[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Komala vs Pallavi K on 6 August, 2025
KABC030390342021
Presented on : 28-06-2021
Registered on : 28-06-2021
Decided on : 06-08-2025
Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 06th day of August- 2025
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.13712/2021
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 19.01.2020
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Smt. Pallavi.R
S/o. Shashikumar,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.13712/2021
Aged about 23 years,
R/at. No.297, 16th Block,
3rd Floor, Slum Quarters,
Gubbala Road, Bhuvaneshwari
Nagar, Subramanyapura,
Bengaluru Ciyt.
A2. Smt. Lakshmi
W/o. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 45 years,
A3. Chandrashekar
S/o. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 25 years,
A4. Krishnamurthy
S/o. Late.Govindappa,
Aged about 50 years,
A2 to 4 are R/at.
Lakshmamma Street,
House Near Balanna House,
A. Gubbala Main Road,
Subramanyapura,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s. 323, 324, 354, 504, 506
R/w sec., 34 of IPC
Judgment 3 C.C.No.13712/2021
Plea/Charge Recorded on 23.09.2021 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 06.08.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 4 are Acquitted
Date of Order 06.08.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the
offences punishable U/s. 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.13712/2021
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the Cw.1 is the resident of
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar Slum Quarters, Gubbalala Main Road,
comes within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police
station and the Cw.1 had given hand loan to accused No.1 to
4. Further on 19.01.2020 at about 08.00 PM, when the Cw.1
went to the house of accused persons and asked about the
money which they have taken from Cw.1, for that the accused
persons picked up the quarrel with the Cw.1 and abused her
in filthy language and assaulted Cw.1 with their hands and
caused simple injuries to Cw.1. Further, the accused persons
pulled the cloths of the Cw.1 in the public and insulted her
modesty in the public, further the accused No.3 with an
common intention, assaulted the Cw.1 with the wooden club
on Cw.1 back and caused injuries to Cw.1. Further the
Judgment 5 C.C.No.13712/2021accused persons given life threat to Cw.1 and Cw.1 and
thereby the accused persons have committed the above said
offences punishable U/s. 323, 323, 353, 504, 506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for
the offence punishable U/s. 323, 323, 353, 504, 506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC against the accused persons. The accused
persons were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers
furnished to the accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of
Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read
over to the accused persons wherein they have denied the
same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.1 to 7 witnesses this court
repeatedly issued Summons, NBW and Proclamation, even
though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they
Judgment 6 C.C.No.13712/2021
have failed to secure these witnesses. Moreover, this case is 05
years old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after
given sufficient opportunities to prosecution. In this regard
this court relied on the following Hon’ble High Court, full
bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The
State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24
March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it
held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunity to
serve the summons or to produce the witnesses,
is the one that directly arises for determination
in these appeals. The second question which
arises for determination by us incidentally is
Judgment 7 C.C.No.13712/2021whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused
under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to any
of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not serve
the summons on the witnesses despite having
been granted sufficient opportunities to serve
the summons on the witnesses or to produce
the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
Judgment 8 C.C.No.13712/2021make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to
produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give
them time to do the same, or to issue fresh
summons, the court was not bound to fix
another date. The police has a duty towards
the citizen. When the accused is brought before
the court and the prosecuting department does
not take any steps it will be an abuse of the
process of the court to continue the trial.
Bringing a person before the court accusing him
of some offence is a serious matter and
however petty the offence may be, the
prosecuting department, must do its duty
towards the accused as well as the court. When
Judgment 9 C.C.No.13712/2021
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Judgment 10 C.C.No.13712/2021
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
Judgment 11 C.C.No.13712/2021
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v.
Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970
Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real
distinction between the two decisions is as to
whether there was remissness and want of
diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency
in producing the witnesses before the Court
and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case applied to the facts of the
case with which the Division Bench was
concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case, it was found on the facts
that the prosecution was not at all diligent as
the non-bailable warrants issued to the
witnesses had neither been served nor
returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
Judgment 12 C.C.No.13712/2021prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the
same the Magistrate would be justified in
refusing to grant an adjournment and to
proceed to acquit the accused on the material
on record. We may note here that in State of
Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138
the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After
carefully considering all the aforesaid
decisions and the views expressed therein, we
are of the view that if the prosecution had
made an application for the issue of summons
to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or
254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the
duty of the court to issue summons to the
prosecution witnesses and to secure the
witnesses by exercising all the powers given to
it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as
already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does
not produce the witnesses after the Court had
given it sufficient time and opportunities to do
so, then the Court, being left with no other
alternative would be justified in acquitting the
Judgment 13 C.C.No.13712/2021accused for want of evidence to prove the
prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C.,
in the case of warrant cases instituted on a
police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C.
in summons cases, and we answer the two
questions referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.1 to
7 are dropped. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined 02 witnesses as Pw.1
& Pw.2 and 05 documents are got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.
