Bangalore District Court
Ashwathaiah H.D., Asi vs Karle Marx on 3 February, 2025
KABC030616872021
Presented on : 02-09-2021
Registered on : 02-09-2021
Decided on : 03-02-2025
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 1 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 03rd Day of February, 2025
C.C. No.22475/2021
in
(Crime No. 89/2020)
State by Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Karlmarx,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sri Kumar,
R/at No.81/4, 3rd Cross,
Near Doddamma Temple,
Nanjamma Layout, Manorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru.
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
2. Sri Shivakumar,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Sri Shambaiah,
R/at NO.127, Varadaraja
Swamy Layout, Near Shruthika Apartment,
Singapura Layout,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru City.
3. Sri S. Babnu,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sri Subramani,
R/at No.814, 4th Floor,
3rd Cross, 1st Main, Sulthanapalya,
Nanjamma Layout, Manorayanapalya,
Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Shivashankarappa, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 13-10-2020
offence
2. Date of FIR 13-10-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 26-2-2020
4. Date of framing of 04-03-2022
charges
2
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
5. Name of Complainant Sri Ashwathaiah.H.D. ASI
of Jalahalli Police Station
6. Offences complained of Under Section 353, 332,
504 of IPC
7. Date of commencement 11/04/2022
of evidence
8. Charge Pleaded not guilty
9. Date of Judgment is 03/02/2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 03/02/2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station
submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for
the offences punishable under Section 332, 353, 504
read with section 34 of IPC.
3
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
2. Prosecution Case: As per the government
order, the CW5 namely Sri Muniraju, BBMP Marshal
and CW6 namely Sri Guru Jambagi, PC of Jalahalli
PS were deputed on duty for filing of cases against
those who were not wearing masks and were not
maintaining social distance in respect of Covid-19, on
13-10-2020, at about 1.50 p.m. when they were
patrolling on duty in Hoysala 149 at Gokula Bridge of
Railway Gate, at that time, the accused No.1 was
walking in front of Babu Motors Garage without
wearing mask, for which CW1 Sri Ashwathiah H. D.
ASI of Jalahalli PS, CW5 and CW6 told him to pay
fine amount for not wearing mask, for which accused
No.2 came out of the said garage and with common
intention accused No.1 and 2 abused them with
filthiest language and accused No.3 held the hands of
CW1 and accused No.2 punched of CW1’s left cheek
with his fist and caused simple hurt. The accused
No.3 dragged CW1 by holding his uniform which
caused obstructed to perform their public duty.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of
first information lodged by CW1 Sri
Ashwathaiah.H.D., ASI of Jalahalli PS, CW8/PW7 Sri
Lapakhsmurthy, PSI of Jalahalli PS registered a
Crime No.89/2020 against the accused persons for
the offences punishable under Section 504, 332, 353
read with Sec.34 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P5,
sent the same to the Court and to his Superior
4
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
Officers, conducted mahazar on 13-10-2020 in the
presence of CW2 and CW3 at 12.30 p.m. to 1.15 p.m.
as per Ex.P2 and seized MO1-uniform under seizure
mahazar as per Ex.P3.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from
CW8, CW9/PW8 Sri Guruprasad, PI of Jalahalli PS,
recorded the statement of requisite witnesses,
collected the wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and one
document as per Ex.P5 and submitted charge sheet
against accused persons for the alleged offences.
5. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused
persons was enlarged on bail by the order dated 15-
10-2020.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of offences alleged against the accused
persons.
