Bangalore District Court
Banaswadi P.S vs A1 Raghavendra Alias Raghu on 17 November, 2025
1 SC No. 917/2023
KABC0A0024732023 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.22]
Dated: This the 17th day of November, 2025
: Present :
Sri ONKARAPPA R, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
XIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 917/2023
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Banaswadi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
VS
Accused Nos.1 to 3 : 1) Raghavendra @ Raghu,
S/o Ramamurthy,
Aged about 29 years,
2 SC No. 917/2023
R/at No.24, Near MMET School,
Patel Kulappa Road, R.S Palya,
M.S. Nagara, Bengaluru.
2) Orvin Ligowre
S/o Allex Poul Ligowre,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.27, 3rd Cross, New
Pension Lane, JJR Nagar,
Chamarajapete, Bengaluru.
And also at: No.20/1, Goshan
Apartment, Ayyappa Temple
Road, Yadav Layout, Behind
Nehru Road, Kammanahalli,
Bengaluru.
3) Mohammed Sad
S/o Abdul Kadir,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.21, 3rd Cross, New
Pension Mahalla, JJR Nagar,
Bengaluru.
By Sri. LRY. Advocate
3 SC No. 917/2023
Date of commission of offence 07.04.2022
Date of report of offence 08.04.2022
Date of arrest of the accused Accused Nos.1 and 2 arrested
Nos.1 to 3 on 09.04.2022
Accused No.3 on anticipatory
bail
Date of release of the accused Accused Nos.1 and 2 released
Nos.1 to 3 on bail on 20.04.2022
Accused No.3 on anticipatory
bail
Name of the complainant Smt. Stella S
Date of commencement of 20.12.2023
trial
Date of closing of 30.07.2025
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 17.11.2025
Offences complained of U/s 307, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1 to 3 are
acquitted.
J U D G M E N T
Banaswadi Police have charge sheeted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 307, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
4 SC No. 917/20232. In nutshell case of the prosecution is; CW1 and CW2, namely Stella and Suresh Kumar were tenants under the father of Accused No. 1 and there was dispute between family of Accused No.1 and CW1 and CW2 in respect of vacating the house by CW1 and CW2 and the matter had also reached the police station on earlier occasion and in this background, Accused No. 1 entered into criminal conspiracy with Accused No. 2 and 3 and deceased accused No.4 for murdering CW2 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy on 7/04/2022 between 7.30 p.m. to 8:30 pm, when CW1 and CW2 were sitting in the passage in the first floor in front of their house at No. 24, near MMET school, Patel Kullappa Circle, RS Palya, MS Nagar Post, Bangalore, Accused No. 1 to 4 came to the spot and Accused No. 1 and 2 climbed the stairs to the second floor. While Accused No. 3 came near CW1 and 2 as if to inquire something and suddenly with the intention of murdering CW2 Accused No. 3 hit him on his head with knife 5 SC No. 917/2023 causing him bleeding injury and by the time Accused No. 3 again tried to assault CW2, CW1 caught hold hand of Accused No. 3 and therefore Accused No.3 escaped by going downstairs where deceased accused No. 4 was waiting in Dio 2- wheeler and thereby, Accused No. 3 and deceased accused No. 4 escaped from the spot and thereafter, Accused No. 1 and 2 who were watching from up-stairs also escaped and the above act of Accused No. 3 was done in pursuance of common intention of all. Hence the complaint.
3. Based on the complaint, Banaswadi police have registered FIR against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. It completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
6 SC No. 917/20234. Committal court committed the case record along with accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have been secure at before this court under process. If it questioned accused Nos.1 to 3 with respect to compliance of section 209 and 227 of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 3 have submitted charge may be framed and no argument in before framed the charge. With that being charge have been framed in against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 307, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Read over and explained the charge in the language known to them, but accused Nos.1 to 3 have pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of prosecution case, the prosecution has examined total number of 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 out of total 14 charge sheet witnesses. Further, the prosecution also got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and material objects M.O.1 on their side and it closed their side evidence. Learned public prosecutor given 7 SC No. 917/2023 up the evidence of CW12 and CW13, hence evidence of CW12 and CW13 taken as given up. Inspite of witness summons issued against CW9, CW9 remained absent, hence evidence of CW9 dropped as per order sheet dated 05.05.2025. Accused Nos.1 to 3 has been examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and if incriminating evidence appeared in against to them, accused Nos.1 to 3 have denied the same. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have not chosen to examined any of the witness on their behalf. Hence the defence evidence have been taken as nil.
