[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Preeti Thapa vs Vikram K on 9 June, 2025
Digitally
KABC030799142022 DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 18-10-2022
Registered on : 18-10-2022
Decided on : 09-06-2025
Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 22 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 09th Day of June, 2025
C.C. No.32624/2022
(Crime No.194/2022)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Vikram,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.11, 2nd Cross,
1st Main Road, Near Maramma Temple,
Thindlu Main Road,
Kodigehalli, Bengaluru.
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
2. Sri Chandrashekar,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sri Govindappa,
R/at No.223, 4th Cross,
Manjunatha Layout,
Gundappa Road, Nagashettihalli,
Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru City.
3. Sri Arunkumar @ Arun,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.1, MTS Tent,
Sihineeru Bhavi Road,
Nagashettihalli, Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru City.
4. Sri Dodda Thayappa @ Karthik,
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Late Sri Rangaswamy,
R/at No.9, 2nd Cross,
K.E.B. Layout,
M.R.Garden, Geddalahalli,
Bengaluru City. .....Accused
(Represented By Sri Kiran Kumar.M., Advocate )
1. Date of commission of 24-07-2022
offence
2
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
2. Date of FIR 27-07-2022
3. Date of Charge sheet 27-09-2022
4.Name of Complainant Smt. Preeti Thapa
5. Offences complained of Under Section 323, 324,
354, 504 read with
Sec.34 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 27-06-2024
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 06-06-2025
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 09-06-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 09-06-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 to 4 are
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
3
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1
to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 323,
324, 354, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 27-07-2022 at 9.30
pm, the accused No.1 to 4 were walking on the
footpath in front of Anand Bar on Gundappa Road,
Nagashettihalli within the limits of Sanjaynagar Police
Station, Bangalore, CW1 namely Smt. Preeti Thapa
and CW2 namely Sri Anish Thapa were also walking
on the same footpath and their son CW3 namely
Eprain Thapa was standing on the footpath in front of
the bar, for which accused No.1 abused CW3 with
filthiest language as he was standing across them
and beaten on his face with his hand. When CW2 and
CW3 asked the accused why they were hitting their
son, the accused No.1 slapped and pushed CW1
being woman, on a public road and outraged her
modesty. The Accused No.2 to 4 beaten CW2 with
their hands and the accused No.1 hit CW3 on the
head with stone and caused simple bleeding injury.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of
first information given by CW1, CW11 namely Sri
S.Geeresh Naik, PSI of Sanjay Nagara Police Station
4
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
registered Crime No.194/2022 against the 5-6
unknown persons for the offences punishable under
Section 354, 34, 323, 504 read with Sec.149 of IPC,
prepared FIR and sent the same to the Court and to
his superior officers.
]
4. Investigation: Thereafter he drawn spot
mahazar on 28-07-2022, recorded the statement of
requisite witnesses, collected the documents and
submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for
the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 354,
504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused
No.1 and 2 and accused No.3 and 4 were enlarged on
bail by the order dated 03-08-2022 and 07-09-2022
respectively.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took
cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused persons.
5
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused No.1 to 4, charge for the offences
punishable U/Sec.323, 324, 354, 504 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed,
read over and explained to the accused 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 11 witnesses,
examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents.
Perused the nature of offences and PW1 to 3 being
material witnesses did not support the prosecution
case and hence the issuance of witness summons to
other witnesses is dispensed by the order dated 06-
06-2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of
CrPC: There are no incriminating evidences against
the accused found from the evidence of prosecution
thereby the recording of statement of accused as per
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
6
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 27-07-2022 at 9.30
pm accused in front of Anand Bar
on Gundappa Road,
Nagashettihalli within the limits of
Sanjaynagar Police Station, with
common intention, the accused
No.1 abused CW3 namely Sri
Eprain Thapa with filthiest
language, knowingly such abusive
language will break the public
peace thereby resulted in
commission of an offence
punishable u/Sec.504 read with
Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention, voluntarily the accused
No.1 hit on the face of CW3 and
accused No.2 to 4 were beaten
CW2 namely Anish Thapa with
their hands and caused simple
7
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
hurt thereby resulted in
commission of an offence
punishable u/Sec.323 read with
Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention, the accused No.1
slapped CW1 namely Smt. Preeti
Thapa being woman, on the
public road and outraged her
modesty thereby resulted in
commission of an offence
punishable u/Sec.354 read with
Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on said date, place and
time in furtherance of common
intention, the accused No.1 had
voluntarily hit on the head of
CW3 with stone and caused
simple bleeding injury thereby
resulted in commission of offence
8
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
punishable u/Sec.324 read with
Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1-4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per final orderREASONS
14. Point No.1 and 4: 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 examined the witnesses which are as
follows
(i) CW1 by name Smt. Preeti Thapa, being
informant examined as PW1 identified her signature
on Ex.P1 (complaint) and deposed that no quarrel
held between her and accused, she has not
complained against them and no material object was
seized during spot mahazar. In this regard, the
9
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by
treating her as hostile witness but no favorable
answers has been elicited from her to support the
prosecution case. Her denial of statement given
before the police is marked as Ex.P2.
(ii) CW2 by name Sri Ashish Thapa and CW3
Eprain Thapa being injured were examined as PW2
and PW3 deposed no quarrel held between them and
the accused and the accused did not injure CW3 with
stone, when CW1 went to police station for sorting
out the minor differences amongst each other, the
police obtained their signatures on some documents.
CW1 had not taken any treatment in respect of
alleged assault and they have not given any
statements before police. In this regard, the learned
Sr.APP has cross examined this witnesses by treating
them as hostile witnesses but no favorable answers
have been elicited from them to support the
prosecution case. Their denial of statements given
before the police are marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
15. In this case the informant cum victims /
injured PW1 to PW3 did not support the prosecution
case. Though the prosecution cross-examined these
witnesses by treating as hostile witnesses, no
favorable evidence have been elicited to support the
prosecution case and they deposed falsely to help the
10
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
accused. This court is of the opinion that even if
other witnesses were examined by the prosecution
and they supported the prosecution case that would
not helpful as PW1 to PW3 themselves did not
support the prosecution case. This court has
dispensed with the examination of other witnesses
which could be only formal in nature and hence
taken the prosecution evidence as closed. At this
stage, it is relevant to rely upon the decision in the
case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and
another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“When the judge is fairly certain
that there is no prospect of the
case ending in conviction the
valuable time of the court should
not be wasted for holding a trial
only for the purpose of formally
completing the procedure to
pronounce the conclusion on the
future date.”
By basing aforesaid principle by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the above case is
applicable to this case as well. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these
11
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
facts and circumstances of the case, the Point No.1
to 4 is answered in the negative.
16. Point No.5:- In view of the above findings and
reasons given on point No.1 to 4, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 4 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec 504, 354, 323, 324
read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
(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, the stone shown under PF
No.94(A)/2022 being worthless
shall be destroyed.
12
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and
corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 09th day of June, 2025)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Preeti Thapar Informant
PW2 : Sri Anish Thapa Victim
PW3 : Sri Eprain Thapa Victim cum injuredDocuments marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Statement of PW2 PW2 Ex.P4: Statement of PW3 PW3 13 KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: NIL
Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
14
KABC030799142022 CC32624/2022
09-06-2025
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 4 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Sec 504, 354, 323, 324
read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
(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, the stone shown under PF
No.94(A)/2022 being worthless
shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City.
15
[ad_2]
Source link