Bangalore District Court
Lepakshamurthy R G Psi vs Arifpasha on 15 May, 2026
KABC030888612019
Presented on : 04-12-2019
Registered on : 04-12-2019
IN THE COURT OF 49th ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALULRU
Dated: This 15th day of May, 2026
Present
Sri. YOGESH, M.A., LL.B.,
49th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C. No. 28807/2019
Complainant : State by Jalahalli Police
(By APP)
- V/s -
Accused: A1 Areef Pasha,
S/o. Late Khadar,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.Hosur Village, Kotala
Dinne Cross, Gauribidanuru Tq,
Chikkaballapura Dist.
A2 Yarab Pasha,
S/o. Late Khadar Vali,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at Hosur Village, Kotala Dinne
Cross, Gauribidanuru Tq,
Chikkaballapura Dist.
A3 Asif Pasha,
2 CC.No. 28807/2019
S/o. Late Khadar Vali,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Hosur Village, Kotala Dinne
Cross, Gauribidanuru Tq,
Chikkaballapura Dist.
A4 Shaik Tanvir,
S/o. Akmal Pasha,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at C/o. Khaleeulla house, 2nd
Cross, Next to Sharada Hospital,
Vijinapura, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru.
( By Sri. SI Advocate)
Date of commission of offense : 01.11.2019
Date of report of offense : 01.11.2019
Offense complained of : U/s. 341, 504, 323, 353
r/w 34 of IPC
Date of recording evidence : 30.09.2022
Date of closing evidence : 31.10.2025
Total duration : Years Months Days
06 06 14
49th ACJM, Bengaluru.
:J U D G M E N T:
This is the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Jalahalli, Bengaluru against the accused for the offences
punishable U/Sec.341, 504, 323, 353 r/w 34 of IPC.
3 CC.No. 28807/2019
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, It is
the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 was involved in
Crime No.112/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 379,
406, and 420 of IPC, and was alleged to have received stolen
property. On 01.11.2019, based on credible information, CW1
along with CW5, CW6, and CW7 proceeded to Kotala Dinne Cross,
Hosur, in Gauribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, and
secured Accused No.1. Thereafter, they brought Accused No.1 in a
Government vehicle bearing No. KA-04-G-522 to the police station
for enquiry. At about 7:00 PM, when they reached near Nagaland
Circle within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, Accused Nos.2 to
4, sharing a common intention, wrongfully restrained the vehicle.
The said accused questioned the police party as to why Accused
No.1 was being taken and demanded his release, thereby creating
obstruction. Despite CW1 attempting to pacify them by explaining
that Accused No.1 was being taken for investigation in a theft-
related case, the accused persons abused the police in filthy
language. Further, Accused Nos.2 to 4 assaulted CW1 and CW5 by
pulling their uniform shirts and hitting them with hands, and
attempted to rescue Accused No.1 from lawful custody. By their
acts, the accused obstructed public servants in discharge of their
official duties and caused assault on police personnel.
3. The cognizance of the offences was taken. The presence of the
accused was secured. The copies of the charge sheet and other
documents as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. were served upon the
accused. The charge was recorded and explained to the accused for
4 CC.No. 28807/2019
the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 504, 323, 353 r/w 34 of IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1
to 5 and got exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
5. The statement of the accused as required U/s 313 of Cr.PC
was recorded. Accused denied the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them to be false. He did not lead any defense
evidence.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the evidence and
documents on record.
7. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that on
01.11.2019 at about 7:00 PM near Nagaland
Circle, within the limits of Jalahalli Police
Station, Accused Nos.2 to 4, in furtherance
of their common intention, wrongfully
restrained the vehicle of CW1 and other
police officials, thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 341 read with
Section 34 of IPC?
5 CC.No. 28807/2019
2. Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the
above said date, time and place, Accused
Nos.2 to 4, in furtherance of their common
intention, intentionally insulted and abused
CW1 and other police officials with filthy
language, knowing it to be likely to provoke
breach of peace, thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 504 read
with Section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the
above said date, time and place, Accused
Nos.2 to 4, in furtherance of their common
intention, voluntarily caused hurt to CW1
and CW5 by assaulting them with hands,
thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 323 read with Section 34 of
IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further
proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the
above said date, time and place, Accused
Nos.2 to 4, in furtherance of their common
intention, assaulted or used criminal force
against CW1 and other police officials while
they were discharging their official duties,
6 CC.No. 28807/2019thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 353 read with Section 34 of
IPC?
