Bangalore District Court
Govindapura P.S vs Mohammad Salim on 27 January, 2026
1 SC No. 1589/2021
KABC0A0042322021 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS
IN THE COURT OF XXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.20]
Dated: This the 22nd day of January, 2026
: Present :
Sri ONKARAPPA R, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
C/c XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 1589/2021
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Govindapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused : Mohammad Salim,
S/o Mohammad Ajim,
Aged about 28 years, No.26/4, 6th
Cross, Rashad Nagar, Near Arabic
College, Bengaluru 560 045.
(By Sri. SR, advocate)
2 SC No. 1589/2021
Date of commission of 24.06.2021
offence
Date of report of 24.06.2021
offence
Date of arrest of the Accused arrested on 29.06.2021
Accused
Date of release of the Accused released 12.04.2022
Accused on bail
Name of the Sri. Mohammed Ali Imran
complainant
Date of commencement 13.03.2024
of trial
Date of closing of 21.05.2025
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 20.01.2026
Offences complained of U/s 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section
3 and 25 of Arms Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused convicted for the
offence punishable U/s 353, 307, 332
of IPC and section 3 and 25 of
Arms Act
3 SC No. 1589/2021
J U D G M E N T
The Investigating officer attached to Govindapura Police station charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable U/s 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of Arms Act.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is, within police station limits of the complainant police one offence of murder was committed. On 22.06.2021, to traced out the accused, police Inspector of CW1 deputed CW1 to CW5 for patrolled the accused of the crime. Accordingly on 24.06.2021 CW1 to CW5 went on traced out the accused of said crime. In view of the information from the informant one of the accused by name Mohammad Saleem was moving from Hennur junction to Nagasandra in one silver colour alto car, hence immediately CW1 to CW5 went near to Pari's Park in their government vehicle. On the same day, at 3.50am 4 SC No. 1589/2021 after saw one alto car come from Hennur junction with high speed and when CW1 and his staff attempt to stopped the said vehicle, one of the inmate of the said car try to ran away, accordingly CW1 and CW2 chased him. When CW2 attempted to caught hold of the accused, the accused attempted to assaulted on CW2 by means of knife, at that time CW1 open the fire from his pistol in the air and even CW1 introduced to the accused they are be the police staff of Govindapura police station, the accused came and hurt on hands of CW2 by means of knife. At finally to exercise power of defence in against the act of the accused, CW1 fired on leg of the accused from his pistol at in street lamp light. Thereafter CW1 sent the accused and his staff CW2 in his vehicle to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar medical college for the medical treatment. Thereafter in the morning at 6.30am, CW1 went to his police station and lodged written complaint.
5 SC No. 1589/20213. On the complaint of the complainant, Govindapura police have registered FIR against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 353, 307, 332 of IPC and for section 3 and 25 of Arms Act. It completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of Arms Act.
4. Committal court committed the case along with accused to this court. The Accused has been secured at before this court upon the process.If questioned the accused with respect to compliance of section 207 and 227 of Cr.P.C., the accused has submitted charge may be framed and no argument remains with him at before framed the charge. With that being charge have been framed in against accused for the offences punishable U/s 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of Arms Act has been framed. It read over and explained the charge to accused, the 6 SC No. 1589/2021 Accused have not pleaded the guilty of offence and he claim to be tried.
5. In support of prosecution case, the prosecution has examined total number of 10 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10, out of total 18 charge sheet witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 along with M.O.1 to M.O.8 and it closed their side evidence. Learned public prosecutor given up the evidence of CW4 and CW5 as per order sheet dated 03.07.2024. Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of CW7, CW9, CW11, CW13, CW15 and CW16 as per order sheet dated 12.08.2024. The Accused has been examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence appeared in against him if explained, the accused denied the same as false. The Accused not chosen to examined any of the witness on his behalf. Hence the defence evidence have been taken as nil.
