Bangalore District Court
Ramamurthy Nagar P S vs Shoobuz Sheik @ Shoobuz on 20 November, 2025
KABC0A0042062021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C.No.1252/2021
COMPLAINANT : State by Police Inspector,
Ramamurthynagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED : Sobuj Sheik @ Sobuj,
S/o. Kalam Sheik,
Aged about 30 years,
Permanent address Chinkola
Village, Shinasolpur Post,
Narail District, Kulna Division,
Bangladesh.
Present Address:
7th Cross, Maragondanahalli
Bidirahalli Hobli, Bengaluru.
(By Sri R.K., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of Offence : 02-06-2021
2. Date of report of Offence : 02-06-2021
Cont'd..
2 SC.No.1252/2021
3. Date of arrest of accused : 18-06-2021
4. Date of release of accused on bail : Accused is in JC
5. Period of undergone in Custody : Y M D
(during pre-trial) Accused is in JC
6. Name of the Complainant : Shivaraj Garasangi.
7. Commencement of trial : 30-01-2023
8. Closing of evidence : 30-12-2024
9. Offences complained of : under Section 332,
353, 307 of IPC and
Section 25 of Arms Act.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Person found
guilty, hence, he is convicted.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by the C.W.26/P.W.12- Sathish H. S., The Police Inspector, Banaswadi Police Station, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 332, 353, 307 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under :-
That, accused was declared as proclaimed offender in case pertaining to Crime No.179/2021 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station. As per instruction 3 SC.No.1252/2021 and direction of higher authorities, C.W.1 - Shivaraj Garasangi, PSI and his staff C.W.14 to C.W.16 were deputed to apprehend or nab the accused. On 02.06.2021 at or about 6.30 a.m., C.W.1, his staff and staff of Hoyasala Van, who are C.W.14 to C.W.18 all of them as per credible information went to shed, situated near Rampur pond Rajakaluve. The C.W.1 and his staff took custody of accused from said shed and boarded him in Hoyasala Van. At that time, accused informed complainant that, he want to attend natural call. The C.W.15 -Ningaraju H.C. removed handcuff fixed to accused. At that time, accused with an intention to flee from custody pushed C.W.15, who was on official duty.
Having seen the same, C.W.14- Devendra Naik H.C. tried to catch accused. The accused removed button knife concealed in pant and with an intention to commit murder of C.W.4 tried to inflict injury on his person. When C.W.4 bring his hand to escape from assault by accused, he sustained injuries on his right hand. When complainant and C.W.15 have tried to catch the accused, he tried to assault complainant with knife, when complaint bring his hand to escape from assault 4 SC.No.1252/2021 by accused he sustained injuries on his hand. The accused with an intention or having knowledge under given circumstances such an act by him would cause death of C.W.14 and C.W.1. Further, accused by his act illegally obstructed complainant his staff from discharging their official duty. Hence, the complaint.
3. Thereafter, based on complaint of Complainant, C.W.26/P.W.12 - Sathish H.S., a case was registered in Crime No.179/2021 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station for aforesaid offences and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
4. On filing of charge sheet, committal court has taken cognizance of offence and secured presence of accused who were in judicial custody. The copy of Charge Sheet was furnished to Accused as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter heard both sides, case has been committed to Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Court Bangalore. The Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Court Bangalore on receipt of committal records has taken cognizance of offence U/s.193 of Cr.P.C on 26.10.2021 registered the case in 5 SC.No.1252/2021 S.C.No.1252/2021 and made over the same to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
5. This court, on receipt of records, secured presence of accused, who is in Judicial Cutody and charge came to be framed on 31.03.2022, same being read over and explained to accused in language known to him, he pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial, therefore trial was taken up against him.
6. The Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has examined in all 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 out of 26 witnesses cited in the Charge Sheet, got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.13 in support of their case.
7. After conclusion of Prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., of the Accused were recorded in respect of the incriminating materials existing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused has denied those incriminating materials as false. The accused have not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
6 SC.No.1252/2021
8. Upon hearing on both sides and on perusal of material on records, the points that arose for my consideration is as under :-
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in case pertaining to Cr.No.179/2021 of Ramamurthynagar Police Station, as per direction of Higher Authorities, C.W.1 - Shivaraj Garasangi, PSI and his staff, C.W.14 to C.W.16 were deputed to trace accused, on 02.06.2021 at or about 6.30 a.m., C.W.1, his staff and Hoysala Van Staff C.W.17 and C.W.18 all of them as per credible information come to shed situated near Rampur pond, Rajkaluve within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthynagar Police Station and took accused in custody from said shed and boarded accused in Hoysala Van, at that time, accused informed to C.W.1 that, accused have to go for natural call, when C.W.15 removed handcuff fixed to accused, at that time, with an intention to escape from lawful custody, accused pushed C.W.15, who was on official duty and thereby use of 7 SC.No.1252/2021 criminal force prevented these officials from discharging their official duty, thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC?
