Bangalore District Court
Dr C Abhiram Kumar vs Pradeep Kumar S on 25 July, 2025
1 C.C.No.14381/2021
KABC030414152021
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
Present : Sri. Puttaraju, B.A.LLB.,
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C. No.14381/2021
Complainant: State by : Kodigehalli Police Station
(By Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused 1.Pradeep Kumar S.
Nos: S/o Shet,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No:06,
New Oriental Model House,
Bangarpet,
Kolar.
2. Shivakumar M.
S/o Mallaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No:02, 7th Cross,
2 C.C.No.14381/2021
Naganapalya,
Maruthi Seva Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.MJP Adv.,)
Date of occurrence of offence 08.03.2021
Date of report of offence 09.03.2021
Name of the Complainant Dr.C.Abhiram Kumar
Date of Commencement of 20.04.2023
recording Evidence
Date of Closing of Evidence 11.06.2025
Offences complained of U/s 323, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C. and section - 3 and 4
of Karnataka Prohibition of
Violence against Medicare
Service Personal & Damage
to Property in Medicare
Service Institutions Act
2009.
Opinion of the Judge Accused have not
been found guilty.
This chargesheet is submitted by the Police Sub-
Inspector of Kodigehalli Police Station against the
accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 323,
506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and section - 3 and 4 of
Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against Medicare
Service Personal & Damage to Property in Medicare
Service Institutions Act 2009.
3 C.C.No.14381/2021
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on
08.03.2021 at about 9-30 pm when accused No.1 got
admitted his son to Aster CMI Hospital for treatment,
wherein child was examined by the CW.1 and declared
that the child was brain dead. When the accused No.1
and 2 discharged the child and moved to basement
area of the Hospital, accused No.1 father of child
assaulted CW1 on his face and accused No.2 has
threatened CW1 saying that don't stay in Bengaluru
for next 10 days thereby accused have committed
offences punishable U/s. 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and
section- 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence
against Medicare Service Personal & Damage to
Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act 2009.
3. The accused are on bail. As required U/s.207
of Cr.PC., the copies of the charge sheet papers were
furnished to the accused. Charge was framed for the
offences punishable U/s. 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and section- 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of
4 C.C.No.14381/2021
Violence against Medicare Service Personal & Damage
to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act 2009
and read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to them. Accused have not pleaded
guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got
marked Ex.P1 to 9, On closure of the evidence on the
side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused
u/sec. 313 Cr.PC., came to be recorded, the accused
have denied the incriminating evidence appearing
against them and not choose to lead defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the
documents placed on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution
has proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that accused
have committed the offences
U/s. 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and section- 3 and 4 of
Karnataka Prohibition of
Violence against Medicare
5 C.C.No.14381/2021
Service Personal & Damage to
Property in Medicare Service
Institutions Act 2009.?
2. What order ?
7. The above points are answered as under :
Point No.1 : In the NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : That on 08.03.2021 at about 9-30
pm when accused No.1 got admitted his son to Aster
CMI Hospital for treatment, wherein child was declared
as brain dead. When the accused No.1 and 2
discharged the child and moved to basement area of
the Hospital, accused No.1 father of child assaulted
CW1 on his face and accused No.2 has threatened
CW1 saying that don't stay in Bengaluru for next 10
days thereby accused have committed offences
punishable U/s. 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and section-
3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence against
6 C.C.No.14381/2021
Medicare Service Personal & Damage to Property in
Medicare Service Institutions Act 2009.
9. The prosecution has examined first informant
as PW1, in his evidence he has stated that, on
8/3/2021 when the child was declared brain dead,
parents did not want to continue further treatment
and they want to discharge child against medical
advise. When child was being taken to the Ambulance
in the basement area, the accused No.1 assaulted CW1
on his face with hand stating that he has not treated
his child properly. Accused No.2 threatened his life
saying that do not stay in Bengaluru for 10 days. Due
to which he sustained injury on his lower lips and also
on the face, at the time of incident he was on duty in
the said Hospital and CW4 to 6 are witnesses to the
incident. Then he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1
and later police drew the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in his
presence. In the cross examination, it has been elicited
that if the child brain dead, naturally the parents of
the child would get panic. CW2 to 7 are the staff of his
7 C.C.No.14381/2021
Hospital and colleagues. CC TV was installed in the
Hospital at everywhere. Further, he denies the
suggestions that no such incident was taken place and
accused have not assaulted him and gave life threat.
