that
ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ. ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-
11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ
ಆಟೋ ಮುನಿರಾಜು , ಆಟೋ ಮಂಜು,
ಆಟೋ ನಾಗರಾಜು, ಗೂರ್ಕ ಮುನಿರಾಜು
ನಮ್ಮ ಅಕ್ಕನ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದರು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದಿರುವ
ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು
ಕುಮಾರ ಎಂಬವನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.
ನಂತರ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ ಚಾಸಾ 1
ರವರಿಗೆ ಕರಣೆಯಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು
ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಗೀತಾ ಎಂಬವರಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಿಗೆ
ಹೊಡೆದು ಬೀಳಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕನ ಮಗಳು
ಗ್ಲೋರಿಯ ಮರ್ಸಿಗೆ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡು
19
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
ಎಳೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಟೈಲ್ಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಪುಡಿ
ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಕಿಟಕಿಯ
ಗಾಜುಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
III. PW3 deposed in the chief in
examination that
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 09-
00 ರಿಂದ 09-30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ನಾನು, ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆ ಮೈಕೆಲ್ , ನನ್ನ
ಸಾಕು ತಾಯಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 , ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಚಾಸಾ
6, ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತಿಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ 5, ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರಿಷಿಯನ್
ಮಹೇಶ್ ಚಾಸಾ 3 ರವರು ಸಂಜಯನಗರದ
ಮಂಜುನಾಥ ಲೇಔಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು
ತಂದೆಯ ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ಕೆಲಸ
ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ, ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ
ತಾಯಿ, ನನ್ನ ತಂಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅತ್ತಿಗೆಗೆ ಬೆವರ್ಸಿ
ಮುಂಡೆ, ಕತ್ತೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ
ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಕೈಹಿಡಿದು ಎಳೆದಾಡಿ, ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಹಿಡಿದು
ಎಳೆದಾಡಿದರು ಹಾಗೂ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತಿದ್ದ
ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಕಲ್ಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್
ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಕೇಳಲು
ಹೋದಾಗ ನನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆಗೆ
ಹೊಡೆದರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಲೆ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದರು.
ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಕೊಲೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ
ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಗಡಪಾರಿಯಿಂದ (ಹಾರೆ)
20
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
ಚುಚ್ಚಿ ಸಾಯಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಬೆದರಿಕೆ
ಹಾಕಿದರು.
iv. PW4 deposed in the chief in
examination that
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-
00 ರಿಂದ 10-30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1 , ಚಾಸಾ 6 , ಚಾಸಾ
4ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ಮಾವ ಮೈಕೆಲ್ ರವರು
ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಮನೆ
ನಂ.263 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು
ಗಡಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕರಣೆ, ಸುತ್ತಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆಗೆ ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ
ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು ಶೇಖರಿಸಿದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್
ಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಗಡಾರೆಯಿಂದ ಒಡೆದು
ಹಾಕಿದರು, ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು
ಹಾಕಿದರು.
v. PW5 deposed in the chief in
examination that
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-
30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1
, ಚಾಸಾ 5 , ಚಾಸಾ 4ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ
ಮೈಕೆಲ್ ರವರು ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ
ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಮನೆ ನಂ.263 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ಗಡಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕರಣೆ,
ಸುತ್ತಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆಗೆ
ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು
ಶೇಖರಿಸಿದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು
21
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
ಗಡಾರೆಯಿಂದ ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು, ಕಿಟಕಿ
ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
vi. PW6 deposed in chief in
examination that
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 01-11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-
30 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, ಚಾಸಾ 1
, ಚಾಸಾ 5 , ಚಾಸಾ 4ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ
ಮೈಕೆಲ್ ರವರು ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ
ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಮನೆ ನಂ.263 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗ
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಂದು ಗಡಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕರಣೆ,
ಸುತ್ತಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆಗೆ
ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈಯ್ದು, ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಲು
ಶೇಖರಿಸಿದ ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು
ಗಡಾರೆಯಿಂದ ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು, ಕಿಟಕಿ
ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು.