6. Heard argument on both the sides. Perused the records.
7. The points for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, CW1 and CW2, namely Stella and Suresh Kumar were tenants under the father of Accused No. 1 and there was dispute between family of Accused No. 1 and CW1 and 2 8 SC No. 917/2023 in respect of vacating the house by CW1 and 2 and the matter had also reached the police station on earlier occasion and in this background, Accused No. 1 entered into criminal conspiracy with Accused No. 2 and 3 and deceased accused No. 4 for murdering CW2 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy on 7/04/2022 between 7.30 p.m. to 8:30 pm, when CW1 and 2 were sitting in the passage in the first floor in front of their house at No. 24, near MMET school, Patel Kullappa Circle, RS Palya, MS Nagar Post, Bangalore, Accused No. 1 to 4 came to the spot and Accused No. 1 and 2 climbed the stairs to the second floor. while Accused No. 3 came near CW1 and 2 as if to inquire something and suddenly with the intention of murdering CW2 Accused No. 3 hit him on his head with knife causing him bleeding injury and by the time Accused No. 3 again tried to assault CW2, CW1 caught hold of the hand of Accused No. 3 and therefore Accused No. 3 escaped by going downstairs where deceased 9 SC No. 917/2023 accused No. 4 was waiting in Dio 2-wheeler and thereby, Accused No. 3 and deceased accused No.4 escaped from the spot and thereafter, Accused No. 1 and 2 who were watching from up-
stairs also escaped and the above act of Accused No. 3 was done in pursuance of common intention of all and the said act was done with such knowledge and intention that if the death of CW2 had resulted Accused No. 3 would have been guilty of murder and thereby Accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, after escaping from the spot of offence at afforested date, time and place, Accused No. 3 knowing that an offence has been committed in order to screen himself and other Accused from legal punishment threw the knife used in the incident in a drainage near Hebbal, with a view to cause destruction of evidence in respect 10 SC No. 917/2023 of offence and said act was done in pursuance of common intention of all and thereby, Accused No. 1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of IPC?
3. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
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 PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 on their behalf. According to the prosecution the material particulars available in all witnesses is more enough to convicted accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore the prosecution 11 SC No. 917/2023 pray for convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offence.
10. In the contrary learned counsel for the accused argued, the testimony of PW1 and PW3 is be the position of high pedestrain to point out the alleged crime in against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC., the testimony of PW1 and PW3 not in the position to believe as it is without any unshaken. According to learned counsel for the accused, accused No.3 not known to PW1 and PW3 in prior to commission of offence, the identification of accused No.3 by PW1 and PW3 at in the court is kind of an dock identification and since no Test Identification parade conducted by PW11 investigating officer with respect to identification of the accused, the testimony of PW1 and PW3 renders their dock identification less credible and hence according to learned counsel for the accused, their testimony cannot constitute reliable evidence of identification. Further, learned counsel for the accused have also 12 SC No. 917/2023 steraniously argued by interacted the court at through the cross-examination portion conducted by learned Public Prosecutor to the PW3, with respect to identification of accused No.3. Hence according to learned counsel for the accused, the testimony of PW1 and PW3 with respect to identification of accused No.3 renders their dock identification less credible and therefore cannot constitute reliable evidence of identification. In support to the same his submission he also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Crl.Appeal No.715/2018 in between Nazim and others Vs State of Uttarkhand, wherein the judgment he relied on particular para No.42 of the judgment, the same herein extracted;
"21. It is well settled that TIP is only a part of police investigation. The identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. The substantive piece of evidence, is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in court during trial.13 SC No. 917/2023
23. [...] In cases where an accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting dock identification by such a witness.
24. [...] We are of the opinion that not conducting a TIP in this case was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in the absence of TIP the dock identification of the present appellant will always remain doubtful. Doubt always belongs to the accused."
11. Further, counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 argued, accused Nos.1 to 3 have not committed any offence as alleged and no one of the witnesses of the prosecution do have been supported the case of prosecution. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 counsel also argued though evidence of eye witnesses, mahazar witnesses have cited in the charge sheet, but no one of the category of witness supported and corroborated the prosecution case. Hence, according to accused counsel, accused Nos.1 to 3 are all 14 SC No. 917/2023 entitled for acquittal for the charge made in against them.