10. PW2 is the mahazar witness in his evidence,
he has deposed that, about 2 years back Kodigehalli
Police came to the spot and draw the mahazar as per
Ex.P2. PW3 is another witnesses to the mahazar
Ex.P2, in his evidence, he has stated that, on
10/03/2021 Kodigehalli Police have drawn the
mahazar at the place shown by the CW1 and he was
present at the time. In the cross examination, PW3
stated that he does not know the name of the Police
Officer, who drew the mahazar and CW1, 2, 4 to 7
were staff and colleagues.
11. PW4 is the eye witness to the incident and
Staff Nurse of the said Hospital. In her evidence, she
has stated that, CW1 was a Doctor of the Hospital and
she was on duty on 8/3/2021. At about 9-30 pm the
child by name Andrew was discharged as brain dead,
8 C.C.No.14381/2021
herself along with CW1 and 4 shifted the child to the
basement area as per the request of the parents and
Ambulance was came there. Where, the accused No.1
slapped on CW1 and accused No.2 gave life threat,
then they gone with child. CW1 has taken the
treatment in the same Hospital. In the cross
examination PW4 has stated that she does not know
the name of the Doctor who declared that brain of the
child was dead, generally the parents of the child
would get panic in that situation, she does not know to
where they went for treatment of the child.
12.PW5 is Police official, in her evidence, she
stated that on 09.03.2021 she received complaint from
PW1 and registered case as per Ex.P3 FIR. Thereafter,
on 10.03.2021 she conducted spot mahazar as per
Ex.P2. Thereafter, collected the documents pertaining
to hospital produced by PW.1 and identified the same
as Ex.P.5 to 7, recorded the statement of CW4 and 5
received wound certificate Ex.P9, after completion of
investigation, submitted chargesheet for the alleged
9 C.C.No.14381/2021
offences. In the cross examination, she stated that
complaint was lodged after lapse of 13 hours and CW.1
to 7 are the staff of Aster CMI Hopsital. Further she
denied the suggestions that deposing false evidence to
help the complaint. PW.6 is the Doctor, who treated
CW.1 has deposed that he treated CW.1 on the history
of assault and issued wound certificate Ex.P.9, in the
cross examination, he has stated that CW.1 is the
CMO of Aster CMI hospital and CW.2 to 6 are working
as Doctors at same hospital and denied the
suggestions that created false wound certificate.
13. Before going to appreciate the evidence of the
prosecution, it would be worth to mention here the
ingredients of alleged offence of section 323 of IPC,
which reads thus:
Voluntary act: The accused must have
voluntarily caused hurt, meaning they
intended to cause bodily pain, disease, or
infirmity to another person.
2) Actual hurt: There must be clear evidence
that hurt was indeed caused, although it
doesn't need to be a serious injury.
10 C.C.No.14381/2021
3) Absence of justification: The act of causing
hurt should not be justified by a legal defense
like self-defense
To establish criminal intimidation u/s 506 of IPC,
the prosecution must prove the following:
Threat: A threat to cause harm (physical,
reputational, or to property) must be
communicated. Wilful Communication: The
threat must be intentionally conveyed to the
victim or someone likely to inform them.
Section-3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Violence
against Medicare Service Personal & Damage to
Property in Medicare Service Institutions Act, 2009
reads thus.
Section 3:
This section establishes the core prohibition.
It makes it illegal to commit any act of
violence against healthcare professionals or
damage property within a medical institution.
This includes physical assault, verbal abuse,
and any actions that disrupt the provision of
medical care or cause damage to equipment,
buildings, or other property within the
facility.
Section 4:
This section outlines the penalties for
violating Section 3. Offenders can be
punished with imprisonment for a period of
up to three years and a fine of up to fifty
thousand rupees. The court also has the
authority to order the offender to pay twice
11 C.C.No.14381/2021
the cost of the damaged property, which will
be recovered under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act if not paid.