2. Whether prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on above date, place and time, when you tried to escape from lawful custody of C.W.1 and his other staff, C.W.14 -
Devendra Naik, Head Constable tried to catch accused, at that time, accused removed button knife concealed in accused pant pocket and tried to assault him, C.W.14 to escape from such assault brought his hand to save him and sustained injuries by knife on hand and accused also assaulted C.W.1 on his left hand palm, thereby accused injuries to these public servants with an intent to prevent those public servants from discharging their official duty, thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC?
3. Whether prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on above date, place and time, when 8 SC.No.1252/2021 accused tried to escape from lawful custody of C.W.1 and his staff, when they come forward to take accused into custody, accused by using knife with an intention or knowledge under given circumstances such an act would cause death of C.W.14 and C.W.1, you inflicted injury on their hands with knife, thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC?
4. What order?
9. My answers to the above issues are as under-
POINT No.1 - In the affirmative;
POINT No.2 - In the affirmative;
POINT No.3 - In the negative;
POINT No.4 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
10. POINT No.1 TO 3:- As these points are inter- related to each other, requires common appreciation of facts and evidence on record, findings on one point are bearing on other points, in order to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience sake, these points are taken together for common discussion.
9 SC.No.1252/2021
11. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt as alleged against him, first of all to prove complainant- P.W.1 - Shivaraj Garasangi and his staff were on official duty on date of alleged incident. In this regard, P.W.1/Shivaraj Garasangi - Police Sub-Inspector in his complaint as per Ex.P.1 as well as in his evidence before the court has specifically stated, on 01.06.2021 Sri Ningappa Basappa Sakri - Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banaswadi Sub-Division has directed himself and his staff C.W.14 to C.W.16 to apprehend absconded accused in case pertaining to Cr.No.175/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 376(d) of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act and Section 14 of Foreigners Act.
12. The C.W.14 - Devendra Naik who examined P.W.4 in his evidence before the court has deposed, P.W.1, he himself, C.W.15 and C.W.16 were deputed to apprehend accused, who was required for them in rape case.
13. The P.W.1 - Shivaraj Garasangi - PSI further stated in his complaint and in his evidence before court 10 SC.No.1252/2021 that, he himself, his staff, as well as Hoysala Van staff who are C.W.18 and C.W.19 had been to shed, situated near Rampur pond, Rajakaluve to apprehend accused. The C.W.19 - Chethan - Head Constable who examined as P.W.5 has deposed before court, on 01.06.2021 he was working as in-charge of Hoysala -58 vehicle. It is further deposed by P.W.5 that, at or about 6.00 a.m., P.W.1/Shivaraj Garasangi - PSI telephone him and directed to go to Kalkere Channel.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, C.W.26/ Satish H. - Police Inspector, who conducted investigation of case has deposed, P.W.1 and his staff based on credible information had been to place of offence to apprehend the accused, who was declared as proclaimed offender in case pertaining to Cr.No.175/2021 of Ramamurthy Nagar. While cross- examining P.W.12, it is suggested, there are many cases registered against accused, same has been admitted by witness.
15. On combined appreciation of contents of Ex.P.1, evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.12 as 11 SC.No.1252/2021 mentioned above and it is not seriously disputed, there are other cases registered against accused. It is sufficiently proved by prosecution that, the Higher Officials and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banaswadi Sub-Division has deputed complainant and his staff to apprehend accused, who required for them in case pertaining to Cr.No.175/2021 of Ramamurthynagar Police Station.
16. The prosecution with aid of an evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.12 has sufficiently proved as on 02.06.2021 when complainant and his staff as well as Hoysala Staff had been to shed, situated near Rampur pond, Rajakaluve, they were on official duty. In addition, nowhere in cross-examination of these witnesses, it is suggested on date of alleged incident, complainant and his staff were not on official duty and they were not discharging their official duty.