Thus, from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution witnesses emerges that the accused No. 1
to 4 has illegally entered into the house of PW1 with
an intent to commit an offence by posing life threat to
the PW1 and her family members. When there is a
stay in O S No.4008/2017 in respect of the property,
if the right of accused persons were affected, they
were at liberty to approach the court of law for
remedy.
22
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
23. It ought to be seen from order sheet
produced by the counsel for the accused persons that
the PW1/defendant No.8 came on record by filing
vakalath through her counsel on 21/08/2017. If the
PW1 and her husband violated the interim order of
Civil Court in OS No. 4008/2017, they would face the
consequences of contempt/violation of an interim
order. No doubt, the counsel for accused persons
submitted that the contempt application was filed
against PW1 and her husband Michael who is none
other than defendant No. 7 and 8. Merely filing of the
application for contempt of court for violating the
court order, the court cannot brush aside the oral
testimony given by the PW1 to PW5 with the regard to
the alleged incident of life threats and damaging the
materials and beating the PW3. The evidence of PW1
to PW5 makes it very clear that accused No.1 to 4
entered the house of PW1 with an intention to commit
the offence as they took the long metallic bar which
was lying at the spot. Thus, the prosecution has
proved that the accused persons entered the house of
the PW1 with an intention to commit the offence
under section 448 of Indian Penal Code thereby point
No.1 is answered in affirmative.
24. The next accusation is that the accused
persons has beaten PW3 with their hands and hence
charged for an offence punishable under section 323
23
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
of IPC. Section 321 of IPC defines voluntarily causing
hurt
Whoever does any act with the
intention of thereby causing hurt to
any person, or with the knowledge
that he is likely thereby to cause hurt
to any person, and does thereby cause
hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily
to cause hurt”
i.e., voluntarily causing hurt is causing hurt with
intention or knowledge. Thus, either the ingredient of
intention or of knowledge must essentially be present
to constitute an offence under the section. The acts
which fall under Section 321 IPC are punishable
under Section 323 IPC.
Section 323 in the Indian Penal Code
which reads as under
323. Punishment for voluntarily
causing hurt.–Whoever, except in the
case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.
24
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
To convict a person under Section 323 IPC, the
following constituents must be present:
1. The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt
to another person.
2. The hurt caused must not be grave or life-
threatening.
3. The act must not have been committed in the
heat of passion or in exercising the right of
private defence.
If all of these constituents are present, then the
accused can be charged with an offence under section
323 of the IPC and may be imprisoned for up to one
year, with a fine, or with both. It is important to note
that the punishment may vary depending on the
circumstances of the case and the severity of the hurt
caused.
25. Admittedly the prosecution has not produced
any wound certificate though they alleged to have
taken the treatment at the K. C. General Hospital and
hurt was grievous in nature but they did not produce
the wound certificate as IO did not ask them as per
evidence given by the PW4 ( daughter in law/ ಸೊಸೆ of
PW1). If the prosecution did not produce the wound
certificate,the court cannot infer that no hurt was
25
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
caused to the PW3. The evidence of PW1 depicts in
the chief in examination that
“ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ಮಗ ಕುಮಾರನನ್ನು
ಸಾಯಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ”
PW2 deposed that ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ
ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕುಮಾರ
ಎಂಬವನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.
PW3 deposed that ಕಿಟಕಿ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್
ಗಳನ್ನು ಒಡೆದು ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು
ಕಲ್ಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಗ್ರಾನೈಟ್ ಕಲ್ಲುಗಳನ್ನು
ಸುತ್ತಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡೆದರು. ಕೇಳಲು ಹೋದಾಗ
ನನಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕು ತಂದೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದರು
ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಲೆ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿದರು. ಸದರಿ
ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಕೊಲೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು
ಹೇಳಿದರುPW4 deposed that ಆಗ ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ
ಬಿದ್ದೆವು. ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4 ಬಿಡಿಸಲು
ಬಂದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅವರಿಗೂ
ಹೊಡೆದರು.