5. What order?
8. My findings to the above points for consideration are as
under;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative
Point No.5 : As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4: As these points are interlinked with each
other, I take up these points together for consideration in order to
avoid the repetition of discussion on material evidence.
10. On meticulous perusal of the evidence of the prosecution with
a demagnetization and evidence available on record, the absolute
burden of proving alleged imputations against the accused is caste
upon the prosecution allow the pursuance with provisions under
Indian Evidence Act 1872.
7 CC.No. 28807/2019
11. The complainant examined as PW2. This witness deposed
about the complaint version in his chief evidence. The witness
deposed that on that day himself and CW5 to 7 were on duty and
arrested the accused and proceed towards police station. At that
time the accused No.2 to 4 were obstructed vehicles and
questioning arrest of the accused No.1. At that time the accused
Nos. 2 to 4 questioned arrest of the accused No.1. They have
abused, pulled the uniform and assaulted by hands thereby they
have obstructed discharging of their official duty. Thereafter CW1
called and informed the Hoysala Police, they have arrived the spot,
caught the accused with the help of the public. Then filed the
report as per the Ex.P1. Witness identified the signature as per
Ex.P1(a). After registering the FIR visited the spot, draw the
mahazar as per Ex.P2, witness identified his signature and got
marked Ex.P2(a). Witness identified A1 to 4. The defense counsel
cross examined this witness. Witness stating that I could not say
who was assaulted first. There is no injuries from the assault and
who was pulled the uniform. Except these admission all the
suggestions and denials of the incident is not admitted by the
witness.
12. Another accompanying witness CW5 is examined as PW4.
This witness also deposed about the incident as well as contents of
the deposition of PW1 and Ex.P1. The witness also identified the
accused. The defense counsel cross examined this witness. Witness
admitted that I could not say who was first assaulted. There was
CC cameras surrounding the spot. Except these admission all the
suggestions and denial of the incident are not admitted by the
witness.
8 CC.No. 28807/2019
13. Another one witness who was arrived at the spot after
receiving the information through phone call from CW1 is examined
as PW1. This witness specifically deposed that on that day he went
to the spot. After receiving the information through phone call from
the CW1 this witness arrive the spot and arrested the accused with
the help of the public. Then this witness arrested the accused and
brought to the police station. Thereafter he is know about what
purpose accused was arrested and also aware about incident from
the CW1. The defense counsel cross examined this witness. The
PW1 is admitted that “It is true to suggest that I did not given
statement about the got information through phone call. It is true
to suggest that the CW1 on duty of the enquiry relating to Cr.
No.112/2017. Further, witness admitted that I could not identify
accused by their name. Except these admissions all the suggestion
put forth by the defense counsel is not admitted by the witness.
14. One Mahazar witness CW3 is examined as PW3. This witness
specifically identified his signature on Ex.P2 and got marked P2(b).
Witness further deposed that on the request of police he put his
signature near Nagaland Circle in the year 2019. But witness
further deposed that I do not know the contents of the Ex.P2.
Thereby he has partly supported to the prosecution case. When the
Ld. APP cross examined and suggested about the contents of the
mahazar, time and date but witness not admitted.
15. CW10 IO is examined as PW5. This witness deposed that he
had received the report as per Ex.P1 and registered FIR. FIR got
marked Ex.P3, signature P3(a). Witness also identified his
signature and got marked Ex.P1(b). On the same day witness
visited the spot and draw the mahazar in presence of the CW2 and
9 CC.No. 28807/2019
3 as per Ex.P2 between 08.30 to 09.15 PM. Witness identified his
signature and got marked Ex.P2(c). On the same day recorded the
statement of CW4 to 8. witness further deposed that he had
collected the station diary about CW4 to 8 were on duty on
01.11.2019. Said document got marked Ex.P4. After completion of
the investigation filed the charge sheet. The defense counsel cross
examined this witness and denied the entire incident and the
version of the complaint and suggested that in order to support the
staff filed false charge sheet inspite of incident not occurred, on the
vengeance against to the accused, since they were not fulfilled the
demands of the police staff. These suggestions not admitted by the
witness.