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 persons, the charge for the
offences punishable U/Sec.353, 332, 504 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed,
5
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 3 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 however
examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents
and MO1 and closed their side. The examination of
CW3 was given up by the order dated 11/04/2022 on
account of examination of CW2 as he deposes the
same. During the cross examination of PW1, the
learned counsel for accused marked one CD as
Ex.D1.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
accused was 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.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
6
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 13-10-2020, at
about 1.50 p.m. when CW1
Ashwathiah.H.D. ASI of
Jalahalli PS, CW5 Sri Muniraju,
BBMP Marshal and CW6 Guru
Jambagi, PC of Jalahalli PS
were patrolling on duty in
Hoysala 149 at Gokula Bridge
of railway gate, in front of Babu
Motors Garage with common
intention accused No.1 and 2
abused CW1, CW5 and CW6
with filthiest language
knowingly such insult will
provoke breach of peace
thereby resulted in commission
of an offence punishable
Section 504 read with Sec.34
of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on the above date,
place and time, in furtherance
of common intention accused
No.1 voluntarily hit on the face
of CW1 being a public servant
with his fist and caused hurt
7
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
thereby committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.332 read
with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution
further proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the
above said date, time and place
in furtherance of common
intention accused No.1 to 3
obstructed CW1, CW5 and
CW6 from discharging their
public duty and thereby
committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.353 read
with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. What order?
13. The court’s findings on the above points are
as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order8
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 3: 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 has examined witnesses which are as
follows
i. CW1 by name Sri Ashwathaiah being
Informant and the then ASI of Jalahalli PS examined
as PW1 deposed that, on 13-10-2020, SHO deputed
him and CW6 to duty in Hoysala vehicle, when they
patrolling and along with CW5, a BBMP marshal, at
10.50 a.m. near Railway Bridge in Gokula, the
accused No.1 was walking in front of Babu Garage
without wearing a mask. While guiding him that he
could not walk without wearing mask due to Covid,
he had to pay fine, for which accused No.1 and 3
abused him, accused No.3 caught him and accused
No.1 punched him on the left eye with his fist and
also grabbed his uniform and torn vigil guard and
left pocket. Thereafter, the accused persons were
taken to the police station and complaint was filed as
per Ex.P1, police have conducted spot mahazar at
12.30 to 1.30 p.m. as per Ex.P2 and produced the
uniform at the police station which was seized under
seizure mahazar Ex.P3. Further he identified his
9
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
signatures as per Ex.P1(a) and 3(a) and uniform as
MO1.
ii. CW2 Sri Laskhman, mahazar witness
examined as PW2 deposed that he identified his
signatures on Ex.P2- mahazar as Ex.P2(b), which was
drawn by the police on 13-10-2020 near Gokul
Railway Bridge and identified his signature on Ex.P3
seizure mahazar as Ex.P3(c) which was drawn at
police station and seized MO1.
iii. CW6 Sri Guru Jambagi, the then PC of
Jalahalli PS, examined as PW3, who accompanied
with CW1 deposed the same tone of PW1.
iv. CW7 Dr. Sri Sridhar.S., examined as PW4
deposed that on 13-10-2020 at 7 p.m., CW1 came to
the hospital for treatment with the history of assault
by the accused. When he examined and found to have
pain and swelling on the left side of CW1’s face. As
per his opinion, the said injury is simple in nature,
hence he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and
identified his signature thereon as per Ex.P4(a). The
said injury is likely to have been caused if a person
punched his face with the hand.
v. CW4 by name Sri Suresh, examined as PW5
deposed that on 13-10-2020 at 10.45 am, there was a
quarrel amongst the police and the accused near
10
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
Gokula Railway Gate over the issue of fine imposed
for not wearing a mask. The accused persons grabbed
the uniform of police, dragged them, abused and
beaten them. The police were wearing MO1 on the
said day.
vi. CW5 Sri Muniraju examined as PW6 deposed
that he worked as a marshal in BBMP four years ago
and was assigned to register cases against those who
were walking without wearing masks along with
Jalahalli police personnel during the Covid-19
pandemic. Accordingly, on 13-10-2020, while on duty
in Hoysala vehicle near the railway track in Gokula,
the accused No.2 namely Babu was working in the
garage without wearing mask. When he questioned
him about the same, he picked up quarrel with him
and accused No.3 grabbed the uniform of CW1 and
dragged him and accused No.1 hit on left side of
CW1’s face and obstructed them to discharge their
public duty.
vii. CW8 by name Sri Lepakshamurthy the then
PSI of Jalahalli PS examined as PW7 and deposed
that on 13-10-2021, he received report from CW1 and
on the basis FIR was registered as per Ex.P5, on
same day he conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2
from 12.30 to 1.15 p.m. and seized MO1 uniform
under the seizure mahazar as Ex.P3 drawn from 2
pm to 2.45 p.m. in the presence of CW2 and CW3.