PW5 deposed that ಆಗ ನಾವು ಅಡ್ಡ
ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು
ಚಾಸಾ 5 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದರು. ಆಗ ನಾವು
ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು. ಗಡಪಾರೆಯಿಂದ ನನ್ನ
ಅಣ್ಣನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಬಂದರು.
26
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Thus, it is clear that the accused persons has
beaten the PW3 voluntarily with their hands. If the
small acts of body pain caused during the quarrel,
would amounts to voluntarily causing hurt.
26. The learned counsel for the accused persons
with the vehemence argued that the wound/medical
certificate is not produced to corroborate the hurt of
PW3 as he has taken treatment . The wound
certificate is required to ascertain nature of injury for
fixing the quantum of punishment. As per Section
319 of IPC, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause “hurt”.
Therefore, even causing bodily pain can be said to be
causing “hurt”. Merely the wound certificate was not
secured by the IO/PW7 from the victims, this court
cannot brush aside the oral testimony of injured and
eye witnesses.
27. It ought to be seen that PW3 is injured
witness and PW1, PW4 and PW5 are eye witnesses to
the alleged incident of causing hurt by the accused
persons to the PW3/Sri Kumar as held by this
Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, evidence of
an injured eye witness has great evidentiary value
and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements
cannot to be discarded lightly. The very cogent and
27
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
convincing grounds are required to discard the
evidence of injured witness and the said principle is
appreciated in the case of State of M P Vs Mansingh
reported in (2003) 10 SCC 414(para 9); Abdul Sayeed
Vs State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 259; Ram vilas Vs
State of MP , (2016) 16 SCC 316 (para 6); State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh reported in (2011) 4 SCC
324 (para 27); and in the case of Kalabhai Hamirbhai
Kachhot Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2021) SCC
Online SC 347 (paras 20 & 21).
28. In the case on hand, right from the very
beginning, all the accused were named in the FIR and
their role and complicity have been established with
trustworthy, reliable and cogent evidence. It is
submitted that all the accused persons in furtherance
of the common intention beaten the PW3/Sri Kumar.
The accused persons had not taken any contention
that the causing hurt to the PW3 due to the
provocation or due to self defence. The accused
persons were present and committed the offences of
causing hurt to the PW1. As such, there is no ground
to disbelieve the evidence of the injured eye
witnesses/eye witnesses. Therefore the prosecution
has established that the accused persons had
committed an offence of voluntarily causing hurt
thereby the Point No. 2 is answered in affirmative.
28
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
29. The next charge framed under section 354 of
IPC. Whether the act of the accused persons falls
within the mischief under Section 354 of IPC. As per
Section 354 of IPC-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal
force to any woman, intending to
outrage or knowing it to be likely
that he will thereby outrage her
modesty shall be punished.
The essential ingredients of offence under
Section 354 of IPC are:-
a) That the assault must be on a
woman.
b) That the accused must have
used criminal force on PW4 and
PW5.
c) That the criminal force must
have been used on the woman
intending thereby to outrage the
modesty of PW4 and PW5.
The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex
and from the birth of PW4 and PW5, they possess the
29
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
modesty which is the attribute of their sex. From the
test for ascertaining whether modesty has been
outraged is whether the action of the offender is such
as could be perceived as one which is capable of
shocking the sense of decency of a woman and the
said principle is appreciated in case of Rupan Deol
Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and another reported in 1995 (6) SCC 194.