6. Heard argument on both the sides. Perused the records.
7 SC No. 1589/20217. The points for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, on 24.06.2021, CW.2 to CW6-the police officials were on duty of tracing accused in the Crime No.21/2021 of their police station, involving the offences punishable under sections-302 of IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of the Arms Act, and in the early morning at about 4.00 am., on receiving the credible information that accused of the said case was moving in a Silver coloured Alto car bearing regn. No.KA- 04 : M.E-1702 on the main road of the Forest office at 1st Stage, 4th Block, H.B.R.Layout, within the jurisdiction of Govindapura Police Station, when CW.1 to 6- the police officials tried to stop accused Car, accused got down from the car and tried to run-away, and when C.W.2 tried to catch hold of accused, accused tried to assault on him and other police officials, and though they warned accused to surrender, accused did not surrender, instead, accused started threatening the police officials/officers by showing deadly weapon like knife. Hence, on the direction from C.W.1, when C.W.2 8 SC No. 1589/2021 to 6 tried to surround accused, and C.W.1 shot fire on the air from his service pistol and warned accused to surrender, accused neglected to do so and being armed with the knife, accused assaulted CW.2 with the said knife on his left shoulder and when you did not heed to their request to surrender and tried to assault them, in order to save the lives of the police personnel, CW.1 shot with his gun on accused legs, due to which, you fell down and accused sustained simple bleeding injuries to accused left leg.
Due to accused act, accused have caused voluntary hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty, by using criminal force and thereby committed the offences punishable under sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sections-3 and 25 of the Arms Act?
2. Whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, on the same date, time and place, accused armed with dangerous weapon, assaulted C.W.2 with a knife on his shoulder and made an attempt to kill him and thereby accused have committed the offence punishable 9 SC No. 1589/2021 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ?
3. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. Points No. 1 and 2:- Learned Public Prosecutor argued, the prosecution produced the evidence of PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and M.O.1 to M.O.8 on their behalf. According to the prosecution the material particulars available in all witnesses is more enough to convicted the accused. Therefore the prosecution pray for convicted the Accused for the alleged offence.
10 SC No. 1589/202110. Counsel for the accused argued, the Accused has not committed any offence as alleged and no one of the witnesses of the prosecution inspire the confidence of prosecution case. Further, the accused counsel also argued though evidence of eye witnesses, injured, complainant, mahazar witnesses have cited in the charge sheet, but no one of the category of witness have in the manner to coorabate and completed the chain of circumstances of the offence in against the accused. According to defence since PW2 himself is one of the police witness no scope it given to his testimony. Hence, the accused Counsel prays for acquitted for the accused for all the offences.
11. The prosecution net case is, the accused being one of the accused in one murder case and since CW1 to CW5 who are all being a public servant and they were all deputed to patrol the accused, while discharge of duty by 11 SC No. 1589/2021 CW1 to CW5 by caught holding the accused and subjected him into the law, the accused suddenly attack on PW2 with intention to killed the injured PW2 by means of knife. With this background of the charge, the deposition of witnesses who are all examined at before the court have take its own meaning for the appreciation of the charge. Accordingly, depositions of all witnesses herein taken in to discussion and for my consideration.
12. CW1 Mohammad Ali examined as PW1. As could be seen from the deposition of PW1, on 22.06.2021 within his police station limits one offence of murder was committed. Police Inspector of PW1 deputed, PW1 and CW2 to CW5 Traced out the accused of said crime. Accordingly on 24.06.2021 PW1 and CW2 to CW5 went on trace out the accused of said crime. In view of the information from the informant namely one of the accused by name Mohammad Saleem was moving from Hennur 12 SC No. 1589/2021 junction to Nagasandra in one silver colour alto car, PW1, CW2 to CW5 went near to Pari's Park in their government vehicle to alight said alto car. Further PW1 instructed to CW4 and CW5 so far confirmation of the accused and information too standing close near to the place. On the same day, at 3.50am after saw one alto car come from Hennur junction with a high speed, when PW1 and his staff attempt to stop the said vehicle, one of the inmate of the said car try to ran away, accordingly PW1 and CW2 chased on him. When PW1 and CW2 surrounded the accused from one side, CW4 and CW5 surrounded the accused in another side and driver of the government vehicle surrounded the accused on the another side i.e., in the 'U' shape manner, despite the accused attempt to escaped from another side. Further, when CW2 attempt to caught hold of the accused, the accused attempt to assaulted on CW2 by means of knife, at that time PW1 open the fire from his 13 SC No. 1589/2021 pistol in the air and even PW1 introduced him to the accused, they are be the police staff of Govindapura police station, despite the accused cause hurt on hands of CW2 by means of knife. At finally to exercise power of defence in against the act of accused, PW1 