11
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
He identified his signature as Ex.P1(b), 5(a), 2(c) and
3(c).
viii. CW9 Sri Guru Prasad, the then PI of
Jalahalli PS, examined as PW8 deposed that after
receipt of the case papers from CW8, he recorded the
voluntary statements of accused and the statements
of witnesses, collected the wound certificate as per
Ex.P4 and duty report of CW1 and CW6 as per Ex.P5
and after completion of investigation he submitted
charge sheet against the accused. He identified his
signatures as per Ex.P4(b) and 5(a).
15. Before adverting into the factual matrix of
the case, it is relevant to discuss on the point No.2
and 3 to consider and analyze the necessary
ingredients of Section 353 of IPC of IPC which reads
as under:-
“353. Assault or criminal force to
deter public servant from
discharge of his duty.–Whoever
assaults or uses criminal force to
any person being a public servant
in the execution of his duty as
such public servant, or with
intent to prevent or deter that
person from discharging his duty
as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or12
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021attempted to be done by such
person in the lawful discharge of
his duty as such public servant,
shall be punished with
imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.”
Thus, the above Section makes it very clear that
in order to attract the offence it is the duty of the
prosecution to prove that there was an assault or use
of criminal force restraining public servant from
performing his official duties or causing any act with
intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his
duty. In order to make out a case under section 353
of IPC, the prosecution must meet essential
requirements that a public servant must be assaulted
or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying
out his responsibilities or with the goal of preventing
or discouraging him from doing his duties.
16. To establish as to whether the PW1 has
assaulted the complainant or used any criminal force
upon him, it is necessary to examine the definition of
‘force’, ‘criminal force’ and ‘assault’, which are defined
in Sections 349, 350 and 351 of IPC which are as
under:-
Section 349: Force– A person is
said to use force to another if he13
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021causes motion, change of motion,
or cessation of motion to that
other, or if he causes to any
substance such motion, or change
of motion, or cessation of motion
as brings that substance into
contact with any part of that
other’s body, or with anything
which that other is wearing or
carrying, or with anything so
situated that such contact affects
that other’s sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing
the motion, or change of motion,
or cessation of motion, causes
that motion, change of motion, or
cessation of motion in one of the
three ways hereinafter described:
First.–By his own bodily power.
Secondly.–By disposing any
substance in such a manner that
the motion or change or cessation
of motion takes place without any
further act on his part, or on the
part of any other person.
Thirdly.–By inducing any animal
to move, to change its motion, or
to cease to move.
14
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
A reading of above Section makes
it clear that a person is said to
use force in any of the three
methods mentioned above. The
exertion of energy or power that
causes a movement or change in
the external environment is
known as force. The term “force”
as defined in this Section refers to
force exerted by a person on
another human.
Section 350: Criminal force–
Whoever intentionally uses force
to any person, without that
person’s consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or
intending by the use of such force
to cause, or knowing it to be likely
that by the use of such force he
will cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom
the force is used, is said to use
criminal force to that other.
From perusal of the above section,
it is clear that the force that has
been specified in Section 349
changes into a criminal force
when the essential of Section 35015
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021are satisfied. The essentials of
Section 350 are
intentional/deliberate use of force
against any one; without consent,
when the claimed assault involves
illegal conduct and the force has
to be utilized in order to conduct
an offence or to cause hurt or fear
to another person.
Section 351: Assault– Whoever
makes any gesture, or any
preparation intending or knowing
it to be likely that such gesture or
preparation will cause any person
present to apprehend that he who
makes that gesture or preparation
is about to use criminal force to
that person, is said to commit an
assault.