30. Looking to the complaint and evidence of the
prosecutrix (PW-1) and victim of Section 354 of IPC
i.e., PW4 and PW5 is that
ನಾನು ಈ ಮೇಲೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ
ಗಂಡ ಮಕ್ಕಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದುಕೊಂಡು
ಗ್ರಹಣಿಯಾಗಿರುತೇನೆ. ಈ ದಿನ ದಿನಕ 01-
11-2017 ರಂದು ಬೆಳೆಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 10.30
ಗಂಟೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಟೋ ಮುನಿರಾಜು,
ಆಟೋ ಮಂಜ , ಆಟೋ ನಾಗರಾಜು
ಗೋರ್ಕ ಮುನಿರಾಜು ಎಂಬುವವರು ನಾವು
ಮನೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿದಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ
ಜಗಳ ತೆಗದು ಅವ್ಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದಗಳಿಂದ ನಮಗೆ
ಬೈದು ನಮ್ಮ ಮಗಳು ಗ್ಲೋರಿಯಾ ಮೆರ್ರಿಸ್
ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆ ಗೀತಾ ಎಂಬುವವರಿಗೆ
ಕೈಲಿಂದ ಹೊಡದು ಎಳದಾಡ
PW1 deposed in her chief in
examination that
30
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
xxxxxx ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆಗೆ ಗೀತಾಗೆ
ಹೊಡೆದು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬೀಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳು
ಗ್ಲೊರಿಯ ಮರ್ಸಿಗೆ ಕೈಯನ್ನು ಎಳೆದು
ಮಾನಭಂಗ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
PW4 and PW5 deposed that
ಆಗ ನಾವು ಅಡ್ಡ ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು
ನನ್ನನ್ನು, ಚಾಸಾ 6 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದರು. ಆಗ
ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು. ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 4
ಬಿಡಿಸಲು ಬಂದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅವರಿಗೂ
ಹೊಡೆದರು. ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರೋ
ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಪೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದು,
ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದರು. ನಂತರ
ನಾವೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ
ಹೋಗಿ ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದೆವು. ಆರೋಪಿತರು
ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದಾಗ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 6
ರವರ ದುಪ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಮತ್ತು ಬಟ್ಟೆ ಹರಿದು
ಹೋದೆವು.
and
ಆಗ ನಾವು ಅಡ್ಡ ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು
ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ 5 ರವರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿದರು.
ಆಗ ನಾವು ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೆವು.
Thus, it is clear from the oral testimony of
alleged victims i.e., PW4 and PW5 that they went to
stop the acts of accused persons from breaking the
31
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
granites and window glasses with the hammers and
long metallic bar at that time the accused persons
were pushed the PW4 and PW5 and at the time of
pushing the PW4 and PW5, dupata/vale (ದುಪಟ್ಟಾ) and
clothes were torn. The statement given by the PW4
and PW5 goes to show that the accused persons
made an attempt to outraging the modesty which is
contrary to the oral testimony.
31. It is relevant to mention the decision in the
case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another Vs.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another reported in 1995
(6) SCC (Cri) 1059 in paragraph 17 and in the case of
Vidhyadharan Vs state Of Kerala reported in 2004
SCC (Cri) 260 in paragraph 14 held that
17. It is undoubtedly correct that
if intention or knowledge is one of
the ingredients of any offence, it
has got to be proved like other
ingredients for convicting a
person. But, it is also equally true
that those ingredients being
states of mind may not be proved
by direct evidence and may have
to be inferred from the attending
circumstances of a given case.
Since, however, in the instant
32
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
case we are only at the incipient
stage we have to ascertain, only
prima facie, whether Mr Gill by
slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her
posterior, in the background
detailed by her in the FIR,
intended to outrage or knew it to
be likely that he would thereby
outrage her modesty, which is one
of the essential ingredients of
Section 354 IPC. The sequence of
events which we have detailed
earlier indicates that the slapping
was the finale to the earlier
overtures of Mr. Gill, which
considered together, persuade us
to hold that he had the requisite
culpable intention. Even if we had
presumed he had no such
intention he must be attributed
with such knowledge, as the
alleged act was committed by him
in the presence of a gathering
comprising the elite of the society-
as the names and designations of
the people given in the FIR
indicate. While on this point we
may also mention that there is
33
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
nothing in the FIR to indicate,
even remotely, that the indecent
act was committed by Mr Gill,
accidentally or by mistake or it
was a slip. For the reasons
aforesaid, it must also be said
that – apart from the offence
under Section 354 IPC-an offence
under section 509 of IPC has been
made out on the allegations
contained in the FIR as the words
used and gestures made by Mr.
