Bangalore District Court
Ramachandra N vs Chandra on 21 April, 2026
KABC030730912018
Presented on : 03-10-2018
Registered on : 03-10-2018
Decided on : 21-04-2026
Duration : 7 years, 6 months, 18 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 21st day of April-2026
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.26958/2018
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 19.11.2016
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Person Chandra
S/o.Puttaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. C/o. Mariyamma Om
Judgment 2 C.C.No.26958/2018
Shakthi Temple,
Ganapathipura,
Chunchaghatta Main Road,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,. 387, 506 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 12.02.2021 accused is
pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 21.04.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 21.04.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.26958/2018
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
It is alleged that, on 07-09-2016 Subramanyapura police station in Crime No. 556/2016, U/sec., 143, 3 364(2) 384, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 In the said case, the accused was sent to judicial custody, the accused who was currently in judicial custody. Further, on 24-10-2016 between 02-27 PM from the Phone Number : 7795099107 00 and on 19-11-2016 between 02-21 PM from Mobile No : 9986044527 to Mobile Phone No. 9611381626 of Cw.1, the accused called the Cw.1 and asked the Cw.1 to withdraw the complaint he had filed against the accused and further asked the Cw.1 to give the money of Rs.5,62,500/- for the complaint he had filed and given life threat to the Cw.1 and thereby the accused has committed the above said offences punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC against the accused. The accused was released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been Judgment 4 C.C.No.26958/2018 framed and read over to the accused wherein he has denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.1 to 3 witnesses, this court repeatedly issued Summons and Proclamation, even though taken the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they have failed to secure these witnesses. Moreover, this case is 09 years old one. Hence, the said witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to the prosecution. In this regard this court relied on the following Hon'ble High Court, full bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely, whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a Magistrate can acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to apply for the issue of summons to any witness and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunity to serve the summons or to produce the witnesses, is the one that directly arises for determination Judgment 5 C.C.No.26958/2018 in these appeals. The second question which arises for determination by us incidentally is whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution does not apply for the issue of summons to any of the witnesses and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve the summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunities to serve the summons on the witnesses or to produce the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though the cases had been posted for hearing on various dates and summons had been issued to the witnesses for all the hearings, the witnesses were not produced on any of the hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued that the case would be disposed of without examining the witnesses if they are not produced the prosecution did not choose to let in any evidence and as such the Magistrate found that the prosecution had no evidence to let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar, 1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as Judgment 6 C.C.No.26958/2018 follows: "It was the duty of the prosecution to make necessary arrangements for the production of its witnesses.... The Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform what the reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which was a minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen. When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When Judgment 7 C.C.No.26958/2018 once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".
16. There are quite a number of decisions in which it had been held that an acquittal of the accused on the failure of the prosecution to produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v. Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ 1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v. Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v. Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ 1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973 Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v. Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v. Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker); State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965 Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ 1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v. Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v. Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker); Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad 25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960 Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR Judgment 8 C.C.No.26958/2018 1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S. Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR 1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these decisions, there are the following decisions in which it has been held that acquittal on the ground of non-production of witnesses by the prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution failed to produce their witnesses, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)'2 Cri LJ 537 (2), as follows: "Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."
Judgment 9 C.C.No.26958/2018 " In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed Khan's case, it was found on the facts that the prosecution was not at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material Judgment 10 C.C.No.26958/2018 on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully considering all the aforesaid decisions and the views expressed therein, we are of the view that if the prosecution had made an application for the issue of summons to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as already indicated by us and if still the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account of pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the Court had given it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then the Court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons cases, and we answer the two questions referred to us in the above terms.
Judgment 11 C.C.No.26958/2018 Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.1 to 3 witnesses are dropped, they are not secured since long time. Further, the Cw.6 is given up as prayed by the Lr.Sr.APP. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 02 witnesses out of 07 witnesses, as PW.1 to 3 and 04 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.