17. Looking into allegation against accused, prosecution has to further prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused by his act and use of criminal force prevented P.W.1 and his staff from discharging their 12 SC.No.1252/2021 official duty and also he caused injuries with weapon to complainant and his staff while they were discharging their official duty with an intent to prevent those public servants from discharging their official duty.
18. It is specifically stated by P.W.1 in his complaint as per Ex.P.1 and same is deposed by him before court in his examination-in-chief as well as it is deposed by P.W.4 and P.W.5 that, based on credible information they had been to a shed situated near Rampur pond Rajakaluve and at or about 5.45 a.m., they apprehend accused. It is specifically and categorically deposed by P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 that, when accused was in their custody, he requested them to allow him to attend nature call.
19. It is specifically deposed by P.W.1 in his cross- examination, after taking accused in their custody they moved approximately 50 feet away from shed, accused requested them allow him to attend nature call. It is specific say of P.W.1 that, they put handcuff to left hand of accused and they removed handcuff to allow him to attend nature call. It is further say of P.W.1 that, when 13 SC.No.1252/2021 handcuff removed, accused pulled out knife from his pant pocket and assaulted him and C.W.14.
20. The P.W.4 in his evidence before the court has stated, accused requested allow him to attend nature call. It is further say of P.W.4 that, he himself and C.W.15/ Ningaraju - Head Constable followed the accused. Suddenly accused removed knife from his pocket and assaulted him on his hand. It is further say of P.W.4 that, accused also assaulted on P.W.1 with knife.
21. As per say of P.W.1 and P.W.4, they are injured and they sustained such injuries by the act of accused while they were on official duty and discharging official duty. The P.W.5/ Chethan - Head Constable who is eye-witness and who was also on duty has deposed, accused assaulted C.W.15/Ningaraju with knife and pushed him. The P.W.5 in his cross- examination has specifically stated, accused picked out knife from his pant and caused injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.4. Accused further tried to flee away along with knife.
14 SC.No.1252/2021
22. The P.W.7 who is also another eye-witness, who was on duty with P.W.1 and other staff has deposed, accused requested to allow him to attend nature call. C.W.14, C.W.15 and C.W.1 took him for nature call. Accused pushed C.W.15 and assaulted him with knife. This witness has also stated, accused picked out knife from his pant and assaulted on P.W.1 and P.W.4.
23. The P.W.8/ Dr. Kiran, who treated injured has deposed, on 02.06.2021 at or about 8.00 a.m., he was working as Doctor at Koshis Hospital, Bengaluru and treated Devendra Naik and Shivaraj Garasangi, who are P.W.4 and P.W.1 respectively and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P.7 and P.8 respectively.
24. The P.W.12/Satish H. investigating officer in his evidence before court has deposed, he collected wound certificates of P.W.1 and P.W.4 during investigation of case through C.W.22.
25. The P.W.9/Naranayana Swamy, who is one of the witnesses to spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in his evidence deposed, on 02.06.2021 at or about 9.30 a.m., 15 SC.No.1252/2021 he himself and C.W.5/ M.P. Dinesh had been to Ramamurthynagara Police Station and thereafter along with police and they had been to scene of offence. The witness has specifically stated, in his presence spot mahazar has been conducted at place of offence and knife - M.O.1 seized from place of offence.
26. The P.W.14/M.P. Dinesh also in his evidence has deposed, in the year 2022 police have took him to place of offence and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and took photos as per Exs.P.9 to P.18 at the time said mahazar. The witness has specifically stated, at the time of mahazar police have seized knife as per M.O.1 from place of offence.
27. The P.W.10/ Madhu, who is one of the witnesses to seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.19 has deposed, while conducting seizure mahazar in his presence police have seized blood stained shirt of C.W.14/P.W.4 which is marked as M.O.11. In Ex.P.2 it is clearly mentioned, about 77 feet away from rain tree towards Eastern side knife was found and it was seized. In Ex.P.18- photo knife laying on ground is forthcoming. 16 SC.No.1252/2021
28. In view of evidence of witnesses as mentioned above, the P.W.1 and P.W.4 being injured have specifically stated, accused assaulted them with knife and caused injuries to them. The P.W.5 and P.W.7 who were also present and they being staff of Hoysala Van specifically stated, accused has assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.4, who were on duty and caused injuries to them with knife. The Doctor who treated injured has deposed, he issued wound certificate in respect of P.W.1 and P.W.4 as per Exs.P.7 and P.8 respectively. As per say of P.W.10 and P.W.14, knife alleged to have been used by accused to assault P.W.1 and P.W.4 has been seized from scene of crime as could be forthcoming in Ex.P.18
- photo.