16. In this case the main allegation of the prosecution is that the
CW1 and his staff were on duty, arrested the accused No.1
connecting to the Cr. No.112/2017 when they had been proceeding
towards the station accused no.2 to 4 were arrived and obstructed
discharge of their duty, abused, assaulted by hands and pull the
uniform of the CW1 thereby they have obstructed to discharge of
the official duty and committed crime as alleged. In order to
establish the case the PW2 complainant and victim of the alleged
offense has specifically deposed about the incident and also
identified the signature on the complaint as well as mahazar.
Witness also identified the accused. The another one accompanying
witness PW5 is also specifically deposed about the incident. The
PW1 who was arrived the spot after got information from CW1 this
witness also deposed about he had visited the spot and arrested
the accused. The IO PW5 has also deposed about his procedural
aspect while registering FIR, draw the mahazar, recorded the
10 CC.No. 28807/2019
statement of the witness and filed the charge sheet. The another
independent mahazar witness PW3 deposed about he has put
signature at the spot. But he deposed that not know the contents of
the mahazar. Further the complainant PW2, and IO specifically
deposed about the Mahazar. The independent mahazar witness
specifically deposed about he put his signature at the spot. Even
though this witness not know the contents of the mahazar his
evidence is clearly establish that police authority visit the spot and
draw the mahazar and other official witness evidence is
corroborating with the mahazar as well as deposition of
independent mahazar witness.
17. In this case the evidence adduced by the prosecution side is
clearly established the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the
PW1 to 5 is corroborating evidence to Ex.P1 to 4. The prosecution
has proved the guilty of the accused. Thereby, accused are
committed the offenses punishable U/Sec. 341, 504, 323, 353 r/w.
34 of IPC. Hence, I am inclined to answer point No.1 to 4 in the
Affirmative.
18. Point No.3: In view of my findings on the above point No.1
to 4 and the reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Exercising the power conferred U/Sec.248(2) of
Cr.P.C., the accused 1 to 4 are hereby convicted
for the offenses punishable U/Sec. 341, 504, 323,
353 r/w. 34 of IPC..
11 CC.No. 28807/2019
The copy of the judgment be delivered to the
accused free of costs.
To hear on sentence call again
[Dictated to the stenographer, through on-line computer, typed by her, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this 15th day of May 2026.]
(YOGESH)
49 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
:ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
PW.1 Nagaraj
PW.2 Lepaksha Murthy
PW.3 Rathnavelu
PW.4 K. Srinivas Murthy
PW.5 Yashavantha B.S.
Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 Report
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P3 FIR
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P4 Report recorded in Police Station Diary
12 CC.No. 28807/2019
Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
– Nil –
49th ACJM, Bengaluru.
13 CC.No. 28807/2019
Heard from the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused and Sr. APP.
Orders on quantum of sentences
The accused submit that they have old age parents,
they are only bread earner of the family. There is no other
cases pending against them except this case. Further
counsel submit that accused are not habitual offenders,
they have burden to take care of entire family. Accused are
regularly appeared before the court during the trial period.
Hence, they prayed to show lenient view towards them.
Per contra, learned APP submits that, case proved
against the accused. They had been assaulted and
obstructing the discharging of public duty. Hence, prayed
to award maximum punishment to the accused.
Having heard the accused, their counsel and learned
APP and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears that the accused have committed the
offenses sudden provoking due to their engaged. In my
opinion, it is need for shown lenient view because accused
are burden to take care of their family and no other cases.
So to secure the ends of justice, I deemed it is proper to
exempt from imposing to imprisonment and punished with
fine only. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
14 CC.No. 28807/2019Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable U/s 353 of IPC.
If the accused are failed to pay the fine amount, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for period of 30 days.
Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable U/s 341 of IPC. If
the accused are failed to pay the fine amount, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC.
If the accused are failed to pay the fine amount, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.
Accused No.1 to 4 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.2,500/- each for the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC.
If the accused are failed to pay the fine amount, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.
The aforesaid default sentence shall run concurrently.
Since cash counter is closed, accused is permitted to
pay the penalty amount of Rs.9,000/- each on next working
day.
Further accused is directed to execute the personal bond
of Rs.50,000/- each. Office is directed that collect the
bonds accordingly.
(YOGESH)
49 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Digitally signed
by YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.05.16
15:56:35 +0530
