State By Sub Inspector Of Police vs Krishna M
2022 Latest Caselaw 7960 Kant

                             1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE:

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.75 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

STATE BY
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HEBRI P.S.,
KARKALA.                                    ...    APPELLANT

[BY SRI. K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP.]

AND:

KRISHNA M.,
S/O. BHOJA POOJARI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O MANIGUNDI,
HEBRI VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.                           ...     RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE]
                            ***
      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
13.09.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC, UDUPI IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41/2009, SET ASIDE THE IMPUTNED
JUDGMENT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC KARKALA IN C.C. NO.713/208 DATED
26.11.2009-ACQUITTING   THE     RESPONDENT/ACCUSED    FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354 AND 506 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               2




                          JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the

Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

setting aside the Judgment and Order of conviction and

sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitting the

accused/respondent of offence punishable under Sections

354 and 506 of IPC.

2. Brief facts;

The accused was working as a teacher in Government

Pre-University College, Hebri, wherein the victim [P.W.4]

was a student studying in VIII Standard 'C' Section. On

16.09.2008 at 11.30 a.m., when P.W.4 was sitting in the

second bench in the class room, the accused asked her to

sit in the last bench and with an intention to outrage her

modesty, put his hand on her chest and waist. Again on

17.09.2008, at 11.40 a.m., the accused did the same act

and threatened the complainant with dire consequences, if

she disclosed the said fact to the Principal of the College.

Before the trial Court, to establish the guilt of the

accused, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and

got marked Exs.P1 to 8.

3. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the classmates of the victim

and they are the eyewitnesses. P.W.4 is the victim and she

is the first informant, P.W.5 is the Principal of the College,

P.W.6 is the victim's father, P.W.7 is the Vice-Principal,

P.W.8 is the DDPI who granted permission as per Ex.P7 to

launch prosecution against the accused, P.Ws.9 and 10 are

the independent witnesses and attesters to Ex.P4-spot

mahazar and P.W.11 is the PSI who registered the case

and conducted investigation.

4. In the complaint lodged by the victim-P.W.4

which is marked as Ex.P3, she has stated that she was

studying in VIII Standard 'C' Section at Hebri Government

Pre-University College. On 16.09.2008 at 11.50 a.m., the

accused who was teaching social studies, asked her to sit in

the back bench and then put is hand on her waist and

chest. P.W.3 and P.Ws.1 and 2 who were sitting on the

same bench saw when she screamed. Therefore, the

accused continued teaching. On 17.09.2008 at about

11.40 a.m. again the accused told her to move from the

second bench and sit in the last bench and put his hand on

her waist and chest. When she screamed, P.Ws.1 and 2

who were also sitting on the same bench saw and they told

the accused that they will inform the matter to the

Principal, for which, the accused threatened them with dire

consequences saying that he will break their limbs if the

matter was brought to the notice of the Principal.

5. P.W.4 in her evidence has deposed that there

were 44 students in her class. She has reiterated the

complaint averments with regard to the alleged act

committed by the accused. She has stated that when she

screamed, her classmates also came to know about the

incident. She has stated that on that day, P.Ws.1 and 2

were also sitting on the same bench and they told the

accused that they will inform the matter to the Principal.

At that time, the accused threatened them saying that he

will break their limbs if the matter was informed either to

the Principal or to the family members of the victim. She

has further stated that because she was scared, she did not

inform the incident on that day to her family members and

on 19.09.2008, she informed the matter to her father and

on the next day morning her father took her to the

Principal and informed him about the incident and in turn,

he told them to lodge a complaint and accordingly, she

along with her father went to the Police Station and lodged

a complaint as per Ex.P3.

6. The victim's father is examined as P.W.6. He

has stated that after his daughter returned from the school,

she was silent for about 2 days and she told him that she

will not go to school. When his wife and himself enquired

with her, she told them the act committed by the accused.

He has further stated that he took his daughter and others

including a few elderly people and friends of the victim and

met the Principal and narrated the incident to him. The

principal enquired with the accused but did not say

anything. Thereafter, he along with his daughter went to

the Police Station and lodged a complaint.

7. P.W.11 is the PSI., who received the complaint

from the victim on 20.09.2008 at 2.30 p.m. and registered

a case and issued FIR-Ex.P8 to the jurisdictional Court. He

visited the College and drew the spot mahazar as per

Ex.P4. and conducted part of the investigation.

8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on

16.09.2008 at about 11.50 a.m., the accused asked the

victim-P.W.4 who was sitting in the second bench, to sit in

the last bench and outraged her modesty by putting his

hand on her waist and chest and again on the next day

i.e., 17.09.2008 at about 11.40 a.m., he repeated the said

act. The prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 who

were present in the class room at the time of the incident.

However, P.Ws.1 to 3 have turned hostile and they have

not supported the case of prosecution. Their evidence do

not even remotely establish that there was any such

incident which took place on 16.09.2008 and 17.09.2008.

9. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited

that except the fact that the accused asked the victim to sit

in the last bench no other incident has taken place. She

has admitted that because the victim was asked to sit in

the last bench, a false complaint was lodged against the

accused. Even P.W.3 has admitted in the cross-

examination that the victim was asked to sit in the last

bench by the accused since she was talking in the class

room and therefore a false complaint was lodged against

the accused. He has stated that except the accused asking

the victim to sit in the last bench, no other incident has

taken place. He has also admitted that at the instance of

C.W.7 [P.W.9] and C.W.8 [P.W.10], a false complaint was

lodged against the accused.

