Bangalore District Court
Sringeri Ps vs A6 Srimathi on 20 February, 2025
KABC010312342023
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE [SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES],
(CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 20th day of February, 2025
PRESENT:
SRI GANGADHARA C.M.,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
[Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases],
(CCH-50) Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.2468/2023 C/W SPL.C.No.1576/2024,
SPL.C.No.1579/2024 and SPL.C.No.1580/2024
Complainant The State of Karnataka by the Sringeri
Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District.
(By : Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 Sri B.G. Krishnamurthy @ Vijay @ Bhagath
in @ Sumanth @ Che @ Kumar @ Bhaskar,
Spl.C.No.2468/2023 S/o Gopala Rao, Aged about 46 years,
R/o Nemmaru Estate and Post, Sringeri
Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District.
Accused No.3 Ms. Prabha @ Hosagadde Prabha
in @ Sandhya @ Netra @ Madhu,
Spl.C.No.1576/2024 D/o Narayana Shetty, Aged about 24 years,
R/o Tallur Angadi, Hosagadde, Thirthahalli
Taluk, Shivamogga District.
Accused No.6 Ms. Sreemathi D/o Puttugowda, Aged about
in 18 years, R/o Belagodu Kodige, K. Masige
Spl.C.No.1579/2024 Village, Begar Village Panchayat, Sringeri
Taluk.
Accused No.8 Sri Suresh @ Pradeep @ Tangappa
in @ Prashanth S/o Late Sannaiah, Aged
Spl.C.No.1580/2024 about 31 years, R/o Angadi, Gonibeedu
Hobli, Mudigere Taluk.
2
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Accused No.9 in Ms. Savithri J.L. @ Usha @ Rajitha,
Spl.C.No.1580/2024 D/o Late Lokegowda, Aged about 33 years,
R/o Jarimane, Mavinakere Village, Kalasa
Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru
District.
(Accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 9 by Sri. S.S., Advocate)
(Accused No.6 by Sri. N.G.R., Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence : Under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 307, 353, 332, 333, 109
r/w Section 149 of the IPC,
Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian
Arms Act, 1959, Sections 4
and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, and
Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the
U.A.(P) Act, 1967.
2. Date of Commission of : 17.03.2009
Offence
3. Date of F.I.R. : 17.03.2009
4. Date of arrest of the : Accused No. 1 was secured
accused under a production warrant on
14.03.2022
Accused No. 3 was secured
under a production warrant on
26.06.2024
Accused Nos. 8 and 9 were
secured under production
warrants on 14.06.2024
Accused No. 6 was secured
under a production warrant on
16.02.2024
5. Name of the complainant : Sri Y.B. Chalavadi
6. Date of commencement : 23.11.2022
of evidence
7. Date of closure of : 25.01.2025
evidence
8. Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2025
of judgment
3
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
9. Result of the Case : Accused Nos.1, 3, 6, 8 and 9
are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353,
332, 333 r/w Section 149 of
IPC, Section 3 r/w 25 of the
Indian Arms Act, 1959,
Sections 4 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act,
1908, and Sections 13, 16 and
18 of U.A.(P) Act, 1967.
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Investigating Officer, Sri Abdul Ahad, Dy. S.P., Koppa Sub-
Division, Koppa, Chikkamagaluru District, has submitted the charge
sheet against the accused persons for offences punishable under
Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353, 332, 333, and 109, read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as 'IPC' for short), Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Arms Act' for short), Sections 4 and 5
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 13, 16, and 18
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the U.A.(P) Act' for short).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-
(a) The first informant, CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, and his team
reported for duty at the Kerekatte ANF Camp as per the order of
their superiors on 22.02.2009 and began performing their duties. On
4
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
17.03.2009, CW.1 and his team members, PW.1, Sri Shankar Rao
Jadhav, PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., and PW.3, Sri Tharesh, were leaving
the camp for a combing operation towards Hadi-Hadi Kesagodu, as
usual. At that time, their staff members, PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi,
PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, and PW.7, Sri
D.A. Dollin, joined them. They all left the camp in a vehicle bearing
Registration No. KA-10-G-159 and reached Matholli. They parked
their vehicle by the side of the road at Matholli and left the driver, Sri
Mobin Kumar, and P.C.306, Sri M.G. Sangati, at the vehicle. The
rest of the team proceeded on foot along the Hadi-Hadi Kesagodu
mud road for the combing operation. While they were conducting the
combing operation, two kilometers away from Matholli, at 10:00 a.m.,
they heard a blasting sound from 15 to 20 feet away from a bridge,
and the remnants/splinters caused injuries to the team members.
CW.1 and his team members immediately took cover, and someone
fired at them from the top of the hill. In response, CW.1 and his team
returned fire in self-defense. During this incident, CW.1 sustained
bleeding injuries. PW.3, Sri Tharesh, sustained grievous injuries.
Consequently, PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., and Sri
Raghavendra took PW.3, Sri Tharesh, to Sringeri Hospital for
treatment. Other team members of CW.1 also sustained injuries and
went to the Sringeri Government Hospital for treatment. PW.3, Sri
Tharesh, was later transferred to Manipal Hospital for further
treatment. As a result, CW.1 filed a first information statement with
the Sringeri Police. Based on this information, the Station House
Officer (SHO) of the Sringeri Police Station registered a case against
the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143,
144, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, Sections 3 and
5
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
25 of the Arms Act, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908, and Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, and handed over the
investigation to PW.21, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar.
(b) PW.21, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, received the case
papers from the SHO of the Sringeri police station and continued the
investigation. He visited the scene of the incident and cordoned off
the area by deploying his police personnel. He informed the dog
squad, BDDS team, and experts from the FSL to visit the scene
through a wireless message. The dog squad, BDDS team, and a
ballistic expert arrived at the scene. Two live bombs were found and
defused by the ballistic expert. PW.21 secured the presence of
PW.8, Sri Krishnegowda, and PW.9, Sri Thammegowda, as panch
witnesses at the spot, prepared a mahajar, and seized a photo
flasher, a 225-feet wire, a live bottle bomb, a single-barrel gun, a
cartridge, handbills containing naxal literature, bolts, nuts, and other
articles. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene.