12. The prosecution net case is, accused Nos.1 to 3 with their common intention to murder CW1 and by that act to cause death of CW1, accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted on CW1. Further, accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable U/s 201 IPC by destroying the material evidence. With this background of the charge the deposition of witnesses who are all examined at before the court have take its own meaning for appreciation of the charge. Accordingly, depositions of all witnesses herein taken for my discussion.
13. CW1 Stella Mary examined as PW1. According to the prosecution PW1 is the complainant and wife of injured. PW1 deposed CW2 Suresh Kumar is her husband. In 2022, PW1 was residing in Patel Kulappa Road near MMET School, RS Palya, Bangalore. PW1 was residing with her husband and daughter. PW1 husband was working as delivery in Myntra.
15 SC No. 917/2023They were residing for one year, earlier to 2022, in the said house. PW1 paid a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh and monthly rent was Rs. 11,000/-. It was a two bedroom house. Rent had to be paid within 10th of every month. The landlord of the said house was Ram Murthy. PW1 know accused number 1 to 3 present before court on today. In January 2022, Ram Murthy came and told to vacate the house and he gave three months time to vacate and PW1 said they will vacate the house by April 10th. From 4th April 2022, Ram Murthy and his son Raghavendra and his daughter Tejaswini started quarreling with PW1 and family to vacate the house. PW1 identified accused No.1 present before court as said Raghavendra son of Ram Murthy. In this regard, PW1 gave police complaint and the police summoned them and advised them. Then, Ram Murthy cut the water connection to the house and every time they saw PW1 and family, they used to look at aggressively. PW1 and family were the tenants in the first floor on 16 SC No. 917/2023 07.04.2022 at about 7.30 p.m. PW2 and her husband were sitting in the first floor balcony and at that time accused No.1 Raghavendra and another person were going there looking at them aggressively. PW1 identified accused No.2 present before court. PW1 deposed accused No.1 and accused No.2 climbed the staircase and went to the terrace, then another person wearing helmet came near them and asked some address from PW1 husband. When PW1 husband went near that person to enquire, that person took out a knife from his shirt sleeve and hit PW1 husband on head with the knife. He hit with knife with intention of murdering PW1's husband. PW1's husband started bleeding profusely in the balcony. PW1 started shouting and that person wearing helmet ran away and members of the public gathered at the spot when PW1 saw accused No.1 was standing in the ground floor. Then, PW1 husband and PW1 went in Honda Activa first to police station and there the police told to first take treatment and then give 17 SC No. 917/2023 complaint. PW1 deposed PW1's husband drove the Honda Activa. Then, PW1 and her husband went in Honda Activa to Bowring Hospital and her husband drove the scooter. In Bowring Hospital, they stitched the cut injuries and referred to NIMHANS for further treatment. Then, PW1's husband was shifted to NIMHANS in ambulance. That night PW1 and her husband came back to the house and on the next day they gave police complaint. PW1 identified the complaint, same is now marked as Ex.P1 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P1(a). PW1 can identify the knife with which her husband was attacked. After PW1 gave complaint, the police came to the spot and PW1 showed the spot of incident to the police. PW1 identified mahazar, same now marked as Ex.P2 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P2(a). In the cross examination it elicited "It is true to suggest that the assailant who assaulted my husband was not accused No.1". Further elicited "Question, I suggest to you that 18 SC No. 917/2023 accused No.1, 2, 3 are not at all involved in the assault on your husband. Answer: then who else has done it?"
14. CW2 K.M. Chandru examined as PW2. According to the prosecution PW2 is spot mahazar witness. Though PW2 examined at before the court. PW2 turned hostile in total, but PW2 identified his signature at Ex.P2 mahazar as per Ex.P2(b). Despite of cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing of the prosecution case elicited at through the mouth of PW2. Hence the evidence of PW2 not supported the prosecution case.