29. It is pertinent to note here that, an evidence of injured P.W.1 and P.W.4 is supported by eye-witnesses who are P.W.5 and P.W.7. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that, evidence of injured persons lends more credence because normally he would not falsely implicate a person in crime. In this regard, learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1198 17 SC.No.1252/2021 in case of Vijay Shankar Shinde and Others VS. State of Maharashtra, wherein it is held that, evidence of injured persons who is examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he would not falsely and implicate a person thereby protecting actual assailant.
30. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has argued that, it is deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.7 that, they did search of accused before getting accused into Jeep. It is not properly explained how knife come in possession of accused suddenly. Further it is argued that, nature of injuries sustained by police officials are simple in nature. If story projected by police is true, accused would have inflicted grievous injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.4 with alleged use of knife.
31. It is further argued on behalf of learned counsel for accused that, at one stretch material witnesses relied by prosecution have deposed, accused has tried to flee away from custody of police. At another stretch they have deposed, accused attacked them. Two acts at the same time are not possible. Chain of events 18 SC.No.1252/2021 not corroborated by witnesses. As such, story of prosecution cannot be taken as gospel truth.
32. The learned counsel for accused in support of his arguments has drawn evidence of P.W.1, wherein said in witness in his cross-examination has deposed, they did search of accused in normal way. P.W.5 in his cross-examination has deposed, after apprehending accused, they have collected all his belongings. The learned counsel for accused further drawn, attention of court to cross-examination of P.W.8, wherein Doctor has deposed, it is true that, contusion can be caused with blunt object and all injuries mentioned in Exs.P.7 and P.8 are simple in nature.
33. It is worth to note here that, either P.W.1, P.W.5 or P.W.7 have not specifically stated, they did search of accused thoroughly when he was taken towards Jeep. What these witnesses have stated, they did search of accused in normal way. Fact to be noted here, all material witnesses including injured have specifically stated, accused has removed knife from his pocket. Taking into note of length of M.O. 1-knife, it 19 SC.No.1252/2021 can very well be inferred, knife used by accused for commission of offence can be safely concealed in pant pocket by accused.
34. It is worth to note here that, it is mentioned in Ex.P.1 - complaint that, accused requested the police to allow him to attend nature call, at that time they removed handcuff of accused, accused tried to push C.W.14 and C.W.15 and tried to flee away from spot. It is specifically stated by P.W.1 and P.W.4 as well as eye- witnesses, when police again tried to caught hold the accused, he assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.4 by using knife. Looking into evidence of injured and eye-witnesses as referred above, contention of learned counsel for accused wherein he has contended, at one stretch police have stated, accused tried to flee away and at another stretch they have stated, accused attacked them, two acts at same time not sustainable cannot be worth appreciable.
35. As per say of injured and eye-witnesses, an act of accused being to tried to flee away from place of offence and then accused assaulted or attacked P.W.1 20 SC.No.1252/2021 and P.W.4 are not simultaneously. Attacking of police officials by accused is subsequent to he tried to escape from custody of police. An evidence of injured and eye- witnesses itself sufficient to hold that, an act of accused being tried to flee from custody of complainant and his staff is followed by his act of accused assaulting P.W.1 and P.W.4.
36. As already discussed, it is true, the Doctor who treated injured and issued wound/injury certificate in his cross-examination, has admitted, contusion mentioned in wound certificate caused by blunt objects but he has clearly denied suggestion of learned counsel for accused that, M.O.1-knife cause only incised wound. The P.W.8/Doctor being Expert has further clarified, if M.O.1-knife is swing aberration injuries can be caused.
37. It is true, as contended by learned counsel for accused that, there are some contradiction in evidence of prosecution witnesses. The P.W.1 and P.W.4 in their evidence have deposed, while they were taking accused towards vehicle, accused requested them to allow him to attend nature call. The P.W.5 and P.W.7 in their 21 SC.No.1252/2021 evidence have deposed, when they took accused in Hoyasala Van he requested the police allow him to attend nature call.
38. Taking into note of above mentioned facts, those contradiction in evidence of above mentioned witnesses are not material contradictions so as to discard or disbelieve entire evidence of witnesses on record, which would be otherwise reliable. In this regard, learned Public Prosecutor has rightly relied upon decision reported in AIR 2012 SC 1979 in case of Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P. wherein it is held that, the court must make an attempt to separate grain from chaff, the truth from falsehood, at this could only be possible when the truth is separable from falsehood. The court should not give undue important to minor discrepancy which do not sake basic version of prosecution case.