Explanation.–Mere words do not
amount to an assault. But the
words which a person uses may
give to his gestures or preparation
such a meaning as may make
those gestures or preparations
amount to an assault.
16
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
Section 332. Voluntarily causing
hurt to deter public servant from
his duty. – Whoever voluntarily
causes hurt to any person being a
public servant in the discharge of
his duty as such public servant,
or with intent to prevent or deter
that person or any other public
servant from discharging his duty
as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or
attempted to be done by that
person in the lawful discharge of
his duty as such public servant,
shall be punished with
imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
The essential ingredients of
Section 504 IPC-
(i) Intentionally insulting a person
and thereby giving provocation to
him;
(ii) The person insulting must
intend or know it to be likely
that such provocation will cause17
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021him to break the public peace or
to commit any other offence.
With this background, this court has gone
through the record wherein the PW1 along with one
BBMP employee Sri Marshall Muniraj was directing
the accused No. 1 to pay the fine for non-wearing of
masks during pandemic period of Covid 19 and hence
the alleged incident dated 13/10/2020 was taken
place at 10.50 am and the said incident was reported
to the Police Station at 11.50 am in the station house
diary and the crime No. 89/2020 under section 353,
332,504 R/w Section 34 of IPC was registered. The
station house diary depicts that the PW1 was deputed
to day duty on 08.30am on 13/10/2020 however the
prosecution i.e., IO(PW8) did not produce any single
document that he was deputed for the duty for
collection of fine for non-wearing of masks from the
General Public.
17. It was the case of prosecution that the
accused No. 1 to 3 have punched the face of PW1
thereby there was deterrence to his public duties
however the PW1 deposed in the cross examination
ನಾನು ದಿ. ೧೩-೧೦-೨೦೨೦ ರಂದು ಬೆಳೆಗೆ
೦೮.೩೦ ರಾತ್ರಿ ೦೮.೩೦ ಗಂಟೆಯವರಿಗೆ
ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
18
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
thus, it is clear that there was no obstruction to the
public duties of PW1 by the accused No. 1 to 3.
18. The prosecution has not established that the
accused No.1 to 3 had any criminal intention to
assault or use the criminal force upon the PW1 at the
time of discharging the public duties.
19. Added to which, the root cause of alleged
incident was that the accused No. 1 and 2 were not
wearing the masks however the bills was not
produced to corroborate the alleged incident nor the
said amount was recovered by the BBMP official on or
subsequent alleged date.
20. Whether this court give any evidentiary value
to the wound certificate produced by the prosecution
as per Ex. P. 5 who is said to have taken treatment
from K C General Hospital on 13/10/2020 at 7 pm
i.e., after a gap of 9 hours from the alleged incident?
In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused
relied upon Ex. D. 1 i.e., CD. The learned APP has
argued that the CD requires authenticity certificate
under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act to rely
upon. However the PW1 himself
3 ಜನ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನಾನು ಠಾಣೆಗೆ
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಪೊಲೀಸ್
ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು
19
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ನನ್ನ ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ದಿನ
ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ಹರಿದು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು
ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಸ್ವಯಿಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ
ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ನನ್ನ ಅಂಗಿಯನ್ನು
ಎಳೆದಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ.