15. CW2 Suresh Kumar examined as PW3. According to prosecution PW3 is the injured. PW3 deposed CW1 Stella is his wife. Cw7 Uday is his brother. CW8 is his another brother. Cw9 is his sister. PW3 deposed, in April 2022 when PW3 was residing in House No.24, Patel Kullappa Road, Subbana Palya, Bengaluru 560033. Himself, his wife and daughter were residing together in the said house. The owner 19 SC No. 917/2023 of the said house is Ramamurthy. PW3 had taken the house on rent from Ramamurthy on monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- and advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In this regard, they entered into Rental Agreement. The rent to be paid by 10th of every month. In April 2022, the owner asked them to vacate the house. PW3 asked for some time to enable his daughter to complete her exam. In the meantime even before they could find another house and even before his daughter's exam was completed the owner disconnected the water connection to the house. On 04.04.2022 PW3's wife went to ask Ramamurthy why it disconnected water connection and at that time, Ramamurthy his son and daughter abused his wife and tried to assault on her. PW3 identified accused No.1 as the son of said Ramamurthy. PW3's wife informed him and when PW3 came and enquired with Ramamurthy, they also abused him. Therefore, himself and his wife gave police complaint. The police called Ramamurthy and properly 20 SC No. 917/2023 advised him not to give further trouble. On 07.04.2022 at 7.30 p.m PW3 and his wife were sitting in first floor balcony in front of his house. At that time, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 went in their presence to second floor and then, both of them went down and stood in the ground floor. At that time, another boy who was wearing helmet repeatedly came up the stairs but he did not come to the first floor where they were siting. Then, after repeatedly climbing the steps, as mentioned above, he again came to the first floor. PW3 went near him to enquire who he is and under the guise of asking address he approached PW3 and suddenly he took out a long knife which he had hidden under his full shirt sleeve and assaulted PW3 with the said knife on his head. He tried to assault PW3 with another blow, but PW3 pushed him away. PW3 head started bleeding profusely. Seeing this, PW3's wife and daughter started shouting, then that person wearing the helmet ran away. Then, with PW3's wife PW3 went in his Honda Activa 21 SC No. 917/2023 Scooter to Bowring Hospital and PW3 drove the Scooter. In Bowring Hospital PW3 was administered first aid and six stitches to the injury. From Bowring Hospital PW3 was taken in Ambulance to Nimhans. After CT Scan in Nimhans, PW3 went to his brothers house and from there PW3 went to Srinivasa Nursing Home where PW3 was admitted for two days. In this regard, PW3 have given statement to police. PW3 can identify the knife with which he was attacked. PW3 stated that boy who was wearing the helmet hit him with the intention of murdering him. PW3 identified Accused No.3 present before court as the said boy who attacked him. Again on 12.04.2022, the police called PW3 to police station and showed PW3 the photographs of Accused No.1 to 3 and another person. PW3 identified Accused No.1 to
3. The police also told PW3 the names of Accused No.2 and 3. In the cross examination done by the prosecution it elicited, true to suggest, the house owner Ramamurthy for the 22 SC No. 917/2023 first time asked him to vacate the house on 10.01.2022. It is true to suggest that, after the settlement in police station on daily basis the house owner Ramamurthy and his son and daughter used to stare at him aggressively when ever the saw him. PW3 have given statement regarding above facts to police. PW3 given statement to police as per Ex.P3. In his cross examination, it elicited "it is true to suggest that the person who allegedly assaulted me did not remove the helmet at the time of assault. Witness volunteers, he removed the glass visor of the helmet. It is true to suggest that when the glass visor was allegedly removed, I could only see portion of his face".
16. CW4 Saleem examined as PW4.
According to the prosecution PW4 is the spot mahazar witness. Though PW4 identified his signature at Ex.P2 as per Ex.P2(c), PW4 turned hostile in total. Despite of cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing of the prosecution case elicited at through the mouth of PW4. Hence 23 SC No. 917/2023 the evidence of PW4 not supported the prosecution case.
17. CW5 Madhu examined as PW5.
According to the prosecution PW5 is the seizer mahazar witness. Though PW5 identified his signature at Ex.P4 as per Ex.P4(a), PW5 turned hostile in total. Despite of cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing of the prosecution case elicited at through the mouth of PW5. Hence the evidence of PW5 not supported the prosecution case.
18. CW6 Manivannan examined as PW6. According to the prosecution PW6 is also the seizer mahazar witness. Though PW6 identified his signature at Ex.P4 as per Ex.P4(b), PW6 turned hostile in total. Despite of cross- examination by the prosecution, nothing of the prosecution case elicited at through the mouth of PW6. Hence the evidence of PW6 not supported the prosecution case.
19. CW7 Uday Kumar examined as PW7. PW7 deposed he got call from CW1 stating that 24 SC No. 917/2023 CW2 has sustained injuries and he went to Bowring hospital. PW7 along with CW8 went to hospital. CW1 narrated the incident. In his cross examination CW1 and CW2 also have informed about the previous incidents. When the earlier complaint was given, I did not go to the police station.