(c) PW.21 visited the Government Hospital, Sringeri, and
recorded statements from PW.1, Sri Shankar Rao Jadhav, PW.2, Sri
Raju H.N., PW.3, Sri Tharesh, PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi, PW.5, Sri L.H.
Uppar, PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, and
CW.9, Sri Sathisha. He seized the blood-stained clothes of PW.3, Sri
Tharesh, collected from Manipal Hospital by CW.35, Sri Ranganatha
Gowda, in the presence of CW.10, Sri Jagadeesh, and PW.13, Sri
Hanumanthappa, under a mahajar. He sent all the seized articles to
the FSL, Bengaluru, through CW.35, Sri Ranganatha Gowda and Sri
Manjunatha. He received an email from Mudigere Police Station
informing that the accused, Chandru @ Chandrashekar, arrested in
6
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Crime No.30/2009 of Mudigere Police Station, had disclosed his
involvement in this case. Accordingly, he submitted an application to
the court to add the name of the accused, Chandru @
Chandrashekar, to the case. He also received the wound certificates
for the injured persons from the Government Hospital, Sringeri.
(d) PW.20, Sri Abdul Ahad, received the case papers from
PW.21 and continued the investigation. PW.20 took accused No.10
into police custody and recorded his voluntary statement. Accused
No.10 disclosed that he would show the place of the occurrence.
Therefore, PW.20 secured the presence of CW.14, Sri Sukumar, and
CW.15, Sri Appu, as panch witnesses at the Sringeri Police Station.
Accused No. 10 took PW.20 and the panch witnesses to Havkudkal
and showed them the place of the incident. Accordingly, PW.20
prepared a mahajar at the spot and then produced accused No.10
before the court.
(e) PW.21, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, apprehended
accused No.11, Sundara Gowda, and produced him before PW.20.
PW.20 recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.11. Accused
No.11 disclosed that he would show the place where he kept the
cover given by accused No.1, Krishnamurthy. Therefore, PW.20
secured the presence of CW.16, Sri Prakash, and CW.17, Sri Kumar,
as panch witnesses at the Sringeri Police Station. Accused No.11,
Sundara Gowda, took PW.20 and the witnesses to his house at
Doddinakonda and produced a cover containing five detonators,
nine gelatin sticks, five Naxal-related pamphlets, and a white banner.
PW.20 seized these items under a mahajar in the presence of the
panch witnesses. Accused No.11 then took PW.20 to the place of the
7
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
incident at Havkudkal and disclosed that he and other accused
persons had planted a bomb at the site. PW.20 prepared a mahajar
at the spot.
(f) PW.21, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, apprehended the
accused, D.K. Halappa, and produced him before PW.20. PW.20
recorded the voluntary statement of accused D.K. Halappa and later
took him into police custody. In his voluntary statement, the accused
disclosed that he would show the objects used to plant the bomb and
the place where they had planted the bomb, if taken there. The
accused took PW.20 to his house at Becchuvalli Village. PW.20
secured the presence of CW.18, Sri Manjaiah, and CW.19, Sri H.S.
Nagappagowda, as panch witnesses. The accused produced a
crowbar and a pick-axe, stating that these were the tools used to
place the bomb at the incident site. PW.20 seized these items under
a mahajar in the presence of the witnesses. He also took
photographs at the house of the accused. The accused, D.K.
Halappa, then took PW.20 and the panchas to the place of the
incident at Havkudkal and disclosed that he had signaled the co-
accused regarding the arrival of the police. PW.20 prepared a
mahajar at the spot. PW.20 later received reports from the FSL,
Bengaluru.
(g) CW.41, Sri Sachin Kumar, arrested accused M.S.
Padmanabha and H.S. Vijaykumar in Crime No.55/2010 of Sringeri
Police Station. During interrogation, the accused disclosed their
involvement in this case. In the voluntary statement recorded by
CW.41, Sri Sachin Kumar, the accused disclosed that they would
show the place of the incident and produce five gelatin sticks stored
8
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
at the house of Vijaykumar. Therefore, PW.20 secured the presence
of CW.20, Sri K.M. Ramanna, and CW.21, Sri Gopala, as panch
witnesses. The accused, M.S. Padmanabha and H.S. Vijaykumar,
took PW.20 to the incident site at Havkudkal and showed them the
location. Later, accused H.S. Vijaykumar took PW.20 to his house in
Udtal Village and produced five gelatin sticks. PW.20 seized these
gelatin sticks under a mahajar in the presence of the witnesses.
PW.20 recorded statements from PW.11, Sri Annappa, PW.12, Sri
Krishnamurthy, PW.14, Sri Sudhakara, PW.15, Sri Mahesh, PW.16,
Sri Manjunath, PW.17, Sri Sudesh, PW.18, Sri Channakeshava
Gowda, PW.19, Sri Annappa, and CW.41, Sri Sachin Kumar.
(h) CW.41, Sri Sachin Kumar, took accused M.S.
Padmanabha and H.S. Vijaykumar into police custody in Crime
No.55/2010 of Sringeri Police Station. During interrogation, the
accused disclosed that they would show the places where they had
held conspiracy meetings. Therefore, PW.20 took them into custody
and secured the presence of CW.22, Sri U.T. Kalasappa Nayaka,
and CW.23, Sri U.T. Padmanabha Nayaka, as panch witnesses. The
accused, M.S. Padmanabha and H.S. Vijaykumar, took PW.20 to a
government forest area in front of the house of Kalasappa Nayaka
and disclosed that they had held a conspiracy meeting one week
prior to the incident. PW.20 prepared a mahajar in the presence of
the panch witnesses. The accused then took PW.20 to a place near
the house of Sri Kempugowda in Hadi Village and disclosed that
they had held another conspiracy meeting just four hours before the
incident. He prepared another mahajar at the spot in the presence of
panch witnesses. PW.20 later submitted a requisition to the court to
9
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
include M.S. Padmanabha and H.S. Vijaykumar as accused in the
case. PW.20 collected the duty deployment order from CW.42, Sri
B.C. Somanna, regarding the deployment of PW.1 to PW.8. He also
obtained the necessary sanction from the District Magistrate of
Chikkamagaluru and the State Government to prosecute the
accused under the provisions of the Arms Act and the U.A.(P) Act.