xxxxx ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ಲೇ
ಮಾಡಿ ತೋರಿಸಿ ಸದರಿ ವಿಡಿಯೆಾದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು
ಜರ್ಕೀನ್ ಧರಿಸಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುತ್ತದೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
PW3 admitted in the cross
examination that
ದಿ.13-10-2020 ರಂದು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು
ಕೃತ್ಯ ನಡೆದ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಜರ್ಕಿನ್
ಧರಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಚಾಸಾ 1
ರವರು ಜರ್ಕಿನ್ ಧರಿಸಿರುವುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಪೂಟೆಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಕಡತದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು
ಆರೋಪಿಯವರು ತಂದಿರುವ ಲಾಪ್ ಟಾಪ್
ಗೆ ಹಾಕಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಅದರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯನ್ನು
ಕೇಳಿದ್ದು ಲ್ಯಾಪ್ ಟಾಪನ್ನು ತೆರೆದ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತೆರೆಯಲು ಅನುಮತಿ
ನೀಡಿದ ನಂತರ ಸದರಿ ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು ಲಾಪ್
ಟಾಪ್ ಗೆ ಹಾಕಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು ಚಾಸಾ
1 ರವರು ಆ ದಿನ ದ್ವಿಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು
ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂತಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು
ಎಂದು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದಾಗ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸದರಿ ಸಿಡಿಯನ್ನು
20
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
ನೋಡಿದ ನಂತರ 5 ನಿವಿುಷಗಳ ಕಾಲ
ಸಮಯ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ನಂತರ
ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ
ಜರ್ಕಿನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರು
ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡು
ಬಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಸಾ 1
ರವರೇ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊಡಿದಿದ್ದಾರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರ ಕೆಳಗಡೆ
ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
And PW6 in his cross
examination deposed that:
ದಿಃ 13-10-2020 ರಂದು ನನ್ನ
ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವನ್ನು ಅಚ್ಚುಕಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ನೆರವೇರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದು ಮೇಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ನನಗೆ
ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ಲೋಪ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ಯಾಕೆ ಕ್ರಮ
ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು
ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು
ನಾನು 8 ಗಂಟೆಗಳ ಕಾಲ ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವನ್ನು
ಅಚ್ಚುಕಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಿನ
ನನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಅಡಚಣೆಯಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, the said CD was admitted by the PW1 and
PW3 who were present at the scene of occurrence and
did not dispute the authenticity of the CD(Ex. D. 1)
and such being the case, the certificate under section
65B of Indian Evidence Act is not required for proving
21
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
the authenticity. On watching the CD coupled with
the admission of the PW1 and PW3, it is clear that
the PW1 was beating the accused No. 1 and was
holding his collar neck and taking him to the Police
Station and such being the case, PW1 had admitted
the person in the CD was him and PW2 too admitted
the alleged action of PW1 towards the accused No. 1.
Added to which, on the date of alleged incident, the
PW1 was wearing jerkin and such being the case,
how the uniform and whistle guard could be torn by
the accused No. 1.
21. The evidence of PW4- doctor is immaterial as
the alleged Ex.P4 came into existence only after the
registration of FIR i.e., an after thought document
and not prior to the registration of the FIR as per
Ex.P5. The time gap had taken by PW1 to take the
treatment was almost 9 hours from the alleged time
of incident though he deposed in the cross
examination as he was very much working from 8.30
am to 8.30pm and hence the question of taking the
treatment at the hospital at 7 pm and no whisper
about the visit of PW1 to the hospital in the CD
(Ex.P5). Therefore, the alleged assault by the accused
No.1 to 3 to the PW1 and the acts of accused persons
resulted in the obstruction to the public duties was
not established by the prosecution rather appears
that the PW1 had beaten the accused No. 1 and had
taken the accused No. 1 by holding the collor neck to
22
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
the Hoysala vehicle. It could be hardly any evidence
placed on record that the accused No.1 to 3 has
beaten the PW1 and prevented his public duties.
22. Mahazar witness namely PW2 deposed that
he signed in the police station after typing the same
to the Ex. P. 2 and hence the same cannot be given
any credential value.
23. The delay in furnishing the property form No.
86/2020 though seizure mahazar was dated
13/10/2020 raises the doubt in the mind of the court
as it was submitted to the court on 24/10/2020. The
delay in non-reporting of the seizure forthwith vitiates
the seizure and the said principle is appreciated in
the case of Shento Varghese Vs Julfikar Husen and
others reported in (2024) 6 SCR 409.