20. CW11 Balaji V examined as PW8.
According to prosecution PW8 caught hold accused Nos.1 and 2. PW8 deposed, on 09.04.2022 with the directions of PSI Anwar Khan, PW8, Cw12 and 13 went in search of absconding Accused persons at in all place of R.S. Palya, Subbayyanapalya, IOC Circle and other places. At about 10.15 am, they received the information, went to Empire Circle R.S. Palya. They found Raghavendra and Arvin Ligori held them, brought and produced them before PSI Anwar Khan along with motorbike, KA 03 JB 1624 and report. PW8 identified the report, same is now marked as Ex.P.7 and signature of the witness marked as Ex.P.7(a). PW8 identified 25 SC No. 917/2023 Accused Raghavendra and Arvin Ligori present before the court. Inspite of cross examination by the counsel for the accused, nothing of material elicited at through the mouth of PW8 in against the prosecution case. Hence his evidence rest in the record as unshaken.
21. CW10 Mahendra examined as PW9. According to prosecution PW9 doctor who treated CW1 injured. On 07.04.2022 at 9.45 p.m, PW9 examined the injured Mr.Suresh Kumar with the history of assault by known person with sharp object. On examination of the injured, PW9 found "A" laceration wound on right frontal region measuring 7 x 2 cms. The wound was sutured. On examination of ultrasound, X-ray and CT scan PW9 found no fracture or any damage to the organs. The above injury is simple in nature. The above injury may be caused by assault from knife. PW9 have treated the injured and issued wound certificate. PW9 identified the wound certificate, the same wound certificate marked as Ex.P.8 and his 26 SC No. 917/2023 signature marked as Ex.P.8(a). But, PW9 in his cross-examination he unequivocally admitted; it is true to suggest that, I have not mentioned the MLC number in the wound certificate. Further, it is true to suggest that, at the instance of police, I have given false wound certificate.
22. CW8 Vimalanathan examined as PW10. According to the prosecution PW10 is the hear say witness. But, PW10 turned hostile. But in the cross examination by the prosecution at through the mouth of PW10 it elicited "It is true to suggest that, when we had been to Hospital, Cw1 informed that they are the tenants under Accused persons, they paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- and inspite of it, the Accused persons were forcing to vacate the house and picked up a quarrel. It is true to suggest that, Cw1 was also informed that again the quarrel took place in respect of disconnection of electricity and water supply. It is true to suggest that, Cw1 informed that on 07.04.2022 at 7.30 27 SC No. 917/2023 p.m, when Cw2 was sitting in the passage Accused persons came there, picked up a quarrel, A3 assaulted with a knife on his head and caused bleeding injury. It is true to suggest that, I have given my statement before police as per Ex.P.9 in respect of the incident. According to the prosecution PW10 is hear say witness.
23. CW14 Anwar Khan examined as PW11. According to the prosecution PW11 is investigating officer. PW11 deposed on 08.04.2022, at morning 10.30 am when PW11 was in police station CW1 appeared at before him and she lodged one written complaint. Upon receipt of such written complaint PW11 registered the case in Cr.No.145/2022 for the offence punishable U/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and PW11 sent the FIR to the court. PW11 can identify the said complaint. The said complaint already marked at Ex.P1 signature of witness marked at Ex.P1(b). PW11 can identify FIR. The same FIR marked at Ex.P10. Signature of the witness marked at Ex.P10(a). On the same day 28 SC No. 917/2023 12.30 to 1.30 pm PW11 went to the place No.24, 1st Floor, MMET school along with CW3 and CW4 panchas. In pointing out of place of incident, PW11 drawn one spot mahazar at the place of incident. PW11 can identify said spot mahazar. The same spot mahazar already marked at Ex.P2. Signature of witness marked at Ex.P2(d). On 09.04.2022, at 10.45 am, CW11 Balaji and CW12 Santhosh and CW13 Vinu have produced accused No.1 and accused No.2 at before PW11 along with one report. Where upon accused No. 1 and 2, PW11 conducted enquiry and arrested them as per the law. PW11 can identified said report. The same report already marked at Ex.P7. Signature of the witness marked at Ex.P7(b). When PW11 enquired the accused No.1 and accused No.2, accused No.1 and accused No.2 deposed their voluntary statement at before him. Further accused No.1 have also produced one KTM motor cycle and Oppo mobile phone handset. accused No.2 Arvind Logore have produced one Oppo mobile 29 SC No. 917/2023 phone hand set. The same KTM motor cycle and two mobile hand set were seized by PW11 by drawn a seizure mahazar at before the panchas CW5 Madhu and CW6 Manivanan. PW11 can identified said seizure mahazar. The seizure now it already marked at Ex.P4. Signature of the witness marked at Ex.P4(c). PW11 can identified said KTM motor cycle and two