[ad_1]
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.37527/2022PW.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)
[ad_2]
Source link