- 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 BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE TUMAKURU REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7074 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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. 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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 CRL.RP No. 1608 of 2024 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