fired on leg of the accused from his pistol at in street lamp light. Suddenly, the accused fell on the surface and other staff of PW1 recovered the knife said to be possessed by the accused. Further when PW1 enquired on him, the accused revealed his name as Mohammad Saleem S/o Mohammad Asim, 28 years R/at 3rd cross, near Inam Masjid, Govindapura. Thereafter PW1 sent the accused and injured his staff CW2 in his vehicle to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar medical college for the medical treatment. PW1 secured his beat staff to the place of incident for protection of the evidence. PW1 went to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar medical college in one two wheeler on that day at 4.10am. Thereafter in the morning at 6.30am, PW1 went 14 SC No. 1589/2021 to his police station and he lodged written complaint. PW1 identified the said complaint, the same complaint marked at Ex.P1 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P1(a). Thereafter Assistant Commissioner of Police, K.G.halli police station handed over the case file to CW18 for investigation. On 24.06.2021 from 9.00am to 10.00am Police Inspector rushed to the spot and he seized silver colour alto car bearing No.KA- 04-ME-1702 by drawn an seizer mahazar. PW1 identified the said seizer mahazar, same is marked at Ex.P2 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P2(a). Further the same police inspector seized one knife and one cartridge fell at near the spot by drawing seizer mahazar. PW1 identified the said seizer mahazar, the same seizer mahazar marked at Ex.P3 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P3(a). Thereafter on the same day PW1 surrendered his service pistol and there live bullets to police inspector. The same were seized by Police inspector by drawing 15 SC No. 1589/2021 a mahazar on that day from 1.00pm to 2.00pm. PW1 identified the said mahazar, same mahazar marked at Ex.P4 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P4(a). PW1 identified the accused, as he was produced at in the court through video conference. PW1 identified the said alto car, the same marked at Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and one CD at Ex.P7. PW1 identified said knife, same knife marked at M.O.1. PW1 identified pistol, same pistol marked at M.O.2, PW1 identified black colour jeans pant said to be worn by the accused on the day of incident. The same pant marked as M.O.3. PW1 identified 9mm cartridge, same is marked at M.O.4 and M.O.5. PW1 identified one blood soaked cotton and one blood swab cotton collected from the spot, same is marked at M.O.6 and M.O.7. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW1, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW1. Hence, the testimony of PW1 rest in the case record as unshaken.
16 SC No. 1589/202113. CW2 Hamsa Belagi examined as PW2. According to the prosecution PW2 was one of the staff deputed by the police inspector along with PW1 P.S.I. for traced out the accused of one murder case. According to the deposition of PW2, PW2 is the injured and by overt act of the accused PW2 sustained an injury on his left fore arm by means of iron knife. Further, where in the depostion of PW2 it can saw the same line chief examination of PW1, except the ranking in the service. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW2, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW2. Hence, the testimony of PW2 rest in the case record as unshaken.
14. CW3, Nagendra examined as PW3.
According to the prosecution PW3 was one of the staff deputed by the police inspector along with PW1 P.S.I. to traced out the accused of one murder case. According to the deposition of PW3, PW2 is the injured and by overt act of the 17 SC No. 1589/2021 accused PW2 sustained an injury to the fore arm by means of iron knife. Further, where in the deposition of PW3 it can saw the same line chief examination of PW1 except their ranking in service. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW3, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW3. Hence, the testimony of PW3 rest in the case record as unshaken.
15. CW6, Mudasir Ahmed examined as PW4, according to deposition of PW4, PW4 being accept the offer of the Police inspector to act as Panch witness. It could be seen from deposition of PW4, on 24.06.2021. Police Inspector, at near to the place of incident and at in the presence of PW4 investigating officer drawn one mahazar same is already marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Hence, the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P2(b) and Ex.P3(b) respectively. Despite PW4 not identified the two 9mm cartridges, blood soaked cotton clothes and 13 18 SC No. 1589/2021 inches length blood stained iron knife, PW4 in his cross examination, he admitted the case of prosecution and he identified the MO-1 to MO-5 including identifying the Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW4, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW4. Hence, the testimony of PW4 rest in the case record as unshaken.
16. CW8, Irfan examined as PW5.
According to the deposition of PW5 on 24.06.2021, at 2.00 p.m., at Govindapura Police station, at before PW5 and CW9 investigating officer seized MO-2 Pistol by drawing Ex.P4 Mahazar, signature of the witness marked as Ex.P4(b). further, though PW5 not to depose the theory of the seizure mahazar, but, in his cross- examination PW5 admitted the theory of the prosecution case as true. In despite of the cross- examination by the accuse in length, the probable defence of the accused not to elicited from the mouth of PW5. In despite of lengthy 19 SC No. 1589/2021 cross examination to PW5, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW5. Hence, the testimony of PW5 rest in the case record as unshaken.
