Bangalore District Court
Basavanagudi Ps vs A1-R Deepak Alias Kalla Deepu on 5 January, 2026
1 SC 569/2018 Judgment
KABC010095572018
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70)
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2026
:Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A., LL.B(Hon`s), LL.M
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH 70)
S.C. No.569/2018
Complainant : State of Karnataka by
Basavanagudi Police Station.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
Accused No.1: Sri R.Deepak @ Kalla Deepu
s/o Ramanna
Aged about 31 years,
R/at no.120, 2nd Cross
Nanjappa Block,
Kempegowda Nagar,
Bengaluru-19.
(accused No.2 to 4 split up)
(Sri Yogendra.S. Advocate for
accused)
1 Date of commission of 30.10.2010
2 SC 569/2018 Judgment
offence;
2 Date of report of occurrence 30.10.2010
3 Name of complainant; S.Ramu
4 Date of commencement of 15.02.2023
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 08.09.2025
6 Offence complained of U/Sec.364A, 506, 120B
R/w Sec.34 of IPC
7 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted of
the offences alleged
JUDGMENT
This Sessions Case has arisen out of Crime No.370/2010 of Basavanagudi Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency laid the charge sheet against the accused No.1 alleging that he, along with other absconding accused persons, had kidnapped the victim, threatened him with death for the purpose of extorting money and had 3 SC 569/2018 Judgment also criminally intimidated him. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 364A of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
3. Upon receipt of the committal records, this Court secured the presence of the accused No.1, furnished copies of the prosecution papers in compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, framed charges for the aforesaid offences. The accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and accordingly, the case proceeded to trial.
4. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 10-10-2010 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused No.1 along with other absconding accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, forcibly pulled CW-1 into a Tata Indica car bearing Registration No. KA-05-AA-2831, assaulted him and, by showing deadly weapons, threatened him with death unless he paid money, thereby putting him under 4 SC 569/2018 Judgment fear of death.
5. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused No.1 and others illegally abducted the victim for the purpose of extracting money and during the course of such unlawful detention, criminally intimidated him with threats to his life.
6. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the vehicle alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was traced, verified through B-Extract obtained from the RTO and produced before the Investigating Officer. The victim was allegedly subjected to medical examination and the wound certificate was also collected in support of the prosecution case. After recording the statements of witnesses and completing all other formalities of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused No.1 by showing accused No.2 to 4 as absconding, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5 SC 569/2018 Judgment
7. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused No.1, the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW-1 to PW-4. PW-1, who was cited as an important witness to the alleged occurrence and mahazar proceedings, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile in material particulars. PW-2 is a retired Police Head Constable, who deposed with regard to tracing and production of the Tata Indica car alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. PW-3 is the then Police Inspector, who speaks about receiving the case file for further investigation, obtaining the B-Extract of the vehicle, recording statements of certain witnesses and receiving the vehicle produced by PW-2. PW-4 is the subsequent Investigating Officer, who has deposed with regard to continuation of investigation, execution of bail formalities, release of the vehicle to its owner and filing of the charge sheet before the Court.
8. It is also a matter of record that the prosecution has not examined CW-1 and CW-2, who are projected as the victim and a crucial witness to the mahazar. Further, 6 SC 569/2018 Judgment CW-4 to CW-6 were not examined, and CW-7, CW-9 to CW-11 were givenup by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it, thereby withholding several material witnesses from the scrutiny of this Court.
9. The prosecution has marked seven documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-7. Ex.P-1 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P-1(a) is the signature thereon. Ex.P-2 is the alleged statement of PW-1. Ex.P-3 is the report relating to tracing and production of the vehicle and Ex.P-3(a) and 3(b) are the signatures thereon. Ex.P-4 consists of the photographs of the Tata Indica car. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate and Ex.P-5(a) is the signature thereon. Ex.P-6 is the B-Extract of the vehicle and Ex.P-6(a) is the signature thereon. Ex.P- 7 is the vehicle release panchnama and Ex.P-7(a) is the signature of the witness thereon.
