Karnataka High Court
Muralidhara @ Murali vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1608 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MURALIDHARA @ MURALI
S/O LAKSHMAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO. 991, 4TH CROSS
SUBHAS NAGAR
BENGLAURU DISTRICT - 562123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE
by DEVIKA M TUMAKURU
Location: HIGH REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B, ASPP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU IN
C.C.NO.58/2015 DTD 01.04.2024 AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 01.04.2024 passed in
C.C.No.58/2015 by the Trial Court and judgment dated
09.09.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.24/2024 by the First
Appellate Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the
prosecution that on 16.09.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., the
complainant boarded the KSRTC Bengaluru bus bearing
No.KA06-F-979 at 8th mile to come to Tumkuru and she
was sitting in three seated seat, after two stop, the
accused boarded the said bus and he was also seated in
the same seat beside her. Since the bus left from
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
Bengaluru towards Tumakuru, the accused repeatedly fell
on CW1 even though she told him to sit properly and
showed a slip which had his name and contact number.
When the bus reached near SP office, he again fell on CW1
and when she was talking over the phone, he kept the slip
in her bag and touched her again and again and asked her
'will you come?' in Kannada, then she raised her voice and
asked to stop the bus and forced him to get down from the
bus and lodged the complaint against the accused.
4. Based on the complaint, the case was
registered and after investigation, the police have filed the
charge sheet against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 354(A)(2) of IPC. Thereafter,
cognizance was taken and summons issued to the
accused. The accused appeared through his counsel and
enlarged on bail. When Trial Court recorded the plea of
the accused, he did not plead guilty and claims trial.
Hence, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined
12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and got marked the
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
documents at Ex.P1 to P14 and also marked MO1. The
accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and
he did not choose to lead his evidence. The Trial Court
sent the slip which the accused kept in the complainant's
bag and handwriting of accused to the FSL and FSL report
also received confirming that the handwriting in the slip
belongs to the accused. Apart from that PW2 and PW3
who have said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident
were also examined and having considered the evidence of
PW1, PW4, PW5, PW10 to PW13, the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case
and convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 354(A)(2) of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner
herein filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court and
the First Appellate Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record in paragraph 32
held that the evidence of CW1 is not shaky and there is
corroboration in her evidence and there is no delay in
lodging the complaint. It is the informant who brought the
accused to the police station and though deriver and
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
conductor of KSRTC bus disown their statements given
before the police, the ocular evidence as well as the
documentary evidence cannot be brushed aside as CW1
and other witnesses are interested witnesses. The
testimony of CW1 is consistent and the ticket produced by
CW1 clearly establishes that she had traveled in the
KSRTC bus from Dasarahalli to Tumakuru and on the way
to Tumakuru, the accused tried to outrage her modesty by
touching her hand and keeping the chit containing his
name and phone number and time in her vanity bag and
asked her to meet him. Having considered this fact, the
First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that he had
intention to outrage the modesty of a women and physical
contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit
sexual overtures amounts to sexual harassment and also
comes to the conclusion that there is no any error in the
finding of the Trial Court and hence, confirmed the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present
revision petition is filed by the accused/petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that PW2, PW3 are the driver and
conductor of the bus and both of them have turned hostile
to the case of the prosecution and also would vehemently
contend that the alleged document i.e., slip produced on
the contrary according to Ex.P2 - mahazar discloses
seizure of the same and there are contradictions in the
prosecution evidence. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that according to PW1, accused was traveling in
her bus and bag belongs to the victim is not seized and
even though PW1 though says that when the bus took
turn, accused used to fell on her, thinking that due to
oversight, it is so happened, she moves aside. Hence, it is
clear that he was not touching her hand and mere
touching the hand of PW1 it may amount to outraging the
modesty of a women. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that the spot mahazar not conducted in the
KSRTC bus or in a three seated place where victim was
sitting and prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of
PW4 and PW5 who are the party workers of Aam Admi
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
Party. Though PW1 denies the same, PW4 and PW5
admitted that they are the party workers of Aam Admi
Party. It is also contended that PW1, PW4 and PW 5 are
close friends and they are interested witnesses and their
evidence cannot be properly considered by the Trial Court.
6. The counsel in support of his arguments relied
upon the judgment reported in AIR 2005 STALE
CHEQUE 2104 in the case of KANWAR PAL S GILL vs
STATE (ADMN. U. T. CHANDIGARH) THRO. SECY AND
ANOTHER wherein the challenge was made with regard to
enlarging the accused invoking the Probation of Offenders
Act and the Apex Court dismissed the same having
considered the position of the appellant being the Senior
Officer of the Police Department. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that this Court has to take lenient
view relying upon the CRL.RP No.201/2005 decided on
18.03.2008 wherein imposed the fine enhancing the
same.