oppo mobile hand set. Witness identified KTM motor cycle. One photographs in pertains to said KTM motor cycle and one photographs in pertains to one mobile phone hand set now it marked at Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. The witness identified the one mobile phone hand set present in the said packet. Now the same mobile phone hand set marked at MO-1. The seized all material objects were subjected into police station PF No.49/2022. There after PW11 produced accused No.1 and accused No.2 at before the court along with remand application. PW11 identified accused No.1 and accused No.2 who are present at before the court. On the same day, PW11 30 SC No. 917/2023 recorded the statement of CW5 Madhu and CW 6 Manivannan. CW5 and 6 deposed their statement at before PW11 as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. On the same day PW11 recorded the statements of his staff viz., CW11 to CW13. On 12.04.2022, PW11 recorded the statement of injured CW2 Suresh Kumar. On the same day PW11 recorded the statement of CW8 Vimalanath. CW6 to CW8 deposed their evidence at before PW11 as per Ex.P9. On 05.05.2022, PW11 received the wound certificate in pertains to injured CW2 Suresh Kumar. PW11 can identify said wound certificate. The same wound certificate marked at Ex.P8. Signature of witness now marked at Ex.P8(b). On 08.02.2023, accused No.3 Mohammed Sad appeared at before PW11 along with anticipatory bail order. Based on bail order PW11 arrested accused No.3 and released on that day forthwith. PW11 can identify accused No.3. Witness identified accused No.3 who present at before the court. Upon enquiry on accused No.3, accused No.3 deposed that he left 31 SC No. 917/2023 one iron knife at the side of Hebbal Lake. Thereby in the charge sheet PW11 mentioned said evidence as destroyed by accused No.3. After investigation concluded PW11 submitted the chargesheet to the court in against the accused. Inspite of cross examination by counsel for the accused nothing of the probable defence elicited at through the mouth of PW11, hence evidence of PW11 rest in the record as unshaken.
24. The Prosecution case is accused No.1 was the landlord and CW1 and CW2 were be the tenant. CW1 and CW2 who being tenant, CW1 and CW2 were used to reside at in the house of accused No.1 on monthly rent basis. In that relationship there was some sort of dispute in between accused No.1 and CW1 and CW2. In one time such a dispute raised in between accused No.1 and CW1 and CW2 went on registered the complaint at before the police. The same case was also closed as per understanding in between accused No.1 and CW1 and CW2, subject to condition CW1 and CW2 should be 32 SC No. 917/2023 vacated the rent premises. When such of the things going on in between accused No.1 and CW1 and CW2, on particular date, time and place one of the person who wear the helmet came near to the house of CW1 and CW2 and he assaulted CW2 injured by means of one iron knife. With that such of the injury CW1 and CW2 basically went to police station and finally CW2 took the treatment at before PW9 Dr.Mahendra, Senior Specialist, Bowring hospital, Bengaluru. With the background of above all allegation finally CW1 lodged the complaint at Ex.P1 at before PW11 Sub-Inspector Anvar Khan. Based on Ex.P1 complaint, PW11 registered the case in against the accused and he submitted the FIR at Ex.P10 to the jurisdictional court. Signature of PW1 complainant available in the Ex.P1 marked at Ex.P1(a), signature of PW11 available in Ex.P1 complaint marked at Ex.P1(b) and signature of PW11 available at Ex.P10 FIR marked at Ex.P10(a). Based on Ex.P1 complaint and Ex.P10 FIR, PW11 put the criminal law into 33 SC No. 917/2023 motion by conducting the investigation. Into that respect PW11 drawn Ex.P2 spot mahazar at the place of incident, signature of PW1 complainant available at Ex.P2 spot mahazar marked at Ex.P2(a), signature of PW11 available at Ex.P2 marked at Ex.P2(d). Important to note though CW2 examined as PW2 and CW4 examined as PW4, PW2 and PW4 turned hostile except identified their signature at Ex.P2(b) and Ex.P2(c) respectively. Also important to note in despite of cross-examination by the prosecution nothing of the prosecution case elicited at through the mouth of PW2 and PW4. Further as per deposition of PW11 investigating officer, PW11 seized one KTM motorbike, Two Oppo mobile handset as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 and M.O.1 under Ex.P4 seizer mahazar and signature of PW11 marked at Ex.P4(c). But, panchas said to Ex.P4 seizer mahazar namely PW5 Madhu and PW6 Manivannan, examined at before the court, both PW5 and PW6 turned hostile in total with respect to Ex.P4 seizer mahazar except identified 34 SC No. 917/2023 their signature as per Ex.P4(a) and Ex.P4(b) respectively. With that background, Ex.P2 spot mahazar and Ex.P4 seizer mahazar not been proved by the prosecution as independent witness not to supported the same such of the prosecution case.