Upon completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet for
offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353, 333, 109 read
with Section 149 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act,
Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 13,
16, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act before the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sringeri, against accused Nos.1 to 17, indicating that
accused Nos.1 to 9 were absconding.
3. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, took cognizance of the offences and registered
a case against the accused persons in C.C. No. 7/2011. Since
accused Nos. 1 to 9 were absconding, the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sringeri, ordered a split-up of the case against them.
Accordingly, a separate case was registered against them in C.C.
No. 34/2011. Since the police were unable to secure accused Nos. 1
to 9, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri proceeded under
Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and recorded the evidence of the witnesses
under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. This case was transferred to LPR
with the permission of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in LPR No. 9/2020. Accused No. 1 was
secured before the court of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
10
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Sringeri, under a production warrant on 14.03.2022, and the learned
Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, ordered the registration of a
separate case against him. Accordingly, C.C. No. 80/2022 was
registered against him.
4. The learned Magistrate furnished a copy of the charge
sheet and its enclosures to accused No. 1 in compliance with
Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, committed C.C. No. 80/2022 to the Sessions
Court, Chikkamagaluru, on 19.07.2022 for trial, as the alleged
offences are triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. After receiving the case file from the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkamagaluru, registered the case as S.C. No. 106/2022
and made over the case to the learned 2 nd Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for final disposal in accordance
with the law. The learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge
secured the presence of accused No. 1 under a production warrant.
The learned counsel for accused No. 1 submitted before the Court
that the charge may be framed. Since there were sufficient materials
to proceed against accused No. 1, charges were framed, read over,
and explained to accused No. 1, and he claimed to be tried. Hence,
the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
6. In order to prove the allegations against accused No. 1, the
prosecution examined 12 witnesses, designated as PW.1 to PW.12,
marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, and identified M.O.1.
Thereafter, the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge,
11
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Chikkamagaluru, transferred the aforementioned case to this Court
on the grounds of jurisdiction.
7. Further, the presence of accused No. 6 was secured before
the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri in LPR No. 9/2020 on
16.02.2024. The learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri ordered the
registration of a separate case against her. Accordingly, C.C. No.
10/2024 was registered against accused No. 6. Subsequently, the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri transferred this case to this
Court on the grounds of jurisdiction on 30.04.2024.
8. Further, the presence of accused Nos. 8 and 9 were
secured before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri in LPR
No. 9/2020 on 14.06.2024. The learned Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sringeri ordered the registration of a separate case against accused
Nos. 8 and 9. Accordingly, C.C. No. 188/2024 was registered against
accused Nos. 8 and 9. Subsequently, the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sringeri transferred this case to this Court on the grounds of
jurisdiction on 14.06.2024 itself.
9. Further, the presence of accused No. 3 was secured before
the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri in LPR No. 9/2020 on
26.06.2024. The learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri ordered the
registration of a separate case against accused No. 3. Accordingly,
C.C. No. 361/2024 was registered against accused No. 3.
Subsequently, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri
transferred this case to this Court on the grounds of jurisdiction on
26.07.2024.
12
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
10. After receiving the case files from the learned 2 nd Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, and the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, this Court took cognizance of the
offences and registered separate cases against accused No. 1 in
Spl.C.No.2468/2023, against accused No. 3 in Spl.C.No.1576/2024,
against accused No. 6 in Spl.C. No. 1579/2024, and against accused
Nos. 8 and 9 in Spl.C. No. 1580/2024. The learned counsels for the
accused submitted that charges may be framed against accused
Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9. Accordingly, this Court framed the charges,
which were read over and explained to the accused in a language
known to them. Accused Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9 denied the charges as
false and claimed the right to be tried. Hence, the case was posted
for prosecution evidence. This Court ordered for joint trial against
accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 on the application of the learned
Public Prosecutor, and the evidence has been recorded in Spl. C.
No. 2468/2023.
11. In order to prove the allegations against accused Nos. 1,
3, 6, 8, and 9, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, designated
as PW.13 to PW.21, marked documents as Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.44, and
identified M.O.2 to M.O.8. PW.1 to PW.12 were summoned before
this Court, and the learned Public Prosecutor adopted the evidence
of these witnesses recorded before the learned 2 nd Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, and closed its evidence.
12. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the incriminating
circumstances that appeared in the evidence adduced by the
prosecution were read over and explained to accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8,
and 9 in a language known to them, as required under Section 313
13
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
of the Cr.P.C. The explanations offered by accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8,
and 9 were recorded. The accused chose not to adduce any defense
evidence on their behalf.
13. This court has heard the arguments of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the learned counsels appearing for accused
accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9.
14. The points that arise for the Court's consideration are as
follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on 17.03.2009, at 10:30 a.m.,
at Havkudkal, on the Kere - Hadi Village road, within
the jurisdiction of Sringeri Police Station, accused
Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and other accused persons formed
an unlawful assembly with a common object of
committing an offence, and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, being armed with deadly
weapons such as guns, which are likely to cause
death, were members of an unlawful assembly and
thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 144 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly and, in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, used force against CW.1 -
Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, CW.2 - Sri Shankar Rao, CW.3 -
14
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Sri Raju H.N., CW.4 - Sri Tharesh, CW.5 - Sri R.B.
Umadi, CW.6 - Sri L.H. Uppar, CW.7 - Sri S.D.