39. The learned Public Prosecutor has further relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Criminal Appeal No.11/2000 in case of Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), wherein it is 22 SC.No.1252/2021 held that, the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witnesses. There is no principle of law that, without corroboration by independent witnesses their witness cannot be relied upon. The presumption that, a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds.
40. On proper and careful appreciation of evidence of complainant/P.W.1, injured P.W.4, eye-witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.7, there is consistency and corroboration in evidence of these witnesses wherein they have specifically stated, the accused was proclaimed offender in case pertaining to Crime No.175/2021 of Ramamurthynagar Police Station. In order to show, there was case registered against accused in Cr.No.175/2021 and some other cases, prosecution produced FIR in Cr.No.175/2021 and FIR in Cr.No.55/2021 as per Ex.P.23 before court. 23 SC.No.1252/2021
41. Further these material witnesses have specifically stated, they were on duty to apprehend the accused as per direction of higher authorities, when they apprehended accused in a shed situated near Rampur Pond Rajakaluve, accused by his act illegally obstructed these public officers in discharge of their official duty. Further, they have specifically stated, the accused voluntarily caused hurt/injury to P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are public servants in discharge of their official duty with an intent to prevent them from discharge their duty as public servants.
42. It is important to note here that, the P.W.1/complainant in his complaint has specifically alleged against accused that, accused with an intention to commit murder of complainant and P.W.4 assaulted on them with knife. It is further say of complainant that, in his self defense he fired bullet to the left leg of accused with service revolver/pistol. The learned counsel for accused has argued that, there are certain guidelines issued by Government and Department how to use weapon in case of self defense. It is further 24 SC.No.1252/2021 argued, it is not explained by complainant, why pistol was not fully loaded. Further, test firing was not done by scientific officer/FSL.
43. The learned counsel for accused drawn, attention of court to evidence of P.W.3/Senior Scientific Officer, wherein he has stated at scene of crime he found two 9 MM empty cartridge. In cross-examination it is deposed by P.W.3 that, one empty cartridge found at 80 feet from rain tree on Eastern side and another cartridge found at 82 feet away from rain tree on Northern side. The P.W.12/Investigation Officer has deposed, on date of incident P.W.3/ Senior Scientific Officer also come to place of offence. The P.W.12 has deposed, empty cartridge were found at the distance of 19 and 25 feet respectively. It is further stated by P.W.12, the Scientific Officer has not prepared rough sketch from place where bullets were fired by complainant. No test firing was done by Scientific officer by using lesser Gun. It is further deposed by P.W.12 that, Scientific Officer has not collected finger prints on pistol.
25 SC.No.1252/2021
44. Based on evidence of P.W.3, P.W.1 and P.W.12 as mentioned above, an attempt was made by learned counsel for accused to convience the court that, proper investigation was not done and scientific officer has also not properly examined scene of crime, empty cartridge, pistol scientifically.
45. It is pertinent to note here that, as per say of injured and eye-witnesses accused assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.4 with knife and caused injuries to them when they were on duty. The P.W.1 has specifically stated, when accused assaulted on himself and P.W.4 with knife and tried to flee from scene of offence he warned accused not to escape and opened first fire with pistol in air, even after that, accused tried to assault police and tried to flee from place, he shot accused on his left leg below knee. According to complainant, he opened fire at accused in his self defense.
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam v. State of Haryana, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 241 has held that, scope of right of private defence is further explained in Sections 102 and 105 IPC, which 26 SC.No.1252/2021 deal with commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of body and property respectively. According to these provisions the right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat, to commit offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. To put it pithily, the right of private defence is a defensive right. It is neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal. There is no right of private defence where there is no apprehension of danger. The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger not of self-creation. Necessity must be present, real or apparent.
47. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 333, was pleased to observe that, The 27 SC.No.1252/2021 following principles emerge on scrutiny of the following judgments:
(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.
(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.
(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.
(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension.
(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.
(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or 28 SC.No.1252/2021 much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.
(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.
(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.
(ix) The Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.
(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.
48. As per say of complainant, another injured and eye witnesses, accused suddenly removed knife from his pant pocket and assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.4 and caused injuries to them. Though injuries sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.4 are simple in nature, as observed in above decisions, mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defense into operation.
