Bangalore District Court
Padma vs Jagadishkumar on 28 July, 2025
KABC030832722017
Presented on : 15-07-2017
Registered on : 15-07-2017
Decided on : 28-07-2025
Duration : 8 years, 0 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 28th day of July-2025
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.18751/2017
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.
Date of Offence 28.04.2017
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station,
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Jagadish Kumar
S/o. A.A.Muniswamy,
(Split Up)
A2. Smt. Mala
W/o. Jagadish Kumar,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.18751/2017
Aged about 45 years,
A3. Smt. Manjushree
W/o. Madhusudhan,
Aged about 29 years,
Both are R/at. No.62/1,
New No.5, 1st Main, 1st Cross,
Sarvabowma Nagar,
Chikkalasandra,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s. 323, 354(B), 504 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC.
Plea Recorded on: 22.03.2021 and
accused No.2 and 3 are Pleaded
not guilty.
Examination U/sec., On 28.07.2025
313 of Cr.P.C recorded
on:
Final Oder Accused No.2 and 3 are Acquitted.
Date of Order 28.07.2025
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 3 C.C.No.18751/2017
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused persons for the offences
punishable U/s. 323, 354(B), 504 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:
It is alleged that, on 28.04.2017 at about 08.45 AM,
within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station,
House No.187, 1st Main Road, Sarvabowma Nagara,
Chikkalasandra, when the Cw.2 was cleaning in front of her
house, at that time, the accused No.1 suddenly picked up the
quarrel with Cw.2 and abused her in filthy language and
pulled her hair and cloth insulted her modesty in the public.
Further, seeing the quarrel the Cw.1 came to spot and
questioned same with the accused No.1, at that time the
accused persons assaulted the Cw.1 and 2 with their hands
and caused simple injuries to Cw.1 and 2 and thereby the
accused persons have committed the above said alleged
offences which are offences punishable U/s. 323, 354(B), 504
R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
3. During the pendency of the case, the case against the
accused No.1 is Split Up in CC.No.23532/2024, as per order
Judgment 4 C.C.No.18751/2017
dated: 11.07.2024. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance
taken for the offence punishable offences punishable U/s.
323, 354(B), 504 R/w sec., 34 of IPC against the accused
No.2 and 3 and accused No.2 and 3 were released on bail.
Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused No.2
and 3 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge.
Charge has been framed and read over to the accused No.2
and 3 language known to them, wherein they have denied the
same and claim to be tried.
4. In order to secure the Cw.1, 3 to 7 witnesses,
continuously this court issued summons, NBW and
proclamation. In spite of that, the concerned police have failed
to secure the said witnesses. Moreover, this case is 09 years
old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after given
sufficient opportunities to prosecution. In this regard I relied
on the Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The
State( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24
March 1980, where in it held as below:
” 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
Judgment 5 C.C.No.18751/2017112 (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
prosecution 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
Judgment 6 C.C.No.18751/2017Code, 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 accused 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 above case on hand, the Cw.1, 3
to 7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 the
prosecution has examined 03 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.3 and
04 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.4.
5. Thereafter examination of the accused No.2 and 3
U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused No.2 and 3 have
denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and
not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available
on record.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.18751/2017
7. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides
and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points
arise for consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt, on
28.04.2017 at about 08.45 AM, within
the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura
police station, House No.187, 1st Main
Road, Sarvabowma Nagara,
Chikkalasandra, when the Cw.2 was
cleaning in front of her house, at that
time, the accused No.1 suddenly picked
up the quarrel with Cw.2 and abused her
in filthy language and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/sec.,504 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt, further the
accused No.1 pulled the Cw.’1 hair and
cloth in public and insulted her modesty
in the public and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec.,354(B) R/w
sec., 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt, further,
seeing the quarrel the Cw.1 came to spot
and questioned same with the accused
Judgment 8 C.C.No.18751/2017No.1, at that time the accused persons
assaulted the Cw.1 and 2 with their
hands and caused simple injuries to Cw.1
and 2 and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.,323 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
4. What order.?
8. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 TO 3: These points are inter
connected to each other and have taken for discussion in
common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. Further,
I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the entire case of
the complaint here also, since I have already narrated the
same at the inception of this judgment.