25. Further, according to the prosecution accused No.1 to 3 who they have being common intention to killed the CW2 injured, Accused No.3 take out a long knife from his shirt and assaulted on the head of CW2. Further, accused No.3 try to assaulted on CW2 with another blow, but CW2 pushed him away. An account of such assault on CW2 it started to bleeding the blood profusely. Thereby CW2 was taken the treatment in various hospital including the Nimhans. According to prosecution CW1 is the wife of CW2 and CW1 and CW2 reside at the house of accused No.1 as a tenant. To know the truth on prosecution the testimony of PW1 and PW3 have take its own meaning, as because PW1 and PW3 are be the ocular witness to the incident.
35 SC No. 917/2023Law very much settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India to kind of an offence of assault, if once ocular witness testimony corroborated with the medical evidence, its more enough to convicted the accused and no other corroborative evidence required. Prosecution case in against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 307 of IPC. Thereby, the testimony of PW3 injured and PW9 Dr. Mahendra have called it own attention through such of the witness testimony. According to PW3, PW3 sustained injury and he took the treatment at before PW9 Dr. Mahendra and Dr. Mahendra treated PW3 injured for that event, PW9 Dr. Mahendra issued Ex.P8 Wound certificate to PW11. If it appreciated the testimony of PW3 injured and PW9 Dr.Mahendra along with Ex.P8 wound certificate, Ex.P8 wound certificate evidence, injury cause to PW3 are in the nature of simple. As to make believe the testimony of PW9 Dr.Mahendra and Ex.P8 wound certificate, the cross-examination portion of PW9 have take its own meaning. For my convenience 36 SC No. 917/2023 few admissions which admitted by PW9 drafted herein; It is true to suggest that, I have not mentioned the MLC number in the wound certificate. Further, it is true to suggest that, at the instance of police, I have given false wound certificate. Thereby the testimony of PW9 and Ex.P8 wound certificate have not sured the prosecution case and in its alternatively creates serious doubts on Ex.P8 wound certificate If the testimony of PW9 once to be available in the case record as in the above how could it possible to say medical evidence corroborated with the evidence of ocular witness. True, if it go through the testimony of PW1 and PW3, where in the testimony of PW1 and PW3, PW1 and PW3 have deposed the case with respect to the dispute of landlord and tenant. Further, if it go through the testimony of PW1 and PW3 where in the chief examination of PW1 and PW3 it could saw the material, person who worn the helmet do have assaulted on PW3. Case of the prosecution is, accused No.1 to 3 and another 37 SC No. 917/2023 one accused have the common intention to murder PW3, accused No.3 hit on the head of PW3 by means of iron knife. If it compare the same case of prosecution to the testimony of PW1 and PW3, where in the cross examination of PW1 it could saw the material as PW1 admitted suggestion accused No.1 was not assaulted the PW3. Further, if it go through the cross examination portion of PW3, PW3 also unequivocally admitted person who allegedly assaulted PW3 did not remove the helmet at the time of assault. But, PW3 voluntary stated he removed the glass visor of the helmet and further PW3 also unequivocally admits, when the glass visor allegedly removed he could see portion of the face of the person who assaulted on him. So from the deposition of PW3 one could adjudged PW3 could saw the portion of the face of the person who assaulted PW3. If suppose PW3 once he could deposed such an inconsistent evidence viz., he saw only the portion of the face of person and not in entirity 38 SC No. 917/2023 who assaulted PW3, then how it could possible to believe the truth on testimony of PW3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, even if cross examined by the prosecution to PW3 with respect to identification of accused No.3 at in the police station on a particular date, PW3 denied the same suggestion as false. According to the prosecution PW3 identified the photographs of Accused No.1 and 2 at in the police station on 12.04.2022 and same PW3 identified the photographs of accused No3 on 08.09.2023. As PW3 denied the same suggestion, further witness statement of PW3 as per Ex.P3 have also created serious doubts on the prosecution case with respect to identification of accused No.3 at in the police station. On that score also one could adjudged, identification of the accused No.3 by PW3 renders his dock identification less credible. Thereby testimony of PW1 and PW3 cannot constitute reliable evidence of identification of accused No.3. The same above all the observation finds in the record in the light of 39 SC No. 917/2023 judgment herein above cited. Admittedly, accused No.1 is the land lord of PW1 and PW3 and he used to reside in the same building said to reside by the PW1 and PW3. To make testify, whether accused No.1 to 3 have the common intention or accused No.1 to 3 have share the common intention to committed an offence also be the one more case of the prosecution. If it go through the chief examination of PW1 and PW3, where in the chief examination of PW1 and PW3 it could saw the material accused No.1 to 3 were going there looking towards to PW1 and PW3 in an aggressively. Further, where in the same chief examination of PW1 and PW3 it could also saw the material at the time of commission of offence, accused No.1 and 2 claimed the stair case and went to the terrace. From the same such deposition of PW1 and PW3 one could adjudged prior to commission of the offence or at the time of commission of the offence there is no contract in between accused No.1 and 2 with accused No.3 to commission of the offence.