05. Thereafter examination of the accused persons
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, then the accused persons
denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and
not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
Judgment 14 C.C.No.13712/2021
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
Cw.1 is the resident of Bhuvaneshwari
Nagar Slum Quarters, Gubbalala Main
Road, comes within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura police station and the
Cw.1 had given hand loan to accused
No.1 to 4. Further on 19.01.2020 at
about 08.00 PM, when the Cw.1 went to
the house of accused persons and asked
about the money which they have taken
from Cw.1, for that the accused persons
picked up the quarrel with the Cw.1 and
Judgment 15 C.C.No.13712/2021abused her in filthy language and thereby
the accused persons have committed an
offence punishable U/s.504 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons in furtherance of
common intention assaulted the Cw.1
with their hands and caused simple
injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the accused
persons have committed an offence
punishable U/s. 323 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons in furtherance of
common intention pulled the Cw.1 cloths
in the public and insulted her modesty in
Judgment 16 C.C.No.13712/2021the public and thereby the accused
persons have committed an offence
punishable U/s.354 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused No.2 in furtherance of
common intention assaulted the Cw.1
with a wooden club and caused injuries
to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons
have committed an offence punishable
U/s.324 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons in furtherance of
common intention assaulted given life
threat to Cw.1 and thereby the accused
persons have committed an offence
punishable U/s. 506 R/w sec., of IPC?
Judgment 17 C.C.No.13712/2021
6. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : In The Negative
Point No.3 : In The Negative
Point No.4 : In The Negative
Point No.5 : In The Negative
Point No.6 : As per final orderREASONS
9. Point No.1 to 5 : These points are inter connected to
each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the
prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this
judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to
appreciate the evidence on records. Further, I have carefully
Judgment 18 C.C.No.13712/2021perused the oral and documentary evidence on records, in my
humble opinion, some portion of the evidence is irrelevant,
hence without wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy
this court proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
10. The Cw.9 Vajramuni, is examined as Pw.1, who is the
IO in this case, in his evidence he deposed before the court,
On 23.01.2020 at 04:00 PM, while he was in charge of the
police station, he received the computerized complaint given by
Cw1 and registered the case in Police Station Crime No.
13/2020 and submitted the report to the Honorable Court and
the superiors. He had then provided copies of the receipts
given by Cw-1 for the pledge and have attached it to the file.
On 24.01.2020, in the place shown by Cw-1, he served notice
on the panchas Cw-2 and 3 and panchanama was conducted
in their presence from 10:00 to 11:00 am. At that time, Cw-1
Judgment 19 C.C.No.13712/2021
produced a wooden stick, which was seized in front of the
panchas. Later on 23.01.2020, he had recorded the statements
of Cw-4 to 7. Later on 28.02.2020, he had obtained the injury
certificate of Cw-1 from General Hospital Jayanagar and
attached it to the file. Later, since the investigation was
completed, the charges against the accused persons were
prima facie proven and he had submitted the final report to
the Honorable Court.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in he has denied the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
11. The Cw.8 Smt.Dr.C.S.Nagalakshmamma, who is
examined as Pw.2, she has deposed in her evidence as per the
treatment she had given to the Cw.1 and given the wound
certificate regarding the same.
Judgment 20 C.C.No.13712/2021
12. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused persons can not be held guilty
of the alleged offenses.
13. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.1 to 7
witnesses this court repeatedly issued Summons, NBW and
Proclamation, even though the sufficient time given to the
concerned police, they have failed to secure these witnesses.
Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after given sufficient
opportunities to prosecution. Moreover, non examination of the
material witness is fatal to the prosecution case. As such the
accused persons are certainly would be entitled to benefit of
the doubt. Regarding this relied on the following Judgment.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.13712/2021
14. On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR
2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion
however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that
the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge
cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ”may be
true”’ but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of
”must be true”. In a criminal prosecution, the court has
a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do
not take the place of legal proof and in a situation
where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the
backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent
miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended
to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be
reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or
non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial,
prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone
of reason and common sense. It is also a primary
postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views
are possible on the evidence available one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
15. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and the accused persons are
entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. Moreover, non
Judgment 22 C.C.No.13712/2021
examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. The prosecution has not able to prove the alleged
offences against the accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I Answer to the Points No.1 to 5 in the
Negative.
16. Point No.6: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Point No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
In the exercise of powers confirmed
U/sec., 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1
to 4 are hereby Acquitted for the alleged
offences punishable U/s.323, 324, 354,
504, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 4
and surety extended for further 6
months in order to comply Sec.437A of
Judgment 23 C.C.No.13712/2021
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond
automatically stands cancelled.
The property seized by the IO in
P.F.No.07/2020, One Wooden Club, is
being worthless, is hereby ordered to be
destroy the same, after the appeal period
is over, in accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 06thday of August-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Vajramuni
P.W.2 : Smt. Dr. Nagalakshmamma
Judgment 24 C.C.No.13712/2021
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.3 : Spot & Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.4 : Notice to Panchas Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.5 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of Pw.2
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Digitally signed
Mo.1 : One Wooden Club THIMMAIAH by THIMMAIAH G G Date: 2025.08.12 11:04:47 +0530 (Thimmaiah.G) 30th A.C.J.M., B'lore. Judgment 25 C.C.No.13712/2021 Judgment 26 C.C.No.13712/2021
[ad_2]
Source link