Gill were intended to insult the
modesty of Mrs. Bajaj.”
and
10. Intention is not the sole
criterion of the offence punishable
under Section 354 IPC, and it can
be committed by a person
assaulting or using criminal force
to any woman, if he knows that
by such act the modesty of the
woman is likely to be affected.
Knowledge and intention are
essentially things of the mind and
cannot be demonstrated like
physical objects. The existence of
34
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
intention or knowledge has to be
culled out from various
circumstances in which and upon
whom the alleged offence is
alleged to have been committed. A
Victim of molestation and
indignation is in the same
position as an injured witness
and her testimony should receive
the same weight. xxxx
In the instant case after careful
consideration of the evidence coupled with the
aforesaid decisions, the accused persons did not
enter the house of PW1 to outrage the modesty of
PW4 and PW5 rather from the evidence (chief in
examination of PW4 and PW5) makes it very clear
that they went to stop from breaking the granites
and window glasses, at that time the accused
persons pushed the PW4 and Pw5. This Court is
of opinion that the pushing the PW4 and PW5 by
the accused persons during the heat of quarrel
accidentally in a wrongful manner, the same
cannot be said to be with an intention to outrage
their modesty and the said principle is
appreciated in the case of Sumit Kumar Gupta v.
State of West Bengal decided in CRR 3236 of
2014, decided on 22.04. 2014.
35
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
32. Added to which, there is no single
whisper in the complaint that the accused
persons made an attempt to outraging the
modesty as the complaint seems to be prepared
with the full knowledge and ingredient of other
offences as such so neatly and definitely the
complaint was not written by the PW1 as her
signature appears to be of one uneducated
person. It is an afterthought i.e., 02/11/2017 the
statement was given as accused persons jointly
made attempt to outraging modesty (ಮಾನಭಂಗಕ್ಕೆ
ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದಾಗ) at that time PW3/Kumar interfered
and was beaten him by the accused persons with
their hands.
33. The statement given by the PW4 and
PW5 before the magistrate under section 164 of
CRPC on 05/01/2018 makes it very clear that
whilst questioning the acts of accused persons,
accused persons pushed them. Thus, it is clear
that the facts of the case coupled with the oral
testimony of PW4 and PW5 do not disclose that
any assault or criminal force was used on them
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely
that their acts would outrage their modesty. The
action of accused persons can be attributed to the
fallout of a heated quarrel which culminated in
the PW4 and PW5 pushing them down and at
36
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
that time of pushing them down, their clothes
were torn.
34. Added to which, the accused persons as
soon as entered into the house of the PW1 did not
go and immediately held the hands of PW4 and
PW5 and torn their clothes to infer that the
accused No. 1 to 4 entered the house of PW1 for
outraging of modesty of PW4 and PW5. Thus ,
the informant may complain of outraging the
modesty of PW4 and PW5 but cannot complain of
a definite apriori intention on the part of the
accused persons to outrage the modesty of PW4
and PW5 on 01/11/2017.
35. Furthermore, there is no surrounding
circumstances exist to convince this Court that
the accused persons arrived at the spot with an
intention to outrage the modesty of the PW4 and
PW5. Thus, the prosecution failed to
prove/establish that the accused persons entered
into the house of PW1 for outraging the modesty
of PW4 and PW5 by using criminal force thereby
the point No. 3 is answered in negative.