05. Thereafter examination of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused had denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead his side evidence. No documents are got marked on his behalf.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable that, on 07-09- 2016 Subramanyapura police station in Crime No. 556/2016, U/sec., 143, 3 364(2) 384, 504, 506 R/w sec., 149 In the said case, the accused was sent to judicial custody, the accused who was Judgment 12 C.C.No.26958/2018 currently in judicial custody. Further, on 24-10-2016 between 02-27 PM from the Phone Number : 7795099107 00 and on 19-11-2016 between 02-21 PM from Mobile No : 9986044527 to Mobile Phone No. 9611381626 of Cw.1, the accused called the Cw.1 and asked the Cw.1 to withdraw the complaint he had filed against the accused and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec,. 387 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable that, further the accused given life threat to Cw.1 and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec,. 506 of IPC?
3. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative Point No.2 : In The Negative Point No.3 : As per final order.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.26958/2018
REASONS
09. Point No.1: These points are inter connected to each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on records.
10. The Cw.6 Sampath Kumar, who is examined Pw.1 and police HC witness in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 15.12.2016, he was posted for day duty and when he reported to the police station at 08.30 am, Cw.7 asked him and Cw-6 to go to the jail and bring the accused to the court. Accordingly, he went to the central office and brought the said accused to the court and then took the said accused safely to the police station.
11. The Cw.7 Vajramuni, who is examined Pw.2 and IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 11.12.2016 at 03:30 PM, when he was in charge of the police station, he received the computerized complaint given by Cw-1 and registered a case and submitted the report Judgment 14 C.C.No.26958/2018 to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Then on 15.12.2016, a body warrant was issued against the accused in the Honorable Court, Cw-5 and 6 went to the Central Jail, caught the accused and produced him before the Honorable Court and then produced him before him. Then on 06.12.2016, he went to the Central Jail along with the accused, submitted a petition to the Central Jail Superintendent there and then conducted a panchanama with the accused in the presence of the accused, Cw-3 and 4, in Room 6, 1st floor, behind the separate security, from 03-00 to 04-00 in the afternoon. The mobile number used by the accused in the said case has not been found. Then he produced the accused before the Honorable Court. On the same day, he recorded the statement of Cw-2. Later, as the investigation was completed, he submitted a final report to the honorable court and the superiors as the charges against the accused were prima facie proven.
Further the learned counsel for the accused had cross examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile elicited from his mouth.
Judgment 15 C.C.No.26958/2018
12. The Cw.4 Suresh K Melmane, who is examined Pw.3 and ASI of JC of Gokak, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 16.12.2016 at 03:00 PM, Cw.7 along with his staff came to the accused at Room No. 6, 1st Floor, behind maximum security, with a search warrant. After that, the accused was searched in the said room and no mobile phone or other items were found. After that, a panchanama was conducted in the said room and his signature was obtained.
Further the learned counsel for the accused had cross examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile elicited from his mouth.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused No.1 cannot be held guilty of the alleged offence.
14. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.1 to 3 respectively this court issued so many times summons and proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police, they have failed to secure these witnesses and Cw.1 to 3 witnesses are dropped. Moreover, the non examination of the Judgment 16 C.C.No.26958/2018 materials witness is fatal to the prosecution case. As such the case against the accused is certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt. Regarding this I relied on the following Judgment held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 - AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon'ble Apex held thus hereunder:
''56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ''may be true''' but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of ''must be true''. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.''
15. Thus, the above Hon'ble Apex Court decision has opt to the present case on hand and in the present case, it is important to note that the IO's witnesses and police HC Judgment 17 C.C.No.26958/2018 witness has not proved the alleged commission of the offence by the accused with corroborative evidence. As such the accused has certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused to prove the prosecution case. Moreover, non examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution case. By considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, with the above observations, I Answer to the Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
16. Point No.3: In view of the Negative findings on the above Point No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER In the excise of powers Confirmed U/sec,.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable U/sec,.387, 506 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused and surety extended for further 6 months in order to Judgment 18 C.C.No.26958/2018 comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 21st day of April-2026) (Thimmaiah.G) 30 A.C.J.M., B'lore.
th ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Sampath Kumar
P.W.2 : Sri. Vajramuni
P.W.3 : Sri. Suresh.K
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Computerized Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.4 : Accused self statement
Judgment 19 C.C.No.26958/2018
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Digitally NIL signed by THIMMAIAH G THIMMAIAH G Date:
2026.05.02 12:21:54 +0530 (Thimmaiah.G) 30th A.C.J.M., B'lore. Judgment 20 C.C.No.26958/2018