10. After completion of the evidence on prosecution side the statement of the accused No.1 U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The accused No.1 denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him, but not chosen to lead any evidence.
7 SC 569/2018 Judgment
11. This Court has heard the arguments of both sides and perused records carefully.
12. In the light of above materials and allegation of prosecution, following points arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on or before 30.10.2010, within the jurisdiction of Basavanagudi Police Station, the accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 to 4 were party to a criminal conspiracy and criminally conspired to forcibly kindnap CW1 for ransom, which is an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.120B of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 30.10.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Basavanagudi Police station, at D.V.G.Road, while CW1 went to Swagath Wineshop to purchase alcohol drinks, the accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 to 4, in furtherance of common intention to commit criminal offence, kidnapped CW1 for ransom, in white colour Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-05-
AA-2831 forcibly and threatened him with death for the purpose of extorting money and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.364A r/w 34 of IPC?
8 SC 569/2018 Judgment
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time, place and circumstances, in furtherance of common intention to commit criminal offence, accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 to 4, threatened CW1 threatened him with death for the purpose of extorting money and had also criminally intimidated him and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec.506 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. What order?
13. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 to 3:- In the Negative Point No.4:- As per final order, for the following:-
: REASONS :
14. POINTS NO.1 to 3:- This Court, being the Court of original jurisdiction exercising extraordinary power of appreciation of evidence in a case involving a grave charge of kidnapping for ransom punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, has meticulously, minutely and critically re-evaluated the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. The charge framed against the accused No.1 is of an 9 SC 569/2018 Judgment extremely grave nature carrying the punishment of death or life imprisonment. Therefore, the burden casts upon the prosecution is exceptionally heavy to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, the foundational facts of kidnapping, unlawful detention, threat to life, and demand of ransom. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the prosecution materials, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge this solemn burden imposed by law.
15. At the very outset, it is to be stated that the prosecution case fundamentally rests upon the alleged kidnapping and intimidation of CW-1, who is projected as the victim of the offence. However, in an act which strikes at the very root of the prosecution case, CW-1, who is the alleged kidnapped person and the most material witness to the occurrence, has not been examined before this Court at all. The non-examination of the alleged victim in a case of kidnapping for ransom is not a mere procedural lapse, but is a fatal defect which completely demolishes the very substratum of the prosecution case. In the absence of the 10 SC 569/2018 Judgment testimony of the victim, this Court is left only with conjectures and assumptions, which are wholly impermissible in a criminal trial.
16. The prosecution attempted to substitute this fatal lacuna by examining PW-1, who was projected as a mahazar witness and an injured witness. However, PW-1 has completely resiled from his earlier statement and has been treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW-1 has categorically deposed before this Court that he does not know what is written in Ex.P-1 mahazar, he does not remember giving any statement before the police and he has specifically denied the very incident of kidnapping, assault and intimidation attributed to the accused No.1 No.1 No.1. Even after subjected to rigorous cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing incriminating could be elicited from his mouth so as to connect the accused No.1with the alleged offence. Once the star witness of the prosecution turns hostile and disowns the case in its entirety, the prosecution case becomes devoid of its most vital evidentiary support.
11 SC 569/2018 Judgment
17. It is a settled position of criminal jurisprudence that while the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be rejected outright, the portion of such testimony can be relied upon only if it inspires confidence and receives independent corroboration. In the present case, PW-1 has not only failed to support the prosecution, but has fully demolished it. There is not an iota of independent corroborative evidence on record to support the abandoned version of PW-1. Therefore, the entire evidence of PW-1 becomes wholly unreliable for the purpose of sustaining a conviction under any of the charged offences.
18. The prosecution has further examined PW-2, a retired Police Head Constable, for the limited purpose of tracing and producing the Tata Indica car bearing No. KA- 05-AA-2831 alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. However, the evidence of PW-2 suffers from serious infirmities. PW-2 admits that no seizure mahazar was conducted at the place of trace, and the alleged recovery is said to have occurred nearly three years after the date of the alleged offence. The recovery is not 12 SC 569/2018 Judgment supported by any independent public witness. Further, no legally acceptable connecting link has been established between the accused No.1and the said vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The recovery of the vehicle under such doubtful circumstances cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence so as to fasten criminal liability upon the accused No.1.