17. CW10, Mohammed Firoz examined as PW6. According to the deposition of PW6 on 25.06.2021 at 11.30 to 12.00 a.m., in Govindapura Plice station, investigating officer seized MO-3, Black coloured jeans pant said to be worned by the accused of this case on the day of incident at before pW6 and CW11. In despite of the cross-examination by the accused in length, the probable defence of the accused not to elicited from the mouth of PW6. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW6, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW6. Hence, the testimony of PW6 rest in the case record as unshaken.
18. CW14, Dr. M. Kiran Kumar examined as PW7. As could be seen from depostion of PW7, on 24.06.2021 at 9.00 a.m., Police 20 SC No. 1589/2021 inspector, Govindapura Police station through his phone call and it requested PW7 for inquiry to the place of incident to the Crime No. 23/21, upon such requisite, PW7, his colleague Peter Kiran and assistant Gopi and photographer Ramesh went to the place of incident in their departmental vehicle at 10.50 a.m., on that day. In front of the forest office, 1st cross, 4th block, HBR Layout be the place of incident. When PW7 enquired at the spot, PW7 found two 9 mm caliber empty cartridge along with its head stamp ok 04 9mm 2z, the same were marked by PW7 for his identification as CC-1 and CC-2. Further, PW7 also found blood stain dot, one plastic handle iron knife, with the sharp edge along with blood dots, the same were all collected by PW7 and it hand over to Investigating officer. On 07.07.2021, CW16 sent 5 sealed cover having the material object in pertaining to crime No.23/21, for the examination. The same all sealed cover were 21 SC No. 1589/2021 received by Senior FSL officer by name Dr. Chandrakanth and he forwarded all to the concerned department for examination. Seal were intact and talied. The same material objects were subjected into examination from on 13.08.2021 to 26.08.2021 and it found item No.1 - one 9mm caliber fired catridge found on the spot marked as CC1 2) one 9mm caliber fired cartridge found on the spot marked as CC2, 3) Control bandage cloth collected from the spot, 4) Blood stain swab collected from the spot, 5) One blood stained knife found on the footpath. After examination of all material objects, PW7 gave his opinion 1. The pistol in article number bears sign of discharge but no opinion is possible regarding the actual date and time of firing. 2) The pistol in article no.1 s in working condition at the time of examination. 3) the effiective range of the pistol in article no.1 is about 100 yards. 4) The cartridge cases in article no.2 and 3 have been fired thorugh the pistol in article 22 SC No. 1589/2021 no.1. 5) The cartridge cases marked as T-1 and T-2 in article no.7 were live. 6) The cartridge case marked as T-4 is misfired through the pistol in article No.1. 7) The holes marked as 8H-1 and 8H-2 on the pant in article no.8 have been caused due to the impact and passage of copper jacketed bullet. 8) The approximate range of firing with respect to the entry hole marked as 8H1 on the pant in article no.8 is beyond three feet from the muzzle end of the pistol. After examined the all material objects, PW7 repacked the same along with the seal and it sent back to investigating officer along with report. PW7 identified the said report same is marked at Ex.P10 and sample seal marked at Ex.P11 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P10(b) and Ex.P11(a) respectively. In despite In despite of the cross-examination by the accused in length, the probable defence of the accused not to elicited from the mouth of PW7. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW7, no probable 23 SC No. 1589/2021 defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW7. Hence, the testimony of PW7 rest in the case record as unshaken.
19. CW17, Lokesh N. examined as PW8. As could be seen from the deposition of PW8, on 24.06.2021, at morning 6.30 a.m., when PW8 was incharge of police station, PW1 appeared and lodged the written complaint. On receipt of the complaint, PW8 registered the case under crime no.23/21 and he sent FIR to the court. PW8 identified the said complaint same already marked at Ex.P1 and signature of the witness marked as Ex.P1(b). PW8 identified the FIR, same now marked at Ex.P12 and signature of witness marked at Ex.P12(a). Thereafter the PW8 forwarded the case record for investigation. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW8, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW8. Hence, the testimony of PW8 rest in the case record as unshaken.