Ningappanavar, and CW.8 - D.A. Dollin, and thereby
committed the offence of rioting punishable under
Section 147 read with Section 149 of the IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly and, in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, committed the offence of
rioting, being armed with deadly weapons like guns,
which are likely to cause death, and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Section 148
read with Section 149 of the IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly and, in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, caused a bomb blast and
fired at CW.1 to CW.8 with guns, attempting to
commit their murder, and thereby committed the
offence of attempt to murder punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly and, in prosecution of the common object
of the unlawful assembly, used criminal force to deter
CW.1 - Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, CW.2 - Sri Shankar Rao,
CW.3 - Sri Raju H.N., CW.4 - Sri Tharesh, CW.5 - Sri
R.B. Umadi, CW.6 - Sri L.H. Uppar, CW.7 - Sri S.D.
15
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Ningappanavar, and CW.8 - D.A. Dollin, who are
public servants, from discharging their official duties,
and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly and, in prosecution of the common object
of the assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to CW.1 to
CW.3 and CW.5 to CW.8 by causing an explosion of
a bomb with the intent to prevent or deter CW.1 to
CW.8 from discharging their duty as public servants,
and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 332 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, formed an unlawful
assembly and, in prosecution of the common object
of the assembly, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to
CW.4 - Sri Tharesh by causing an explosion of a
bomb with the intent to prevent or deter CW.1 to
CW.8 from discharging their duty as public servants,
and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 333 read with Section 149 of the IPC?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, were in possession of
guns without having any valid license or permit to
possess the same, and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section
25 of the Indian Arms Act?
16
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
10) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and other
accused persons unlawfully and maliciously caused
an explosion with an explosive substance, which is
likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to
property, and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908?
11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, were knowingly in
possession of explosive substances, giving rise to a
reasonable suspicion that they were not in
possession of explosive substances for a lawful
object, and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908?
12) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, being members of the
CPI (Maoist) Party, which is banned by the
Government of India, committed acts that disclaim,
question, and disrupt the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of India, and thereby committed the offence
of unlawful activity punishable under Section 13 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
13) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, being members of the
CPI (Maoist) Party, which is banned by the
17
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Government of India, fired at CW.1 to CW.8, who are
public functionaries, with the intent to overawe them,
and thereby committed the terrorist act punishable
under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967?
14) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with other accused persons, being members of the
CPI (Maoist), conspired to commit a terrorist act and
thereby committed the offence of conspiracy
punishable under Section 18 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
15) What order?
15. The findings of this Court to the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2 : In the negative;
Point No.3 : In the negative;
Point No.4 : In the negative;
Point No.5 : In the negative;
Point No.6 : In the negative;
Point No.7 : In the negative;
Point No.8 : In the negative;
Point No.9 : In the negative;
Point No.10 : In the negative;
Point No.11 : In the negative;
Point No.12 : In the negative;
Point No.13 : In the negative;
18
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Point No.14 : In the negative;
Point No.15 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
16. Point Nos. 1 to 8: The prosecution alleges that the
accused formed an unlawful assembly at Havkudkal, on the Kere -
Hadi Village road, with the common objective of committing the
offence, armed with deadly weapons like guns, used criminal force
against CW.1 to CW.8, fired at CW.1 to CW.8 with the intention to
commit their murder and to deter them from discharging their official
duties, caused hurt to CW.1 to CW.3 and CW.5 to CW.8 and caused
grievous hurt to CW.4. Consequently, all the accused have
committed offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353,
332 and 333 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Since all these facts
are interconnected and interrelated, this court will address these
points together to avoid the repetition of facts.
17. To prove the aforementioned allegations, the prosecution
has relied on the testimony of CW.1 and PW.1 to PW.7. According to
the prosecution, these witnesses are both eyewitnesses and victims
of the crime. However, when a summons was issued to CW.1, it was
returned with a report stating that he was deceased, and as such,
the prosecution was unable to examine him, and he was dropped
from the case.
18. PW.1, Sri K. Shankar Rao Jadhav, testified that on
17.03.2009, at 9:30 a.m., he, along with CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi,
PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., PW.3, Sri Tharesh, PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi,
PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, and PW.7, Sri
19
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
D.A. Dollin, left their camp for a combing operation and reached
Matholli junction at 10:00 a.m. While conducting the combing
operation along Kesarugadde Road around 10:30 a.m., a bomb
exploded. They immediately took a lying position. The naxalites,
positioned at the top of the hill, began firing at them and they
counter-fired at the naxalites in self defence. The blast caused
bleeding injuries on his back. PW.3, Sri Tharesh, sustained grievous
injuries. CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, and others assisted in shifting
PW.3 to Sringeri Hospital, from where he was referred to Manipal
Hospital for further treatment. PW.1 also testified that during the
attack, 8 to 10 naxalites were shouting slogans like "naxal zindabad,"
"ಪೊಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಿರಿ, ಬಡಿಯಿರಿ" (strike the police, beat them),
and "Krishnamurthy zindabad." He learned that, at the time of the
incident, naxalites, including Mundagaru Latha, were involved. He
further testified that he could not see the naxalites because they
were at the top of the hill, and there was a considerable distance
between them. He further testified that accused No. 1, B.G.
Krishnamurthy, came down from the top of the hill to the road and
passed along it. He saw accused No. 1 from a long distance and
later identified him in court as the same person who had come down
from the hill.
19. PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., testified that on 17.03.2009, he, along
with PW.1, Sri Shankar Rao Jadhav, PW.3, Sri Tharesh, PW.4, Sri
R.B. Umadi, PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar,
PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, and others, left their camp in a vehicle bearing
Registration No. KA-10-G-159 at 9:30 a.m. for the combing
operation. They reached Matholli at 10:00 a.m. and parked their
20
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
vehicle. They left Sri Mobin Kumar and another staff member at the
van, while the rest of the team proceeded with the combing
operation along Hadi Road. While conducting the operation, two
kilometers away from Matholli, at the 'U' turn, around 10:30 a.m.,
they heard a blasting sound, and the splinters pierced their bodies.