14. Keeping in mind the above ingredients of
alleged offences, upon careful perusal of prosecution
evidence, it appears that admittedly, no doubt, it is
true that, child was declared as brain dead and
parents of child were in panic condition. It is also
admitted fact that PW.1 is the Doctor and CMO of
Aster CMI Hospital and PW.4 eye witness, who is staff
nurse of said hospital and CC TV cameras were
installed at the hospital at everywhere. In this
background perusal of evidence given by PW.1 and eye
witness PW.4, it appears that PW.1 has deposed that
he was assaulted by accused on his face with hand
and accused No.2 threatened his life. PW.4 eye witness
and staff nurse of said Hospital stated that father of
child slapped PW.1 with his hand and accused No.2
threatened saying that he will not here next ten days
and then they took the child and went. Further, PW.6
is the Doctor, who treated PW.1 has deposed that he
12 C.C.No.14381/2021
treated PW.1 on the history of assault and issued
wound certificate Ex.P.9, according to Doctor, injury
sustained by PW.1 was simple in nature. The evidence
given by PW.6 shows that PW.1 has taken treatment
with PW.6, who was working as Doctor in the same
hospital of PW.1.
15. Thus it makes clear that eye witness PW.4 is
the staff nurse of the hospital of PW.1, so, PW.4 is the
interested witness as she was doing work as staff
nurse under PW.1 and hence, the evidence of PW.1 is
not corroborated by the evidence of independent eye
witness. Further, as stated by PW.1 CC TV cameras
were installed at hospital, but prosecution has not
produced CC TV footage of alleged incident. So, in the
absence of corroborative testimony of independent eye
witness and CC TV footage of alleged incident, the
evidence of PW.1 does not inspire confidence. So far as
evidence of PW.6 Doctor is concerned, no doubt, it is
true that PW.1 was CMO of Aster CMI Hospital and he
has taken the treatment from PW.6 Doctor, who was
13 C.C.No.14381/2021
working in the same hospital and hence PW.6 is
interested evidence, in the absence of evidence of
independent witness, the evidence of PW.1 as to
sustained injury and taken treatment for the same
from PW.6 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of
accused.
16. It is also very important to mention here that,
as stated above, father of child was in panic condition
as his child was declared as brain dead. In cases
where an assault occurs during a panic attack, the
question of intent is a complex one that requires
careful consideration of the specific facts and relevant
legal principles. The court has to need to determine if
the panic attack significantly impaired the accused's
ability to form the necessary intent for the offense.
Here in this case, if taken into consideration the panic
condition of accused, the considered opinion is of the
court that, possibility to farm an intention to assault
PW.1 by the accused when he was under panic
condition, would doubtful. The evidence given by PW.3
14 C.C.No.14381/2021
mahazar witness and PW.5 police official is related to
Ex.P.2 mahazar and official act done by the police
official during the investigation, their evidence will not
help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
17. Therefore, in view of discussion above, the
considered opinion is of the court that, the prosecution
has not been able to prove the ingredients of alleged
offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court
has answered the Point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of discussion made on
point No.1, this court proceeds to pass following
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1)
of Cr.P.C., the accused-1 & 2 are
acquitted of the offences
punishable U/s. 323, 506 r/w
34 of I.P.C. and section – 3 and 4
of Karnataka Prohibition of
Violence against Medicare
Service Personal & Damage to
15 C.C.No.14381/2021
Property in Medicare Service
Institutions Act 2009.
The bail bonds of accused
and their surety bonds stand
cancelled after six months from
the date of judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer system,
transcript computerized by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced
by me in the open Court on this 25th day of July, 2025)
( PUTTARAJU )
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
prosecution :
PW1 Sri. C.Abhiram Kumar
PW2 Sri. Suresh Babu
PW3 Maris
PW4 Smt.Ashwini B.T.
PW5 Smt.Devaki H.J.
PW6 Dr.Shashikanth
2. List of documents marked on behalf of the
prosecution :
Ex.P1 Complaint
16 C.C.No.14381/2021
Ex.P2 Mahazar
Ex.P3 FIR
Ex.P4 Notice
Ex.P5 Agreement
Ex.P6&7 Daily Attendance Report
Ex.P8 Discharge Summary
Ex.P9 Wound Certificate
3. List of witnesses examined for the Accused: NIL
4. List of documents exhibited for the Accused : NIL
5. List of Material Object marked for prosecution: NIL
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
17 C.C.No.14381/2021
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1)
of Cr.P.C., the accused-1 & 2 are
acquitted of the offences
punishable U/s. 323, 506 r/w
34 of I.P.C. and section – 3 and 4
of Karnataka Prohibition of
Violence against Medicare
Service Personal & Damage to
Property in Medicare Service
Institutions Act 2009.
The bail bonds of accused
and their surety bonds stand
cancelled after six months from
the date of judgment.
7th ACJM, Bengaluru.
18 C.C.No.14381/2021
[ad_1]
Source link