24 SC No. 1589/202120. CW18 Kiran Kumar, Examined as PW9. As could be seen from the deposition of PW9, on 24.06.2021, ACP Govindapura instructed PW9 for investigation of the case. On the same day PW9 secured CW6 and CW7 and he rushed to the place of incident along with them where in the place of incident at before CW6 and CW7 and since CW1 point out the place of incident, PW9 drawn Ex.P2 spot mahazar and one seizure mahazar and he seized Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 car. Signature of the witness marked as per Ex.P2(c). on the same day, on the request of PW9, CW14 FSL officer team visited the place of incident. Where in the place of incident, CW14 FSL officer and his team have collected, 9mm Caliber Cartridge, bearing head stamp, blood soaked cotton, blood stain swab and blood stained knife. The same where all seized by PW9 at before panchas by drawing Ex.P3 seizure mahazar. Signature of the witness marked at Ex.P3(c). PW9 identified MO-1 iron knife and MO-4 and MO-5 25 SC No. 1589/2021 9mm Caliber Cartridge, MO-6 blood soaked cotton and MO-7 blood swab. The same are MO's subjected by him into his police station PF No.23/21 and 24/21. Thereafter, PW1/CW1 have produced one service pistol and live bullet at before PW9. Same where seized by PW9 at before CW8 and CW9 panchas by drawing Ex.P4 seizure mahazar on that day on 01.00 p.m., to 2.00 p.m. The signature of the witness is marked at Ex.P4(c). Service pistol and live bullets also subjected into the Police station PF No.25/21. PW9 identified MO-2 service pistol and 3 live bullets same are already marked at MO-8. PW9 requested the court by writing the letters, since accused was under medical treatment and after full pledge of the medical treatment produced the accused to the court. On 24.06.2021, PW9 requested the controller, for wireless log book. On 25.06.2021, since CW15 have produced one pant belonged the accused, stated to be worn by the accused at the time of incident, PW9 seized 26 SC No. 1589/2021 the same pant at before CW10 and CW11 panchas by drawing Ex.P8 seizure mahazar. Signature of the witness marked at Ex.P8(b) and pant marked at MO-3. On the same day PW9, recorded the witness statement of CW3 to CW5. On 27.06.2021, PW9 recorded the statement of CW2. On 28.06.2021, since the accused have discharged from the hospital, PW9 arrested the accused and on 29.06.2021, produced the accused at before the court. On 03.07.2021, requested the medical officer, DR B.R. Ambedkar medical college for the wound certificate in pertains to the accused. On 06.07.2021, PW9 received the wound certificate in pertains to the accused and CW2 from the medical officer, the same wound certificates identified the witness and same are marked at Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P13(a) and Ex.P14(a). On 07.07.2021, PW9 sent all seized articles to FSL for its examination through CW16. On 09.07.2021, PW9 requested SHO, 27 SC No. 1589/2021 Govindapura Police station for attendance register dated 24.06.2021. on the same day, PW9 received the attendance register extract, the same are identified by PW9 and it marked at Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 respectively. On 24.06.2021, PW9 received extract of wireless logbook from the concerned, the same identified and it marked at Ex.P17. On the same day, PW9 requested CW13 for rough sketch of the place of incident. On 04.08.2021, CW13 given the rough sketch, the same rough sketch identified and marked by PW9 under Ex.P9. On 21.09.2021, PW9 received the FSL report, the same FSL report is already marked at Ex.P10. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW9, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW9. Hence, the testimony of PW9 rest in the case record as unshaken.
21. CW12, Dr. Ashwin examined as PW10. As could be seen from the deposition of PW10, On 24.06.2021 at 4.10am Sri. Mohammed 28 SC No. 1589/2021 Saleem an injured brought to the hospital, on the history of gun shot injury, when he was absconding on 24.06.2021 at around 4.10am at forest near HBR layout by Police. He was accompanied by one Sri. Nagendra. On examination, PW10 noticed the following two injuries: 2 wound marks, linear in the shape, no entry / exist wound appreciated. The bridge of skin in between charred, no tunneling. Size of wound around 6X2cm located above 5-6cm from lateral malleolus. Margin of wound is irregular, hyperpigmented, charred. Hyperpigmented floor with surrounding induration. Active movement of limb was present. Only epidermis and dermis of skin has been breached, sub-cutaneous tissue was intact. Wound on any other part of leg was not seen. The Pulsation of the injured was in normal and on examination PW10 found, Deep Peroneal artery (DPA), Anterior tibial artery (ATA), 29 SC No. 1589/2021 Posterior tibial artery (PTA), Popliteal Artery (PA), Femoral artery (FA) was normal. In his opinion the said injury is simple in nature. In this regard PW10 have issued wound certificate. The witness has identified the wound certificate issued by him. The said wound certificate already marked as Ex.P.14 and the signature is marked as Ex.P.14(b). PW10 opined, it is possible to happen the said injury by the MO-2 Pistol now shown to him. The said Pistol is already marked as MO.2. Also it can be seen from the deposition of PW10, on the same day at 4.45am Sri. Hansa an injured brought to the hospital, on the history of assault by Mohammed Saleem at around 4.10 am near HBR layout forest, with the help of knife. He was accompanied by one Sri. Sandeep. On examination PW10 noticed the following injury: Lacerated wound measuring 1X5 cm over the back of the left forearm.