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent would vehemently contend that when slip
was given along with the complaint, only for formalities,
same was seized while drawing the mahazar in terms of
Ex.P2. Apart from that the counsel would vehemently
contend that PW1 evidence is clear that when accused
misbehaved with the complainant, by giving a signal to the
conductor and the driver, got stopped the bus and
dragged the accused to the police station. In the police
station, the complainant given the complaint along with
the slip and handwriting of the accused was taken and
same was sent to FSL and FSL report is clear that said
handwriting belongs to the accused. Ex.P7 is the slip
which the accused had given, but no explanation in the
313 statement in this regard. Apart from that police have
conducted the investigation and seized the bus pass of the
very same day when accused traveled in the very same
bus also seized sim card and ID card of the petitioner and
hence, the Court cannot extend any benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act since accused being the employer of
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
revenue department, he committed an offence of
outraging of modesty of a women that too in a public place
in a bus in which he traveled along with the complainant.
Hence, question of imposing of more fine also does not
arise. This Court also take note of the scope of revision.
Both the Courts discussed in detail with regard to the act
of the petitioner and hence, question of showing lenience
towards accused does not arise.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
on record and considering the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, the point that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting and sentencing the petitioner herein
for the offence punishable under Section
354(A)(2) of IPC and First Appellate Court
committed an error in confirming the judgment
of the Trial Court and whether the order
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
impugned suffers from any legality and
correctness and whether this Court can exercise
the revision jurisdiction?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, it discloses that the accused and the
complainant were traveled in the very same bus and the
complainant boarded the bus earlier to the accused. When
accused boarded the bus, he came and sat by the side of
the complainant and he started fell on her repeatedly even
though directed to sit properly and he showed a slip which
contained his name and contact number and when the bus
reached near the SP office, once again he fell on her and
immediately she reacted and he put a slip in her bag and
asked her to come with him in Kannada and hence, she
raised her voice and asked the bus to stop and forced him
to get down from the bus and lodged the complaint
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
dragging him to the SP office and complaint was lodged
and same is marked as Ex.P1 wherein she categorically
deposed the same and also produced the slip which
accused gave along with the complaint and no doubt, in
the presence of panchas, mahazar was also drawn in
terms of Ex.P2 and also marked the Ex.P3 evidencing the
fact that tickets are belongs to the complainant and also
accused and Ex.P7 is the slip and handwriting samples are
also seized which have been marked as Ex.P8(g) to (l) and
all have been sent to FSL and FSL report also received in
terms of Ex.P14 and spot panchanama is marked as
Ex.P11 and FSL acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P12.
10. Having considered the documents of 'P' series
as well as evidence of PW1, not doubt, in the cross-
examination, PW1 says that she has not stated that in
which seat she was sitting and same was not stated in the
complaint and in her statement but admitted that CW3 is
the of Aam Admi Party volunteer and also admits that
panchanama was not made in respect of the bus in which
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
she has traveled and also not seized her bag. The counsel
referring this admission also categorically says that police
ought to have seized the bag in which the slip was kept by
the accused. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 who are the
driver and conductor of the bus respectively, not
supported the case of the prosecution but PW4 who is the
panch witness to Ex.P2, PW5 is the of Aam Admi Party
worker and PW6 is the Traffic Police and other witnesses
are also signatory to the document of Ex.P11 and PW8 is
also witnessed the same and Ex.P14 and P15 got marked
through PW9 and PW10 is the IO who conducted the
investigation and he admits that when the slip was given
along with the complaint AT Ex.P1 categorically says that
in the complaint itself, the same is mentioned. The
counsel referring the cross-examination of PW10 contend
that no slip was seized and no mahazar was conducted in
the bus and same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11. The fact that PW1 and accused were traveled in
the very same bus is not in dispute. Ex.P7 is the slip
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
allegedly given by the accused is also given along with the
complaint and police have drawn the mahazar in terms of
Ex.P2. The counsel would vehemently contend that when
Ex.P7 was given along with the complaint, there was no
chit to seize while drawing the mahazar. The counsel
would vehemently contend that in the slip, it is mentioned
that call at 1.30 p.m. but in the evidence, she says that
'call me at 1.30 p.m. and there is a discrepancy in the
evidence. Said contention cannot be accepted. In a
criminal case while recording evidence, the Court also
cannot expect the mathematical niceties by using of word
"call me" instead of "call" will not take away the very case
of the prosecution and the same will not go to very root of
the case. No doubt, police have also not conducted any
mahazar in the bus with regard to traveled together. The
fact that both of them traveled together is not in dispute
and accused was taken to the police station on the very
same day of incident itself and there is no delay in lodging
the complaint. Apart from that immediately handwriting of
accused was taken and same was sent to the FSL along
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
with slip and FSL report is clear that handwriting in the slip
and sample are belongs to the petitioner herein. When
such material is given, FSL report also secured and 313
statement was recorded, no such explanation is given with
regard to the incriminating evidence which found against
the petitioner particularly Ex.P7 and P14 and only total
denial. When such being the case, in the absence of any
explanation, both the Courts taken note of said facts into
consideration and there is no enmity between PW1 and
accused and incident was taken place in the bus when
both of them traveled in the same bus and attempt is
made by the counsel for the petitioner that there was a
mistake by counter part advocate, no explanation in the
313 statement and Court has to take note of the said fact
into consideration.
12. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that the petitioner is working as a Tahsildar and relied
upon the judgment of KANWAR PAL S GILL's case
referred supra wherein discussed that outraging of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
modesty of a women, bottom slapping case, accused,
Director General of Police, slapping on posterior of
prosecutrix in front of guests in a party, accused fully
aware that touching posterior of prosecutrix at such time
would embarrass her and outrage her modesty,
prosecutrix making hue and cry immediately, conduct of
prosecutrix does not suggest that she hatched conspiracy
or falsely foisted the incident to malign accused, further
merely on an assertion by accused that incident was
foisted findings of Courts below cannot be set aside.
However the Apex Court accepted the case of the
prosecution and also the conviction. However, when the
First Appellate Court exercised the discretion in giving
lenience in favour of the accused invoking Probation of
Offenders Act and same has been confirmed by the Apex
Court hence, the counsel sought for invoking PO Act for
the petitioner.
13. The counsel also relied upon other judgment in
CRL. RP.201/2005 referred supra, in a case of 279 and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
338 of IPC, sentencing him to pay a fine for each count
and he will get lenience. Having considered the principles
laid down in the judgments referred supra, judgment of
the Apex Court as well as the judgment of this Court,
admittedly, judgment of this Court is with regard to
Section 279 and 338 of IPC . No doubt, in the judgment
of the Apex Court is with regard to Section 354 and
whether the factual aspects on the case on hand also to be
looked into. It has to be noted that a specific allegation is
made against the petitioner that when he boarded the bus
he sat along with the complainant and he continued the
act inspite of the complainant instructed him to sit
properly and even he did not stop the same and he
prepared the slip and kept the same in her bag and
touched her hand and asked her to come in Kannada.
Though the same is not in the slip asking her to come
along with him, his name as well as phone number was
written in the slip and also asked her to call at 1.30 p.m.
Hence, Court has to take note of such conduct of the
petitioner though he being working as Deputy Tahsildar
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
and immediately he was taken to the police station and his
ticket, ID card and sim were seized by drawing the
mahazar in terms of Ex.P2. If the petitioner stopped his
act when the complainant immediately reacted and asked
him to sit properly then, the very submission of the
counsel for the petitioner that the Court has to take lenient
view could have been accepted. But, accused repeatedly
continued the very act. When outraging the modesty was
not tolerated, the complainant instructed the driver of the
bus to stop and asked the accused to get down from the
bus and dragged him to the police station and lodged the
complaint. When such being the material on record, I do
not find any ground to invoke PO Act when the continues
outraging of modesty was continued in a public place that
too in a bus. Though PW2 and PW3 have turned hostile,
other witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution. Apart from that in addition to the oral
evidence, documentary evidence would suffice to come to
a conclusion that the petitioner outraged the modesty of a
women in a public place while giving a slip. When such
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7074
being the case, it is not a fit case to invoke Probation of
Offenders Act as contended by the counsel for the
petitioner. Both the Courts have taken note of very
conduct of the petitioner as well as both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record and same has
been appreciated in a proper perspective and hence, there
is no legal infirmity in the order of the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court. When, the orders of both the
Courts does not suffers from any legality and correctness,
the question of invoking revisional jurisdiction does not
arise and there is no merit in the petition. Hence, I
answer the above point as negative.
Point No.2:
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