37
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
36. The accused persons were charged for an
offence punishable under section 427 of IPC. The
expression “mischief” has been defined in Section
425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause
or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss
or damage to the public or to any person causes
the destruction of any property etc. Section 427
IPC reads as follows:
“Whoever commits mischief and
thereby causes loss or damage to the
amount of fifty rupees or upwards
shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which
may extend to two years or with fine,
or with both.”
PW1 had given the complaint that there was a
loss of Rs. 10,000/- on account of breaking of
granites and window glasses and during the course of
evidence deposed that she incurred loss of Rs. 1
lakhs. The accused persons has cross examined PW1
for non furnishing the estimation of report of loss. It
ought to be seen that the PW1 to PW6 deposed that
the accused persons have broken the granites
window glasses. The estimation of report as to the
value is not required as the cost of granites cannot be
imagined would be less than value of Rs. 50/-. So
such being the case, the PW1 to PW5 who are belongs
38
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
to the same family deposed about the damaging the
granites and window glasses.
37. PW6 is an independent witnesses deposed
about damaging the granites and window glasses.
Added to which, the accused persons had not elicited
anything from him during cross examination how his
evidence cannot be trustworthy rather suggested in
the cross examination about the pendency of civil
case and denied the prosecution case. Admittedly, no
report of actual loss of breaking the window glasses
and granites was produced. It can safely be
presumed that the accused persons even though did
not intent to cause any harm to the breaking granites
and window glasses, it can be said that they knew
that they are likely to cause wrongful loss or damage
to PW1 and thereby, caused damage by breaking the
window glasses and granites thereby diminishing its
value and accordingly, committed mischief. Hence,
the ingredients of Section 427 of IPC are proved
against the accused persons thereby the point No. 4
answered in the affirmative.
38. The another offence was charged with the
criminal intimidation by entering into the house of
PW1 illegally as it was punishable under section 506
of IPC. On the relevant date, time and place, the
accused persons made criminal intimidation to
39
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
eliminate the family members of PW1. The evidence
of PW1, PW3 to PW6 is clear that accused persons
whilst going after causing damage to the granite and
window glasses that they have threatened them by
showing the iron metallic bar. On perusal of the
above provisions, it is clear that in order to satisfy the
ingredients of criminal intimidation, there has to be a
threat of injury to person, reputation or property of
PW1 by the accused persons, which should be with
an intention to cause alarm to that person or cause
that person to do any act which they are not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the
execution of such threat. It has been held in the case
of MANIK TANEJA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART
7 SCC 423, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the
ingredients of Section 503 and 506 of the IPC as
under
”11. Section 506 IPC prescribes
punishment for the offence of criminal
intimidation. “Criminal intimidation”
as defined in Section 503 IPC is as
under:
“503.Criminal intimidation.–
Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or40
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to
cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means
of avoiding the execution of such
threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.–A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in
whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section.” A
reading of the definition of “criminal
intimidation” would indicate that
there must be an act of threatening to
another person, of causing an injury
to the person, reputation, or property
of the person threatened, or to the
person in whom the threatened
person is interested and the threat
must be with the intent to cause
alarm to the person threatened or it
must be to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do or omit to do an
act which he is legally entitled to do.”From the foregoing proposition of law, it is clear
that in order to constitute offence of criminal41
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018intimidation, there must be threat with intention to
cause alarm to the PW1 and her family members or to
do any act which is not legally bound to do. Mere
expression of any words without any intention to
cause alarm to the PW1 or to make him to do, or omit
to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act within
the definition of criminal intimidation. However, the
accused persons came home on 01/11/2017, beaten
the PW3 and broken the granites and window glasses
and whilst going, they posed the life threat to PW1
and her family members. Therefore, in the instant
case, the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are
made out against the accused No.1 to 4 thereby the
point No. 5 is answered in the affirmative.
39. The learned counsel for the accused persons
with the vehemence argued by relying upon cross
examination of PW1
ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ದೂರು ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡುವ
ಮೊದಲೇ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿ 2015 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಮುನಿರಾಜುರವರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ
ನಂ.9497/2015 ನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ..