30 SC No. 1589/2021In my opinion the said injury is simple in nature. In this regard PW10 have issued wound certificate. The witness has identified the wound certificate issued by him. The said wound certificate is already marked as Ex.P.13 and the signature is marked as Ex.P.13(b). PW10 have also opined the injury mentioned at Ex.P13 wound certificate may be caused by means of MO-1 iron knife. The said knife is already marked as MO.1. In despite of lengthy cross examination to PW10, no probable defence of the accused case elicited at through the mouth of PW10. Hence, the testimony of PW10 rest in the case record as unshaken.
22. If it summarize the material available on case record, the accused was being an accused of one murder case and since CW1 to 5 deputed to traced out the accused, PW1 to PW3 got the information where about the accused as, PW1 to 3 attempt to cough hold the accused, the 31 SC No. 1589/2021 accused with intention to obstruct the legal duty of PW1 to 3, the accused attacked on PW2 by means of MO-1 iron knife, hence PW2 sustained injury No.1 to 5 and 7 over the back of the left forearm as it mentioned at Ex.P13 wound certificate, is the prosecution case. With this backgrounds of the fact, the prosecution ought to prove the factum, whether PW9 investigating officer deputed CW1 to CW5 to traced out the accused, whether the accused liable to need for murder case registered in Govindapura Police Station, whether the prosecution able to prove in despite of warn the accused for surrender by firing to the air, accused attempt to obstruct CW1 to CW5 in discharge of their legal duty and the accused with intention to murder of PW2 the accused attacked on PW2 by means of MO-1 knife, on that particular date, time, place, are all the basic material facts. If it evaluated the deposition of PW1 to PW3 wherein the deposition of PW2 it could see the material with 32 SC No. 1589/2021 respect to obstruct legal discharge of duty of PW1 to PW3 and by the overt act of accused with respect to PW2 sustained simple injury at his back of left forearm by means of MO-1. The same deposition of PW2 is also corroborated by the testimony of PW1 and PW3 who said to be the eye witnesses. Further, with respect injury caused on PW2, the testimony of PW2 is also corroborated by the testimony of medical officer more fully PW10 Dr. Ashwin. According to the testimony of PW10, PW10 treated the PW2 and he issued Ex.P13 wound certificate and his signature at Ex.P13(b). Hence, theory of the prosecution PW2 sustained the injury on his left fore arm by means of MO-1 have it to be proved from the ocular evidence testimony collaborated with the PW10 Medical officer testimony. So from the above all oral and documentary evidence, unequivocally evidence the core of prosecution and the same material of testimony have it proved by the prosecution beyond all 33 SC No. 1589/2021 reasonable doubt, in despite of the lengthy cross examination by the defence Counsel.
23. Another limb of the case is, whether the incident has taken place at in the place of incident. Particularly on that date and time. No doubt to prove the place of incident, the prosecution marked Ex.P2 spot mahazar. With respect to proving of the factum of ignition of the incident said to be ignited by the accused, the prosecution also marked Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P8 seizer mahazar, use of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 car said to be seized in the place of incident, rough sketch at Ex.P9, Ex.P10 FSL report along with Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 Dinachari. If it evaluated the testimonial value Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 Dinachari, wherein it could see the material CW1 to CW5 were joining to their work along with attending their work on that particular date of incident. Where at Ex.P2 spot mahazar and Ex.P9 sketch, it could see the material particulars at infront of forest office, 34 SC No. 1589/2021 HBR layout, Bengaluru be the place of incident. Further, where at Ex.P3, E.xP4 and Ex.P8 seizer mahazar, it could see the material evidence in seizer of M.O.2 service pistol, serizer of M.O.3 to M.O.5 cartridges, blood soaked and blood swab cotton said to be collected by PW7 FSL offier at in the place of incident particularly at before PW9 investigating officer. Further from Ex.P4 and E.xP8 seizer mahazar it could see the material evidence with respect to seizer of M.O.2 service pistol and seizer of M.O.3 black jeans pant belonged the accused said to be seized by PW9 investigating officer. The same Ex.P2 spot mahazar, Ex.P9 sketch, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and Ex.P8 seizer mahazar have been proved by the prosecution by examined particular witness at before the court beyond all reasonable doubt. True, there are some discrepancy in the chief examination of PW4, PW5 and PW6 seizer mahazar witnesses. But, if it evaluated their testimonial in toto it could see the material each 35 SC No. 1589/2021 of PW4, PW5 and PW6 mahazar witnesses have been unequivocally admitted the case of prosecution in their cross-examination said to be conducted by the prosecution. The same such of testimonial values of PW4, PW5 and PW6 have not been challenged by the defence and it fail to elicited the probable case of the accused. Further if it evaluate the testimonial values of PW4, PW5 and PW6 in accordance with section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, one probable prudentman could say, there existence of iota of evidence in the net evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6, despite lengthly cross examination called by