Some of them took a lying position in an empty pond (honda), and
others took cover on the road. The naxalites fired at them from the
top of the hill, and they returned fire in self-defense. He also testified
that due to the blast, PW.3, Sri Tharesh, suffered grievous injuries to
his hands and legs. PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, and
he shifted PW.3 to Sringeri Hospital for treatment in a private
vehicle. PW.3 was then transferred to Manipal Hospital, Udupi, for
further treatment. He also testified that during the firing, 8 to 10
naxalites were shouting slogans like "ಹೊಡೆಯಿರಿ, ಸಾಯಿಸಿರಿ."
Accused No. 1, B.G. Krishnamurthy, accused No. 3, Hosagadde
Prabha, accused No. 6, Sreemathi, accused No. 9, Savithri,
Mundagaru Latha, Vikram Gowda, Ravindra, and others were
involved in naxal activities in the area.
20. During cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor,
PW.2 further testified that the accused Padmanabha and Vijaykumar
led the investigating officer and his team to the place of the incident
and disclosed that they had planted the bomb and blasted it to
commit the murder of the police. The investigating officer prepared a
mahajar in his presence.
21. PW.3, Sri Tharesh, testified that on 17.03.2009, PW.1, Sri
K. Shankar Rao Jadhav, PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi,
PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, PW.7, Sri D.A.
21
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Dollin, and he left the camp in a Tempo Traveler for the combing
operation, as usual. They reached Matholli at 10:00 a.m. and parked
their vehicle there. They left the van driver, Sri Mobin Kumar, and
another staff member at Matholli, while the rest of the team
proceeded with the combing operation. While they were conducting
the combing operation, around two kilometers away from Matholli at
10:30 a.m., a bomb exploded on the mud road. It caused the blast of
a rock located there. Due to the blast, his thigh bone, left shoulder
bone, and left hand fingers were fractured. The other members took
a lying position. He came to know that the naxalites caused the
blast. The naxalites, who were at the top of the hill, began firing at
them. Therefore, his team members returned fire at the naxalites.
PW.2, Sri H.N. Raju, and PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, brought him to the
Matholli main road and shifted him to Sringeri Government Hospital
for treatment in a private vehicle. He became unconscious at the
hospital. When he regained consciousness, he was at Manipal
Hospital. He took treatment for three months as an inpatient and
underwent three surgeries. He came to know that accused No. 1,
B.G. Krishnamurthy, accused No. 9, Savithri, and others caused the
bomb blast and fired at them. His other team members also suffered
injuries in the incident.
22. PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi, testified that on 17.03.2009, at 9:30
a.m., CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, PW.1, Sri K. Shankar Rao Jadhav,
PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., PW.3, Sri Tharesh, PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar,
PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, M.G. Sangati,
and he left for a combing operation, as usual, in a Tempo Traveler.
They reached Matholli at around 10:00 a.m. and parked their vehicle.
They left the driver of the vehicle and Sri M.G. Sangati at the vehicle
22
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
while the rest of the team proceeded for the combing operation.
While they were conducting the combing operation, around two
kilometers away from Matholli at 10:30 a.m., they heard a blasting
sound. Due to the blast, he sustained injuries on the left side of his
head, back, and right leg. Therefore, they took a lying position. The
naxalites fired at them from the top of the hill, and they returned fire
at the naxalites. PW.3, Sri Tharesh, sustained injuries. PW.2, PW.7,
and he, along with other team members, shifted PW.3 to Sringeri
Hospital for treatment in a private vehicle.
23. PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, testified that on 17.03.2009, at 9:00
a.m., CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, PW.1, Sri K. Shankar Rao Jadhav,
PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., PW.3, Sri Tharesh, PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi,
PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, Sri M.G.
Sangati, and he left their camp for a combing operation as usual in a
Tempo Traveler. They reached Matholli at around 10:00 a.m. and
parked their vehicle there. They left the van driver, Sri Mobin Kumar,
and the staff member, Sri Sangati, at Matholli, and the rest of the
team proceeded for the combing operation. While they were
conducting the combing operation, one and a half kilometers away
from Matholli at around 10:30 a.m., they heard a blasting sound. Due
to the blast, he sustained injuries on the lower portion of his left eye
and on the left side of his back. They then took a lying position. The
naxalites, who were at the top of the hill, fired at them, and they
returned fire at the naxalites. In the incident, PW.3, Sri Tharesh,
suffered grievous injuries to his hand and leg. PW.4, PW.7, and
other team members brought PW.3 to the Matholli main road and
shifted him to Sringeri Hospital for treatment in a private vehicle. He
and the other team members who sustained injuries in the incident
23
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
received treatment at an Ayurvedic doctor and then at the
Government Hospital in Sringeri. He could not see the naxalites as
they were hiding between the trees during the firing.
24. PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, testified that on
17.03.2009, at around 9:00 a.m., CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, PW.1,
Sri K. Shankar Rao Jadhav, PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., PW.3, Sri Tharesh,
PW.4, Sri R.B. Umadi, PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin,
Sri M.G. Sangati, and he left for the combing operation in a Tempo
Traveler vehicle. They reached Matholli at 10:00 a.m. and parked
their vehicle there. They left the van driver, Sri Mobin Kumar, and
another staff member, Sri Sangati, at the vehicle. The rest of the
team proceeded for the combing operation. While they were
conducting the combing operation, one and a half kilometers away
from Matholli at around 10:30 a.m., they heard a blasting sound.
They promptly took a lying position. Due to the blast, he sustained
injuries to his chest and abdomen, and others also sustained
injuries. The naxalites, who were at the top of the hill, fired at them,
and they returned fire at the naxalites. PW.3, Sri Tharesh, sustained
grievous injuries to his hand and leg. PW.4, PW.7, and other team
members brought PW.3 to the Matholli main road and shifted him to
Sringeri Hospital in a private vehicle. He could not see the naxalites
as they were hiding between the trees during the firing.