ಸದರಿ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆ ಹಾಕುವ ಮೊದಲು ಸದರಿ ಜಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ
ಒಂದು ಕೊಳವೆ ಬಾವಿ ಕೊರೆಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ
ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುನಿರಾಜುರವರು ಬೋರ್ ವೆಲ್
ಹಾಕದಂತೆ ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದೇ
ರೀತಿ ನಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಸಂಜಯನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ
ಒಂದು ದೂರು ಸಹ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ42
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018ದೂರಿನ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನಮ್ಮ ಹಾಗೂ
ಮುನಿರಾಜುರವರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು
ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು
ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ನಮ್ಮಿಬ್ಬರಿಗೂ ಸಿವಿಲ್
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗುವಂತೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ತದನಂತರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆಯನ್ನು
ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ತದನಂತರ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್
ಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರು ಅವರ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಕರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಹಾಗೂ
ನಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ದ ವಿಭಾಗ ಕೋರಿ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ನಂಬರ್
4008/2017 ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
PW1 had filed the suit bearing OS No.
9497/2015 and the said case was ended in her
favour. Such being the case, why the PW1 had to wait
against the accused No.1 for such long time to
counter the said civil case.
40. There are minor contradictions with the
regard to the timings varies as the PW1 to PW2, PW4
and PW5 deposed about the timings of incident was
10.30 am to 11.30 am but the PW3 deposed about
the timings was 9 to 9.30 am. Merely the timings
deposed by the PW3, the evidence of PW1, 2, 4 and 5
cannot be ignored.
41. Added to which, the contention of the
accused persons that the complaint is of civil nature
cannot be accepted as the Civil Court did not issue
any direction for the accused persons to enter into43
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018house of the PW1. Merely the PW1 was violating the
interim order granted by the Civil Court, the accused
persons cannot take the law into their hands.
42. No marking was made at the time of seizure
of MO1 to MO3 cannot be a ground to ignore the oral
testimony given by the PW1 to PW6 before this court
on oath as to the incident dated 01/11/2017.
43. The accused persons has not rebutted the
evidence of prosecution witnesses with any other
cogent evidence.
44. IO/PW8 deposed about the registration of
complaint and drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P2 and
the PW7 deposed about the drawing of mahazar at
the spot and the same was deposed by the PW1 as
there are signatories to the mahazar witness. No
doubt PW7 deposed that he signed the mahazar at
the police station and does not know who signed with
him in the cross examination but he deposed in cross
examination of PW1 that someone was standing at
the spot in his front.
45. Advocate for accused has relied upon the
cross examination of PW2 that she did not given any
statement before the police but she deposed about
the incident dated 01/11/2017.
44
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
46. The cross examination of the accused as to
the PW3 is the foster son of PW1 and the said Michael
is not material for this case to decide on the
commission of offence on the incident dated
01/11/2017.
47. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to
4 were argued that there are no independent
witnesses to the incident but the PW4 deposed that
there were none present apart from them. PW6 is the
independent witnesses who spoken about the
incidnet dated 01/11/2017 and his evidence was not
demolished by the prosecution in any manner or
nothing favourable answers were elicited from the
mouth of PW6. It appears from the Ex. P. 2 (spot
mahazar), the alleged spot was bounded on the East
by church, west by vacant site, North by residential
house belongs to Munikrishnappa and South by II
Cross. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4
with vehemence argued that if such incident was taken
place,the neighbours could have been present at the time
of incident. There is no single suggestion posed to the
availability of neighbours on the date of incident when it
was a government holiday.
48. Merely the husband of PW1 Sri Michael was
observing this court on every hearing date, the court45
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018cannot come to conclusion that it is a foisted and
false complaint as he being husband of PW1 and
father of PW5 has every right to know about the
status of the complaint.