the defence Counsel. Hence with this being of observation the prosecution have also successfully proved and it successfully established the credibility and testimonial values of PW4, PW5 and PW6 in the case record. Since oral testimony of PW9 rest in the case record as unshaken in despite of the lengthly cross examination. The same such of unshaken testimony it corroborated the 36 SC No. 1589/2021 testimony of PW4 to PW6. From the same such of corroborated testimony of PW9 and PW4 to PW6 to be inspire the confidence in the prosecution case. Further, the same Ex.P2 spot mahazar and Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P8 seizer mahazar also have been corroborated by the oral testimonial of PW9 investigating officer without of any lacuna. With that being of both of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, one prudent man could say, the prosecution have successfully proved the above all material particulars involved in the case record beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. At this juncutre I would like to relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Appeal (crl.) 522 of 1997 Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra - wherein the judgment particularly I relied;
Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused 37 SC No. 1589/2021 was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.
25. In light of above preposition of law I taken up the another limb involved in the case record for my consideration. No doubt the prosecution charged the accused for the offence punishable U/s 307 of I.P.C. along with other offences. But testimonial of PW2 injured, PW10 medical officer and Ex.P13 wound certificate unequivocally evidence, PW2 injured sustained "injury to back of left forearm". As per the deposition of PW10 medical officer and Ex.P13 wound certificate injury caused to PW2 injured is be the simple in nature and same injury may be caused by means of M.O.1 iron knife. Admittedly, "back of the left forearm of the human being" is not vital part of body. Further injury mentioned in Ex.P13 wound certificate not comes within the purview and any limb of 38 SC No. 1589/2021 section 320 of I.P.C. With this being charge in against the accused with respect to assault on PW2 injured have not comes under section 326 of I.P.C. If the charge in against the accused with respect to assault once not come to under section 326 of I.P.C, certainly the same comes under either under section 324 of I.P.C. or under section 307 of I.P.C. Not in dispute, it need to dissect such thin layer in between offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C. and section 307 of I.P.C., before it concluded and to upheld the charge to the highest offence. An intention or knowledge to commit the offence and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder, be the relevancy to determine such of the thin layer in between the offence punishable under section 324 and 307 of I.P.C. Whether the accused had such an intention or knowledge to committed the offence in the case on hand be the relevant and it need to be decide on the 39 SC No. 1589/2021 basis of material available on the case record. If evaluated the testimony of PW1 to PW3 with respect to intentional knowledge, the accused fail to take such of the defence in entirety and he fail to falsify the same, the accused had no such of intention or knowledge to caused injury on PW2 and under such circumstances, the act of the accused have not been caused any of the death. If suppose the accused once he had no such of the intention or knowdge he could elicited the same through the mouth of PW1 to PW3 by suggested to them. Into that respect no single suggestion, the accused have suggested to PW1 to PW3 and he fail to make falsify the case of the prosecution, the accused had no such of intention or knowledge. Further, with respect to MO-1 iron knife no proper explanation given by the accused either in the cross examination of the prosecution witness or he examined U/s 313Cr.PC. Into that respect the defence have fail to made specific suggestion either to PW2 or 40 SC No. 1589/2021 PW1 or PW3. If suppose the accused once he has not possessed MO-1 knife and Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 alto car at the particular place, date and time, he could elicited the same at through the mouth of prosecution witness or even he would have the opportunity to called such of the explanation with respect to MO-1 knife as well as Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 alto car and to say he had not owned the same. With this being of the observation one prudent man could say, though accused cause simple injury to PW2 though not to the vital part of the body, the accused have committed the present offence only intention or knowledge that he cause injury to PW2 to committed the murder of PW2 by means of M.O.1 iron knife. For the above all observation, I am of the opinion the prosecution proved the case in against accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of 41 SC No. 1589/2021 Arms Act. Accordingly, I have answered Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
26. Point No.3:- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of Arms Act.
Respondent Govindapura police is directed to take accused Mohammad Salim, S/o Mohammad Ajim, into Custody.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2026) (ONKARAPPA R) C/c XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.42 SC No. 1589/2021
27.01.2026 ORDER ON SENTENCE
27. Heard arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused on quantum of sentence to be imposed on the convicted accused.
28. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.B.V.M advocate have argued that the accused has no criminal antecedents and he was not previously convicted. The accused be the poor, accused are only the bread earner of his family being sole son to his parents alongwith small 8 months baby. Inter alia, on these grounds, the learned counsel for accused prays for taking lenient view in imposing sentence.
29. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued, since the guilt against accused have unequivocally established, accused not entitled for any of leniency as argued by the defence counsels. The accused being not to law abiding citizen he was committed the heinous offence at in the public with intent to make apprehension at in the mind of public upon the public servant. As accused 43 SC No. 1589/2021 fearlessly committed heinous offence at in the public, accused upon the public servant he is not entitled any sort of leniency under the law. In view of that he prays for, accused should be punished with maximum punishment provided under Sections 353, 307, 332 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of Arms Act.
30. It considered the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused in the light of penology of law. Accordingly, in my considered view, these sentences will maintain the equilibrium between offences committed and sentences to be imposed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for an offence punishable under section 353 of IPC; in default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo Simple imprisonment for one month.
The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of 44 SC No. 1589/2021 Rs.3,000/- for an offence punishable under section 332 of IPC; in default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment, for one month.
The accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and imposed fine of Rs.14,000/- for an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC; in default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo Simple imprisonment for six months.
The accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- for an offence punishable under section 25 (1AAA) of Arms Act; in default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo Simple imprisonment for six months.
Acting under section 31 of CrPC, the all substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Acting under section 357(1) of CrPC, hereby ordered, out of the total fine amount of 45 SC No. 1589/2021 Rs.25,000/-, a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to CW2 by way of compensation and remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to Exchequer of the State.
It is hereby made clear that even if the accused undergoes the default sentence, the accused will not be absolved of his liability to pay fine amount in view of the provisos to Sub-Section (1) of Sec.421 of Cr.P.C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment to all offences shall run concurrently.
M.Os.1, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 Silver colour alto car shall be confiscated to state, after appeal period over.
M.O.2 pistol, M.O.4 and M.O.5 two 9mm cartridges and M.O.8 live bullet are directed to be sent to the District Armory for destruction after lapse of appeal period.
M.Os.3, 6 and 7 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed on completion of the appeal period and in the event of preferring the 46 SC No. 1589/2021 appeal the same shall be destroyed only on the disposal of the appeal.
Acting under section 363(1) CrPC, office is hereby directed to furnish copy of this judgment to the convicted accused at free of cost.
In view of conviction of the accused, his bail bonds stands canceled.
Send the copy of this Judgment and sentence to the District Magistrate concerned as per Section 365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2026.
sd/-
(ONKARAPPA R), C/c XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Mohammad Ali Imran
P.W.2 Shrihams Bilagi
P.W.3 Nagendra
P.W.4 Mudasir Ahmmad
47 SC No. 1589/2021
P.W.5 Irfan
P.W.6 Mohammad Firoj
P.W.7 Dr. M. Kiran Kumar
P.W.8 Lokesh N
P.W.9 Kiran Kumar
P.W.10 Dr. Ashwin
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW
Ex.P2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW
Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW
Ex.P3 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW
Ex.P3(c) Signature of PW
Ex.P4 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW
Ex.P4(c) Signature of PW
Ex.P5 & 6 Photos
Ex.P7 CD
Ex.P8 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P8(b) Signature of PW
48 SC No. 1589/2021
Ex.P8(c) Signature of PW
Ex.P9 Sketch
Ex.P10 Report
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P10(b) Signature of PW
Ex.P11 Sample seal
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P12 FIR
Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P13 Wound certificate
Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P13(b) Signature of PW
Ex.P14 Wound certificate
Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P15 Letter
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW
Ex.P16 & 17 Dinachari diary
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1 - Knife
M.O.2 - Pistol
M.O.3 - Black jeans pant
M.O.4 - 9 mm Cartridge
M.O.5 - 9 mm Cartridge
M.O.6 - Control bandage cloth
M.O.7 - Blood stain collected swab
M.O.8 - Live bullet
49 SC No. 1589/2021
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :- NIL List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL sd/-
(ONKARAPPA R), C/c XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.