40 SC No. 917/2023The Hon'ble Supreme court in time and again it settled the preposition of law, mere present and participation in commission of the offence not amount to called, the accused have all the common intention in committed the crime. Since, testimony of PW1 eye witness and PW3 ocular witness of the crime have not in the position to evidence the accused have only committed the offence and non else, it creates the serious doubts on the prosecution case. With that being of observation, I am of the opinion the prosecution fail to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in against the accused. Therefore, it utmost unsafe to convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 based on uncorroborated, improper and on the basis of non cogent evidence. Hence, accused Nos.1 to 3 is entitled to sail on benefit of doubt available in the case record. Accordingly, I have answered Points No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
26. From the above all observation it come to conclusion, the prosecution fail to 41 SC No. 917/2023 bring home the guilt in against the accused No.1 to accused No.3 for all the alleged offences. The complainant police have submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 307 IPC, as per the prosecution PW3 is the victim of the crime. According to deposition of PW1 and PW3, PW3 sustained a bleeding injury on his head in the crime. Further, according to deposition of PW1 and PW3, PW3 took the treatment at in the various hospital by invested the money. The same money invested by the PW3 certainly it would need to compensate by the State Government since accused No.1 to 3 entitled the benefits of doubts. The exercise of same such power also permitted to this court U/s 357A of Cr.PC. Hence by Acting Under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. hereby directed the District Legal Service authorities for determination of the adequate compensation to PW3 injured Sri. Suresh Kumar with respect to the money invested for his medical treatment. Accordingly, directed the District Legal Service Authority, the District 42 SC No. 917/2023 Legal Service Authority should called PW3 injured and decide the quantum of compensation and award the same to rehabilitation of PW3 for the crime.
27. Point No.3:- In view of the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos.1 to 3 have acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
In compliance to section 437(A) of Cr.P.C accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute personal bond and surety bond for the likesum, same shall be continued for period of 6 months from today in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
By Acting Under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. directed District Legal Service authorities for determination of the adequate compensation to PW3 injured Sri. Suresh Kumar with respect to the money invested for his 43 SC No. 917/2023 medical treatment and agony. Further, the District Legal Service Authority, should called PW3 injured and decide the quantum of compensation and award the same to rehabilitation of PW3 for the crime. For comply the same it directed the office of this court, to place the case record at before the District Legal Service authorities forthwith.
M.O.1 shall be confiscated to the Exchequer after lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer, typed by her, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 17 th day of November, 2025).
(ONKARAPPA R) XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.44 SC No. 917/2023
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Stella Mary P.W.2 K.M. Chandru P.W.3 Suresh Kumar P.W.4 Saleem P.W.5 Madhu P.W.6 Manivannan P.W.7 Udaykumar P.W.8 Balaji V P.W.9 Mahendra P.W.10 Vimalanathan P.W.11 Anwar Khan
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2(c) Signature of Pw4
Ex.P2(d) Signature of PW11
Ex.P3 Statement of PW3
Ex.P4 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW6
Ex.P4(c) Signature of PW11
Ex.P5 Statement of PW5
45 SC No. 917/2023
Ex.P6 Statement of PW6
Ex.P7 Report of CW11
Ex.P7(a) Signature of CW11
Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P8 Wound certificate
Ex.P8(a) Signature of CW10
Ex.P8(b) Signature of PW11
Ex.P9 Statement of CW8
Ex.P10 FIR
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P11 & 12 Two photos
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution: -
M.O.1 - One mobile phone 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), XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.