19. PW-3 and PW-4 are official witnesses connected with investigation. Their evidence is entirely formal in nature. They speak about obtaining the B-Extract of the vehicle, recording of statements, production of the vehicle and filing of the charge sheet. However, it is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence of investigating officers cannot, by itself, substitute the absence of substantive evidence regarding the actual commission of the offence. Their evidence can only be used for corroborative purposes. When the core prosecution story itself stands collapsed due to the non-examination of the victim and the hostility of PW-1, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 cannot in any manner resurrect the prosecution case.
13 SC 569/2018 Judgment
20. The prosecution has also produced Ex.P-5, the wound certificate said to pertain to CW-1. However, the doctor who allegedly issued the wound certificate, viz., CW- 7, has been given up by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. In the absence of the medical officer being examined, the contents of Ex.P-5 remain unproved in the eye of law. The nature of injuries, their cause, their age and their nexus with the alleged occurrence remain shrouded in complete uncertainty. Thus, the alleged assault is left without any medical corroboration whatsoever.
21. It is also of great significance to note that CW-2, CW-4 to CW-6, who are all material witnesses to the case, have not been examined, and CW-9 to CW-11 have been given up. These witnesses are stated to be witnesses to the seizure, movement of the vehicle and other crucial stages of investigation. The deliberate withholding of these material witnesses casts a serious cloud of doubt upon the fairness and completeness of the prosecution case. It is a cardinal rule of criminal law that suppression of material 14 SC 569/2018 Judgment witnesses gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. Coming to the charge under Section 364A of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1kidnapped the victim, detained him and threatened to cause death with a demand for ransom. In the present case, not only is the victim not examined, but there is also absolutely no evidence on record to establish any demand for ransom, which is a sine qua non for attracting Section 364A IPC. Mere allegation of threat without proof of demand for ransom does not constitute an offence under Section 364A IPC. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 364A IPC are completely absent in this case.
23. With regard to the offence under Section 506 of IPC, criminal intimidation requires proof of threat with intent to cause alarm. In the present case, no witness has spoken about any specific threat in clear terms. The alleged victim is not before the Court. PW-1 has denied the occurrence itself. In the absence of any cogent evidence 15 SC 569/2018 Judgment proving threat and resultant alarm, the offence under Section 506 IPC is also not established.
24. As regards the charge under Section 120(B) of IPC, conspiracy is an independent offence which requires clear proof of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. Conspiracy is seldom proved by direct evidence but must be inferred from proved circumstances forming a complete chain. In the present case, when the principal offences themselves are not proved, there is absolutely no material on record to infer any prior meeting of minds or agreement between the accused No.1and any other person. The charge of conspiracy, therefore, falls flat on the ground.
25. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused No.1for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 and 120(B) of IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only insufficient but is riddled with serious legal infirmities, 16 SC 569/2018 Judgment contradictions and fatal omissions. The chain of circumstances is completely broken and incapable of pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused No.1.
26. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof, and the accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. In the present case, the doubts are not merely reasonable but are overwhelming and fundamental in nature. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of this, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
27. POINT NO.4:- In the light of finding on above points, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused R.Deepak is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond and surety bond of the 17 SC 569/2018 Judgment accused shall stand cancelled.
The seized property, if any, shall be disposed of in accordance with law after expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the SG-1 directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of January, 2026) (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:
PW1 N.Prakash
PW2 Kumarswamy K.B
PW3 Y.Nagaraj
PW4 Kiran.V
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Mahazar
Ex.P.1a Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2: Statement of PW1
Ex.P.3: Report
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW3
18 SC 569/2018 Judgment
Ex.P.4 Two photos
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.6 'B' extract of the vehicle
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.7 Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW4
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED;
Nil
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Nil LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by SHIRIN
SHIRIN JAVEED JAVEED ANSARI
ANSARI Date: 2026.01.08 12:50:26
+0530