IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH 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, 4^TH CROSS SUBHAS NAGAR BENGLAURU DISTRICT - 562123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI A N RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M TUMAKURU Location: HIGH REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDINGS KARNATAKA 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.

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 8^th 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 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 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 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 cle