25. PW.7, Sri D.A. Dollin, testified that on 17.03.2009, at
around 9:30 a.m., CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, PW.1, Sri K. Shankar
Rao Jadhav, PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., PW.3, Sri Tharesh, PW.4, Sri R.B.
Umadi, PW.5, Sri L.H. Uppar, PW.6, Sri S.D. Ningappanavar, Sri
M.G. Sangati, and he left for the combing operation in a Tempo
24
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
Traveler. They reached Matholli at 10:00 a.m. and parked their
vehicle there. They left the van driver, Sri Mobin Kumar, and another
staff member, Sri Sangati, at the vehicle. The rest of the team
proceeded for the combing operation. While they were conducting
the combing operation, two kilometers away from Matholli at around
10:30 a.m., they heard a blasting sound. They took a lying position.
Due to the blast, he sustained injuries to his flank and right leg. The
naxalites, who were at the top of the hill, fired at them, and they
returned fire at the naxalites. PW.2, PW.4, and he brought the
injured Sri Tharesh to the Matholli road and shifted him to Sringeri
Hospital in a private vehicle. The other injured team members also
received treatment at Sringeri Hospital for their injuries.
26. According to the prosecution, PW.11, PW.12, and PW.13
to PW.19 saw the accused at the incident site on the date of the
incident. PW.11, Sri Annappa, and PW.12, Sri Krishnamurthy,
testified that no unpleasant incident occurred at Hadikerur Village,
and they do not know anything about this case.
27. PW.14, Sri Sudhakar, testified that he did not see accused
Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9. He was never called to the police station or
anywhere else.
28. PW.15, Sri Mahesh, testified that he did not see accused
Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9. He was never called to the police station. He
came to know that around 10 years ago, a bomb blast occurred at
Havkudkal Village, but he does not know anything about the blast.
25
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
29. PW.16, Sri Manjunath, PW.17, Sri Sudesh, PW.18, Sri
Channakeshava Gowda, and PW.19, Sri Annappa, testified that they
did not see accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9. They do not know
anything about this case. They were never called to the police
station. During cross-examination, PW.11, PW.12, and PW.14 to
PW.19 unequivocally denied the presence of Accused Nos. 1, 3, 6,
8, and 9 at the incident site on the date of the incident.
30. PW.1, Sri K. Shankar Rao Jadhav, and PW.2, Sri Raju
H.N., testified that CW.1, Sri Y.B. Chalavadi, lodged a first
information statement with the Sringeri Police.
31. PW.21, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, testified that on the
day of the incident, he went to the scene and secured the area by
deploying police personnel. He sent a wireless message to the dog
squad, BDDS team, and FSL experts to visit the site. The next day,
on 18.03.2009, he went back to the spot around 06:00 a.m. The dog
squad, BDDS team, and a ballistic expert arrived, and the ballistic
expert defused two live bombs. He secured the presence of PW.8,
Sri Krishnegowda, and PW.9, Sri Thammegowda, at the spot. He
prepared a mahajar and seized several items, including a photo
flasher, a 225-foot wire, a live bottle bomb, a single-barrel gun, a
cartridge, Naxal-related handbills, bolts, nuts, and other materials in
front of the panchas. He also prepared a rough sketch at the spot.
He also testified that on 22.03.2009, CW.35, Sri Ranganatha
Gowda, visited Manipal Hospital, collected the bloodstained clothes
of PW.3, Sri Tharesh, and produced them to him. He secured the
presence of CW.10, Sri Jagadeesha, and PW.13, Sri
Hanumanthappa, at the police station and seized two sealed articles
26
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
in their presence under a mahajar. On 15.04.2009, he received
wound certificates of the injured persons from the Government
Hospital, Sringeri.
32. PW.2, Sri Raju H.N., testified that he was present at the
time of drawing the mahajar, and he showed the place of the incident
to the Investigating Officer. There were two panchas at that time.
PW.21 prepared the mahajar, and he signed it. However, nothing
was seized in his presence.
33. PW.8, Sri Krishnegowda, and PW.9, Sri Thammegowda,
who are panch witnesses, testified that they were never called to any
place, and no mahajar was drawn in their presence. Nothing was
seized, and they do not know anything about this case. These
witnesses denied the seizure of several items, including a photo
flasher, a 225-foot wire, a live bottle bomb, a single-barrel gun, a
cartridge, Naxal-related handbills, bolts, nuts, and other materials
during cross-examination.
34. PW.10, Sri H.M. Jagadeesh, testified that he signed a
document when he visited the Police Station to make an inquiry
about his gun license. Nothing was seized in his presence, and no
mahajar was drawn. He does not know anything about this case.
35. PW.13, Sri Hanumanthappa, testified that he visited
Sringeri Police Station on his personal work. At that time, the police
obtained his signature on a document. He does not know the
contents of the document. Nothing was recovered in his presence.
He does not know about this case. During cross-examination, PW.10
27
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
and PW.13 categorically denied the seizure of two sealed articles in
their presence.
36. A comprehensive review of the prosecution's evidence
clearly establishes that PW.1 to PW.7, along with CW.1, carried out a
combing operation on 17.03.2009. During the operation, at
approximately 10:30 a.m., an explosion occurred about two
kilometers from Matholli. The blast resulted in injuries to PW.1,
PW.2, and PW.5 to PW.7, with PW.3 suffering grievous hurt. To
substantiate their testimonies, the prosecution presented the wound
certificates of CW.1 and PW.1 to PW.7. Additionally, during cross-
examination, the defense implicitly acknowledged the blast and the
injuries sustained by the witnesses, as they suggested that the
injuries were caused by the bomb explosion. While PW.2, PW.8 to
PW.10, and PW.13 denied witnessing the seizure of any items,
PW.21 testified to having seized a photo flasher, a 225-foot wire,
bolts, nuts, and other items from the scene, thereby further
confirming the explosion on 17.03.2009 at Havkudkal. These facts,
supported by compelling evidence, conclusively prove that the
explosion occurred and the witnesses sustained injuries. As such,
the prosecution has convincingly established these facts beyond a
reasonable doubt.