49. In view of the above findings and reasons
given on point No.1 to 5, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Acting Under Section 248(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 to 4 is
convicted for the offences
punishable under section 448,
323, 427, 506 read with Sec.34 of
IPC
ii) Acting Under Section 248(1) of
Cr.P.C the accused No. 1 to 4 are
acquitted from the offences
punishable under section 354
read with Sec.34 of IPC
iv) Accused No.1 to 4 shall be
heard on the sentence under Sec.
248(2) of Cr.P.C.
(Typed from the reasons by me in my laptop, corrected and then pronounced by
me in open Court on this the 18th day of June, 2025.)
(Deepa.V.),
46
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
47
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Heard on sentence from APP and the advocate for
accused No. 1 to 4.
:ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Accused No.1 to 4 submitted that they are
aged and are bread earner of the family and their
family are totally depended upon them for their
livelihood and prays to take a lenient view.
2. The learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor has
replied that considering the magnitude of offence,
maximum possible sentence be imposed on the
accused No.1 to 4. He also further has argued that
the accused is liable to compensate the victim PW1
towards the loss suffered by him. The question is
whether the accused No.1 should be sentenced to
maximum possible sentence or fine or any leniency
can be shown to him? Admittedly the accused No.1 to
4 are aged above 45 years. Having regard to the
magnitude of offence and taking into consideration
the circumstances obtaining in the case, this court
deem it just and expedient to pass the following
sentence.
ORDER
i) For the offence under Section
448 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
48
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Rs.500/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for three months.
ii) For the offence under Section
323 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for one months.
iii) For the offence under Section
427 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for three months.
iv) For the offence under Section
506 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for three months.
v) Under Section 357(1) of the
Cr.P.C., the 50% of the fine
amount on recovery shall be paid
49
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
as compensation to the PW1. The
remaining 50% shall be defrayed
as prosecution expenses.
vi) After the expiry of appeal
period, MO1 and MO2 shall be
destroyed and MO3 confiscated to
State.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.1
to 4 shall stand cancelled.
viii) Copy of the judgment be given
to the accused No.1 to 4 at free of
cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno,
verified and corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 18th day of June, 2025.)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Stella Geetha Informant
PW2 : Smt. Suja Eye witness50
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018PW3 : Sri Kumar Eye witness
PW4 : Smt.Geetha Eye witness
PW5 : Kumari Gloria Eye witness
PW6 : Sri Mahesh Eye witness
PW7 : Sri Babu Pancha witness
PW8 : Sri Mestri Nayak IODocuments marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P3: FIR PW8
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO1: Granite MO2: Window glass pieces MO3: long metallic bar (ಕಬ್ಬಿಣದ ಹಾರೆ)
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
51
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
18-06-2025
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
i) Acting Under Section 248(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 to 4 is
convicted for the offences
punishable under section 448,
323, 427, 506 read with Sec.34 of
IPC
ii) Acting Under Section 248(1) of
Cr.P.C the accused No. 1 to 4 are
acquitted from the offences
punishable under section 354
read with Sec.34 of IPC
iv) Accused No.1 to 4 shall be
heard on the sentence under Sec.
248(2) of Cr.P.C.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City.
52
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
Orders on Sentence pronounced in the
open court vide separately
ORDER
i) For the offence under Section
448 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for three months.
ii) For the offence under Section
323 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for one months.
iii) For the offence under Section
427 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for three months.
iv) For the offence under Section
506 of IPC accused No.1 to 4 are
53
KABC030510792018 CC18915/2018
convicted and shall pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall
undergo SI for three months.
v) Under Section 357(1) of the
Cr.P.C., the 50% of the fine
amount on recovery shall be paid
as compensation to the PW1. The
remaining 50% shall be defrayed
as prosecution expenses.
vi) After the expiry of appeal
period, MO1 and MO2 shall be
destroyed and MO3 confiscated to
State.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.1
to 4 shall stand cancelled.
viii) Copy of the judgment be given
to the accused No.1 to 3 at free of
cost.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City.
54