10. P.W.5 is the in-charge Principal of the College.

He has stated that on 20.09.2008, P.W.4 along with two

other students and her father and few others came and

met him at about 10.20 a.m., complaining about the

accused that he had misbehaved with P.W.4. He has

stated that they told that the accused had tapped the back

of P.W.4. He has stated that apart from that they have not

stated anything.

11. P.W.5 has been treated hostile by the

prosecution. He has denied that P.W.4 and others told him

about the accused putting his hand over the waist and

chest of the victim and the threat given to her etc. In the

cross-examination, he has stated that except stating that

the accused behaved in an indecent manner, he was not

informed by P.Ws.4 and others as to in what manner the

accused behaved with P.W.4. He has further stated that

when he enquired with P.W.4 i.e., the victim, she informed

him that the accused tapped on her back.

12. The other relevant witnesses are P.Ws.9 and

10. Both these witnesses are hearsay witnesses. They

have stated that on 20.09.2008, the victim's father i.e.,

P.W.6 informed them that the accused with an intention to

outrage the modesty of his daughter touched her

inappropriately. Thereafter, along with the victim and her

father went and met the headmaster and the victim

narrated the entire incident to him. Therefore, the

headmaster asked her father to lodge a complaint.

13. P.W.4 is the victim. She has lodged the

complaint as per Ex.P3. In her complaint as well as in her

evidence she has stated that she screamed when the

accused put his hand over her waist and chest and at that

time her classmates viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 who were sitting on

the same bench told the accused that they will inform the

matter to the Principal. At that time, the accused

threatened them with dire consequences. However, P.Ws.1

and 2 as well as P.W.3, the friends and classmates of P.W.4

who were very much present when the incident took place

have turned hostile. In the cross-examination of the said

witnesses, they have stated that except the accused asking

P.W.4 to sit in the last bench because she was talking too

much, no other incident has taken place. They have stated

that because the accused asked the victim to sit in the last

bench, a complaint was lodged.

14. It is also pertinent to see that there were 44

students in the class. If any such incident had taken place

and if P.W.4 had screamed in the class room, then even

those students would come to know about the incident.

However, it is not the case of prosecution that even the

other students have also come to know about the incident.

15. P.W.4 has stated in her evidence that after

occurrence of the incident, she went to her house and did

not inform the matter to her family members and only on

19.09.2008 she informed about the incident to her father

and on the next day, her father came to the school along

with her to meet the Principal. However, according to

P.W.6, his daughter was looking dull and she was silent for

two days and informed them that she will not go to school

and on enquiry, she informed about the incident. In the

cross-examination, he has admitted that his daughter

informed him that she was sitting in the second bench

along with her friends and the accused asked her to sit in

the last bench and therefore she was sad. He has stated

that on 18.09.2008 and 19.09.2008 his daughter did not

go to school and she was at home. However, the same is

not spoken by P.W.4 herself.

16. P.W.4 in her evidence has admitted that when

the accused was teaching, she was sitting in the second

bench and talking with her friends and therefore she was

asked to sit in the last bench and because of that she was

sad and got angry. She has admitted that if any one

screams in the class room, then it will be heard to the next

class as well as to the staff room. Further stated that the

Principle's room is about 15 ft. away from her class room

and if anyone screams in the class room, the Principal will

come to the class, but on 16.09.2008 and 17.09.2008 the

Principal has not come to their class.

17. According to P.W.4, the accused threatened her

saying that he will break her limbs if she informed the

matter to the Principal. The said threat given by the

accused is not corroborated by other witnesses. P.W.6 has

not specifically stated that his daughter informed that the

accused had threatened her to break her limbs if the

matter was informed to others.

18. P.W.10. has stated that he came to know that

the accused had threatened P.W.4 to break her limbs if she

informed the matter to others. According to him, the same

was informed to him by P.W.6. However, P.W.6 himself

has not stated so in his evidence. Contrary to the same,

P.W.9 has deposed that the accused had threatened P.W.4

that he will not allow her to go to school if she informed the

matter to others. There is no consistency in the evidence

of the prosecution with regard to even the threat given by

the accused to P.W.4.

19. The learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that on account of previous enmity and political

rivalry, a false complaint has been lodged against the

accused at the instance of P.Ws.9 and 10. He has drawn

the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of

P.W.4 wherein she has admitted that she was brought to

the Court by C.Ws.7 and 8 [P.Ws.9 and 10]. Further, she

has also admitted that even at the time of lodging the

complaint they accompanied her to the Police Station. It is

also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.6 that C.Ws.7

and 8 [P.Ws.9 and 10] as well as the accused belongs to

two different political parties. P.W.6 has stated that it is

possible that there was enmity between the said persons

and the accused.

20. The trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W.4

and holding that her evidence is corroborated by the

evidence of P.Ws.5, 6, 9 and 10, convicted the accused.

The appellate Court having re-appreciated the entire

evidence and after giving reasons, has set aside the said

Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the trial Court.

The learned Sessions Judge has assigned valid reasons for

coming to the conclusion that the ingredients of offence

punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC are not

made out and further held that the evidence on record

does not inspire confidence of the Court to convict the

accused for the charged offence.

Having reappreciated the entire evidence on record, I

see no illegality in the Judgment and Order of acquittal

passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Ksm*