24. Added to which, there is no single whisper
about the shirt and whistle guard being torn in the
complaint as per Ex.P1.
25. The Prosecution has produced the MO1-
uniform under Ex. P. 3 having seized on 13/10/2020
from 2 pm to 2.45 pm however whether the said
uniform was belongs to the PW1 was not proved by
the prosecution as PW1 had to take the permission
from his higher authority to obtain the uniform in
23
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
substitute of the same or should have informed to the
superior authority about the production of uniform in
this case. When there is no single piece of
documentary evidence is produced by the
prosecution, how this court believe the version of
prosecution that the uniform belongs to the PW1.
26. The vital factor/prime ingredients is the the
criminal intention of accused No.1 to 3 to assault
PW1, PW3, PW6 to obstruct their public duties not
established by the prosecution. Therefore, the
prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section
353 and 332 of IPC thereby the Point No. 1 and 2 is
answered in negative.
27. As far as the Section 504 of IPC is
concerned, the intentional insult must be of such an
extent that should provoke a person to break the
public peace or to commit any other offence. The
person who intentionally insults intending or
knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to
any other person and such provocation will cause to
break the public peace or to commit any other
offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section
504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements
constituting the offence is that there should have
been an act or conduct amounting to intentional
insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the
PW1, PW3, PW6 is not sufficient by itself to warrant a
24
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
conviction under Section 504 IPC and the said
principle is appreciated in the case of FIONA
SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND
ANOTHER reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44.
28. It is not the law that the actual words or
language should figure in the complaint. One has to
read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in
order to a conclusion that there has been an
intentional insult so as to provoke any person to
break the public peace or to commit any other
offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint
within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law
that a PW1 should verbatim reproduce each word or
words capable of provoking the other person to
commit any other offence. The background facts,
circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which
they are used, the person or persons to whom they
are addressed, the time, the conduct of person who
has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors
to be borne in mind while examining a complaint
lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504
IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1, PW6, CW7
and CW10 has not deposed about the ingredients of
Section 504 of the IPC who claims to be an victim and
eyewitness. Therefore, in the case on hand,
ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made
out and hence this court answers the Point No. 3 in
the negative.
25
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
29. It is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent
and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled
proposition of criminal law that in order to
successfully bring home the guilt of accused, the
prosecution has to stand on its own leg and it cannot
derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if
any, in the defence of accused. The accused No. 1 to
3 is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt
in the prosecution case and any such doubt in the
prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal and
the said principle is appreciated in the case of Sri T.
P. Basavaraju Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2534. In the absence of
any material evidence to corroborate the alleged
offences levelled against the accused, this Court
cannot presume that the accused was present at the
scene and had committed the alleged offences.
Accordingly, THIS COURT ANSWERS THE POINT
NO.1 TO 3 IN THE NEGATIVE.
30. Point No.4:- In view of the above findings
and reasons given on point No.1 to 3 this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
26
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec. 332, 353, 504 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appeal
period, MO1 being worthless
shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by
me in my loptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court,
on this the 03rd day of February, 2025)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
27
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Ashwathaiah PW2 : Sri Lakshman PW3 : Sri Guru Jambagi PW4 : Dr. Sri Sridhar.S. PW5 : Sri Suresha PW6 : Sri Muniraju PW7 : Sri Lepakshamurthy PW8 : Sri Guru Prasad
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Report/complaint/PW1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar /PW1
Ex.P3 : Seizure Mahazar /PW1
Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate /PW4
Ex.P4 : FIR/PW7
Ex.P5 : ಠಾಣಾ ದಿನಚರಿ/PW8Material Objects marked on behalf of the
prosecution:
MO1 : Uniform
28
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : CD/PW1
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
29
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
03-02-2024
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide
separatelyORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec. 332, 353, 504 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After the expiry of appeal
period, MO1 being worthless
shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
30
KABC030616872021 CC No.22475/2021
VIII ACJM, B’luru City
31
[ad_1]
Source link