37. PW.1 to PW.7 are the prosecution's eyewitnesses, but they
did not identify accused Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9 at the scene. PW.1
stated that the naxalites were positioned at the top of the hill, far
from them, and thus he could not see them. PW.5 and PW.6 also
testified that they could not see the naxalites as they were hidden
between the trees during the firing. Other witnesses did not identify
28
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
the accused either. The prosecution also called PW.11, PW.12, and
PW.14 to PW.19, who allegedly saw the accused at the incident site.
However, these witnesses stated that they knew nothing about the
case. As a result, there is no evidence to prove that accused Nos. 3,
6, 8, and 9 were at the scene. Without any evidence connecting
them to the crime, this court cannot conclude that they were
involved. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the
involvement of accused Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9 in the alleged incident.
38. PW.1 testified that he saw accused No. 1 descending from
the hill to the road from a distance and identified him in court. The
prosecution claims that there was a firing and counter-firing between
the naxalites and the witnesses following the explosion. However,
PW.2 to PW.7 testified that they did not see the accused because
they were hidden behind trees during the exchange of fire. If PW.1
had truly seen accused No. 1, he would have either informed his
team, fired at him, or tried to apprehend him. Additionally, PW.1
could not specify the distance from which he saw accused No. 1,
and he admitted that he had never seen him before the incident.
39. It is also significant that PW.21 visited the scene the day
after the incident and secured the area by deploying police
personnel. He ensured the presence of a dog squad, BDDS team,
and ballistic experts from the FSL to examine the site. However, he
did not testify to seizing any empty cartridges from the scene. If there
had been a firing and counter-firing as described by PW.1 to PW.7,
PW.21 would have seized empty cartridges from the scene.
Furthermore, the Investigating Officer did not recover the weapons
used by accused No. 1 or the witnesses to show that a firefight had
29
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
occurred. Without this critical evidence, there is no way to
corroborate PW.1's testimony, and his testimony does not instill
confidence that accused No. 1 was present at the scene. Merely
because PW.1 testified he saw accused No. 1 descending from the
hill does not provide enough evidence to prove that accused No. 1
was involved in the crime. As a result, the prosecution has failed to
establish the involvement of accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 beyond a
reasonable doubt. Consequently, Points 1 to 8 are answered in the
negative.
40. Point No. 9: It is the prosecution's allegation that accused
Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along with other accused persons, were in
possession of firearms without valid licenses, thereby committing an
offense punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms
Act.
41. In this regard, PW.1 to PW.7 testified that the naxalites
fired at them with firearms during the incident. However, PW.1 to
PW.7 did not identify accused Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9 as the individuals
who fired at them during the incident. Although PW.1 testified that he
saw accused No. 1 after the firing ceased, this testimony alone is
insufficient to prove that accused No. 1 was armed with a firearm at
the time of the incident. As mentioned earlier, PW.21 neither seized
empty cartridges from the scene nor confiscated firearms from the
accused. There is no evidence to suggest that there was firing and
counter-firing during the incident or that accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and
9 were in possession of firearms without valid licenses. In the
absence of such evidence, it cannot be concluded that the accused
30
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
committed the offense under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act. Therefore, Point No. 9 is answered in the negative.
42. Point Nos. 10 and 11: The prosecution alleges that
accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and others caused an explosion using
explosive substances, and that they were in possession of
dangerous items such as detonators, bottle bombs, and gelatin
sticks. The prosecution claims that these items were possessed with
the intent to use them unlawfully, thus violating Sections 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act.
43. As previously mentioned, an explosion did occur, resulting
in injuries to PW.1 to PW.7. However, the witnesses failed to identify
accused Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9, and the testimony of PW.1 is insufficient
to link accused No. 1 to the explosion, as discussed earlier.
44. PW.21 testified to the seizure of a bottle bomb at the
scene, but this evidence does not help establish a connection
between the accused and the alleged crime.
45. PW.20, Sri Abdul Ahad, testified that he recorded a
voluntary statement from accused Sundara Gowda, in which he
allegedly revealed that accused No. 1 gave him a plastic cover and
instructed him to keep it safe. PW.20 also testified that accused No.
11 led him to his house, where he recovered a cover containing five
detonators and nine gelatin sticks. These items were seized in the
presence of witnesses. Additionally, PW.20 stated that accused M.S.
Padmanabha and H.S. Vijaykumar, who were arrested in connection
with Crime No. 55/2010 at the Sringeri Police Station, revealed in
their statements that they would lead the officers to where five
31
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
gelatin sticks were stored. The accused M.S. Padmanabha and H.S.
Vijaykumar led him and witnesses to his house and produced five
gelatin sticks. He seized these gelatin sticks in the presence of the
witnesses under a mahajar.
46. Although PW.20 testified that accused No. 11, Sundara
Gowda, disclosed to him that accused No. 1, B.G. Krishnamurthy,
had handed over gelatin sticks and detonators, the voluntary
statement of the accused cannot be used against accused No. 1 to
prove his guilt. There is no concrete evidence or material on record
to show that accused No. 1 gave these items to Sundara Gowda.
Therefore, PW.20's testimony alone is not sufficient to conclude that
accused No. 1 was in possession of gelatin sticks and detonators,
nor does it suggest that he possessed these items for an unlawful
purpose.
47. As stated earlier, there is no substantial evidence linking
the other accused to the alleged possession of explosive substances
or the explosion. Without proof that accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9
unlawfully and maliciously caused the explosion with the intent to
endanger life or property, or that they were in possession of gelatin
sticks and detonators for an unlawful purpose, it cannot be
concluded that they committed the offense under Sections 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act. Consequently, this Court answers
Point Nos. 10 and 11 in the negative.
48. Point Nos.12, 13, and 14 : Since the prosecution relies on
the same set of witnesses to prove the offences under Sections 13,
16, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act, and since these points are
32
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
interconnected, this Court has considered them together to avoid
repetition.
49. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and
9, along with others, fired at CW.1 and PW.1 to PW.7, who are
public functionaries, with the intent to overawe them. It is further
claimed that these actions were intended to disclaim, question, and
disrupt the sovereignty of India, and that the accused conspired to
commit terrorist acts. These actions are alleged to constitute
unlawful activities and terrorist acts, thereby violating Sections 13,
16, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act. However, a review of the evidence
reveals that none of the witnesses testified to the presence of
accused Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9 at the scene or their involvement in the
alleged acts. Although PW.1 testified to the presence of accused No.
1 at the location of the incident, his testimony is insufficient to prove
his involvement in the alleged crime, as discussed earlier. As such,
the prosecution has failed to establish any connection between the
accused and the alleged offence. In the absence of any such
evidence, it cannot be concluded that accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9,
or any other accused persons, took part in, advocated, abetted, or
incited unlawful activities, or committed or conspired to commit a
terrorist act. Accordingly, Point Nos. 12, 13, and 14 are answered in
the negative.
50. Point No. 15: A careful analysis of the aforementioned
discussion shows that the prosecution has not adduced any
evidence to demonstrate that accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, along
with the other accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly, were
armed with deadly weapons, used force or violence against CW.1
33
Spl.C.No.2468/2023
C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576,
1579, and 1580/2024
and PW.1 to PW.7 to deter them from discharging their official
duties, caused hurt or grievous hurt to them, were in possession of
guns without a valid license, unlawfully and maliciously caused an
explosion with intent to commit murder, were in possession of
explosive substances in a manner that gives rise to reasonable
suspicion that they were not in possession of these substances for a
lawful object, took part in or committed, advocated, abetted, advised,
or incited the commission of any unlawful activity, or committed or
conspired to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, the prosecution has
utterly failed to prove any of the allegations made against accused
Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 and has failed to establish their guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Hence, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Accused No. 1, Sri B.G. Krishnamurthy @ Vijay @ Bhagath @ Sumanth @ Che @ Kumar @ Bhaskar; accused No. 3, Ms. Prabha @ Hosagadde Prabha @ Sandhya @ Netra @ Madhu; accused No. 6, Ms. Sreemathi; accused No. 8, Sri Suresh @ Pradeep @ Tangappa @ Prashanth; and accused No. 9, Ms. Savithri J.L. @ Usha @ Rajitha, are found not guilty of any of the charges alleged against them.
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 353, 332, 333 r/w 149 of IPC; Section 3 r/w Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Since a split-up case is still pending adjudication, the office is hereby directed to preserve the properties for reference in the split-up case.
34Spl.C.No.2468/2023 C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576, 1579, and 1580/2024 The office is hereby directed to keep the original judgment in Spl.C.No. 2468/2023 and copies of the same in other cases.
(Dictated to the Senior Sheristedar, directly computerized by him, corrected, and then pronounced by me in open Court on the 20th day of February, 2025.) (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW.1 Sri K. Shankar Rao Jadhav PW.2 Sri Raju H.N. PW.3 Sri Tharesh PW.4 Sri R.B. Umadi PW.5 Sri L.H. Uppar PW.6 Sri S.D. Ningappanavar PW.7 Sri D.A. Dollin PW.8 Sri Krishnegowda PW.9 Sri Thammegowda PW.10 Sri H.M. Jagadeesh PW.11 Sri Annappa PW.12 Sri Krishnamurthy PW.13 Sri Hanumanthappa PW.14 Sri Sudhakar PW.15 Sri Mahesh PW.16 Sri Manjunath PW.17 Sri Sudesh PW.18 Sri Channakeshava Gowda PW.19 Sri Annappa 35 Spl.C.No.2468/2023 C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576, 1579, and 1580/2024 PW.20 Sri Abdul Ahad PW.21 Sri Sadananda Thippannavar List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 True copy of Mahajar Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 True copy of the Mahajar Ex.P.3 True copy of the Mahajar Ex.P.4 Statement of PW.11 Ex.P.5 Statement of PW.12 Ex.P.6 Statement of PW.14 Ex.P.7 Statement of PW.15 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW.16 Ex.P.9 Statement of PW.17 Ex.P.10 Statement of PW.18 Ex.P.11 Statement of PW.19 Ex.P.12 True copy of the mahajar Ex.P.13 Voluntary statement of accused No.11 Ex.P.14 Five naxal related pamphlets Ex.P.15 True copy of the mahajar Ex.P.16 Voluntary statement of accused H.K. Halappa Ex.P.17 True copy of the mahajar Ex.P.18 True copy of the report Ex.P.19 True copy of the Sanction order Ex.P.20 True copy of the FSL Report Ex.P.21 True copy of the mahajar Ex.P.22 True copy of the mahajar Ex.P.23 True copy of the FSL Report Ex.P.24 True copy of the FSL Report Ex.P.25 True copy of the sanction order Ex.P.26 True copy of the FSL Report 36 Spl.C.No.2468/2023 C/w Spl.C. Nos.1576, 1579, and 1580/2024 Ex.P.27 True copy of the deployment order / register Ex.P.28 True copy of the sanction order Ex.P.29 True copy of the rough sketch Ex.P.30 to 37 True copies of the wound certificates Ex.P.38 True copy of the Report Ex.P.39 True copy of the Report Ex.P.40 True copy of the Report Ex.P.41 True copy of the Report Ex.P.42 Naxal related handbills Ex.P.43 True copy of the FIS Ex.P.44 True copy of the FIR List of MOs. identified on behalf of the prosecution :-
M.O.1 Banner
M.O.2 Photo Flasher
M.O.3 Wire
M.O.4 Glass Pieces, nuts, bolts and steel pieces.
M.O.5 A pant, shirt and an underwear
M.O.6 The sample mud collected from the spot
M.O.7 The remnants of the gel explosive collected at the
place of disposal
M.O.8 The sample mud collected during the disposal of
explosive substances.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence :-
NIL List of documents and MOs. marked on behalf of the defence :-
NIL (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
*HRN/-