10. The Cw.10 Vajramuni, who is examined as Pw.1 and
IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, On 29.04.2017 at 12-40 PM, while he was in
charge of the police station, he received the written complaint
Judgment 9 C.C.No.18751/2017given by Cw-1 and registered a case and submitted the report
to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Later on the same
day, he conducted a panchanama in the presence of Cw-6 and
7 from 01-00 to 01-45 PM at the place shown by Cw-1. On the
same day, he recorded the statements of Cw-2 to 5. Later on
02.05.2017, as per the verbal order given to Cw-9 to find out
the accused and produce them before him, he produced the
accused No.1 before him at the police station at 07-00 PM,
then took action against the accused, interrogated him the
next day and obtained his voluntary statement. Later on
13.05.2017, he attached the injury certificate of Cw-1 from
Sagar Hospital to the file, Later on 13.06.2017, on the basis of
the appearance of the accused No.2 and 3 at the police station
after obtaining anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble Court, he
had taken action against them, taken appropriate detention
action and released them. Later, as the investigation was
completed, he had submitted a final report to the Hon’ble
Court as the charges against the accused No.2 and 3 were
prima facie proven.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3
had cross examined the said witness where in he has denied
the suggestions put by the above said counsel.
Judgment 10 C.C.No.18751/2017
11. The Cw.08 Dr. Anand,K, who is examined as Pw.2,
he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On
29.04.2017 at 01:25 PM, Cw-1 came to our hospital for
treatment following an assault. When the said person was
subjected to a medical examination, the said injuries were
found. The said injury was a painful injury due to contact with
the front of the left ear, and the said injury was simple in
nature and further he had given an injury certificate for the
same.
12. The Cw.09 Nandish, who is examined as Pw.4, he
has deposed in his evidence before the court that, on
02.05.2017, he reported to the police station as usual and was
verbally ordered by Cw-10 to find out the and produce the
accused in Police Station Crime No. 219/2017. Accordingly, he
contacted the informant on the same day and received
information that he was near the Chikkalasandra bus stand.
Later, on the same day, at around 06:40 PM, he came to know
that a person named Jagannath alias Jagadish Kumar was
near the Chikkalasandra bus stand is the same person
required, he caught hold of him and produced him before Cw-
10 and given his statement regarding the same.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
Judgment 11 C.C.No.18751/2017
reasonable doubt, the accused No.2 and 3 can not be held
guilty of the alleged offenses.
14. Further, in order to secure the Cw.1, 3 to 7
witnesses, respectively this court issued summons and
proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police,
they have failed to secure these witnesses and the same
witnesses are dropped, after giving sufficient opportunities.
Moreover, the non examination of the material witness is fatal
to the prosecution case. As such the case against the accused
No.2 and 3 are certainly would be entitled to benefit of the
doubt. Regarding this court relied on the following Judgment.
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,
Judgment 12 C.C.No.18751/2017prudent 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 No.2 and 3
are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. Moreover,
non examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. The prosecution has not able to prove the alleged
offences against the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I Answer to the Points No.1 to 3 in the
Negative.
16. POINT NO.4: In view of the above findings on Point
No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
The Powers Conferred upon me U/s.
248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.2 & 3 are
hereby Acquitted for the alleged offences
punishable U/sec.,323, 354(B), 504 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.18751/2017
The bail bond of Accused No.2 & 3
and surety extended for further 6 months
in order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, this bail bond automatically
stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections
made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of
July-2025).
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Sri.Vajramuni
P.W. 2 : Sri. Dr. Anand.K
P.W. 3 : Sri. Nandish
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P2 : FIR
Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P4(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Judgment 14 C.C.No.18751/2017
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
-NIL-
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION
Digitally
signed by
-NIL- THIMMAIAH
THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.07.29
17:15:06
+0530(Thimmaiah G)
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
Judgment 15 C.C.No.18751/2017