49. In the light of principles laid down in above decisions and looking into circumstances of case, P.W.1 29 SC.No.1252/2021 has used reasonable restraint and force to exercise his right of private defense. The accused aware that, against him there are other criminal cases have been filed and he was declared as proclaimed offender. Accused instead of co-operating police to arrest him, he assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.4 using knife so as to escape from their custody and thereby obstructed police in discharge of their official duty.
50. It is not so much relevant at what distance complainant/P.W.1 fired at accused and how he fired and also it is not so much relied seizure of pistol by conducting mahazar and examination of these pistol, cartridge, bullets by Expert. Because it is not allegation of prosecution against complainant/P.W.1 he exceeded his act in exercising his right of private defence.
51. Now coming to offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC as alleged against accused, there is sufficient evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.4 and his intention was to escape from custody of police and not to commit murder of complainant and P.W.4. Further more, P.W.1 and 30 SC.No.1252/2021 P.W.4 have sustained simple injuries and those injuries caused by accused to these persons are not on vital parts of their body. As such, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC not proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
52. As already discussed supra, there is sufficient, corroborative and reliable evidence of prosecution witnesses to say, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 353 and 332 of IPC. As such, accused has committed offence punishable under Section 353 and 332 of IPC. Hence, I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and Point No.3 in the negative.
53. POINT No.4 :- In view of discussion made on point No.1 to 3 as above, this Court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Acting under provisions of Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused Sobuj Sheik @ Sobuj S/o. Kalam Sheik is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 332 of IPC.
31 SC.No.1252/2021Acting under provisions of Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused Sobuj Sheik @ Sobuj S/o. Kalam Sheik is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
Matter is posted for hearing
regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2025).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Shivaraj Garasangi.
P.W.2 : Gopal.
P.W.3 : Dr. Srinivas M.
P.W.4 : Devendra Naik.
P.W.5 : Chethana.
P.W.6 : Sunil.
P.W.7 : Ramesh Rathod.
P.W.8 : Dr. J. Kiran.
P.W.9 : V. Narayanaswamy.
32 SC.No.1252/2021
P.W.10 : Madhu.
P.W.11 : Mounesh.
P.W.12 : Sathish H.S.
P.W.13 : Vikram Shetty.
P.W.14 : M.P.Dinesh.
2. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signatures.
and P.1(b)
Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar.
Ex.P.2(a) : Signatures.
to P.2(d)
Ex.P.3 : Seizure mahazar.
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.4 : Statement of P.W.2.
Ex.P.5 : FSL test report.
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.6 : Sample seal.
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature.
Exs.P.7 : Wound certificates.
and P.8
Ex.P.7(a) : Signatures.
and P.8(a)
Exs.P.9 : Photographs.
to P.18
Ex.P.19 : Seizure mahazar.
Ex.P.19(a) : Signatures.
and P.19(b)
Ex.P.20 : FIR.
Ex.P.20(a) : Signature.
33 SC.No.1252/2021
Ex.P.21 : Sketch.
Ex.P.22 : Wound certificate.
Ex.P.23 : FIR.
Ex.P.24 : Letter dated 23.06.2021.
Ex.P.24(a) : Signature.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
NIL
4.EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
NIL
5.MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 : Knife. M.O.2 : Empty cartridge. & M.O.3 M.O.4 : Sample mud. & M.O.5 M.O.6 : Gun/Pistol. M.O.7 : Live bullets. to M.O.9 M.O.10 : Jeans pant. M.O.11 : T-Shirt (pink color)
M.O.12 : Accused shirt (purple color) M.O.13 : Jeans pant.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru. 34 SC.No.1252/2021 ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE The Accused produced through V.C. The Defense counsel present.
The Accused submitted that he is innocent and in judicial custody. The Accused claims that he has been already convicted in other cases. He is the only bread earning members in the family and thereby requested to take lenient view while awarding sentence.
The Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that this is a serious offense committed by accused against whom already case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 14 of Foreigners Act. The criminal mind of accused needs to be viewed very seriously. Without there being any reason, the accused has committed offence against officials who were on official duty. Hence, the Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that accused deserves no mercy. Hence, learned PP claimed that the Accused needs to be granted Maximum punishment and maximum imprisonment.
Herd both side Perused the records.
35 SC.No.1252/2021It is fact that, against accused already cases have been registered under provisions Foreigners Act and under Provisions of IPC. The accused also declared as proclaimed offender. Accused is very well aware about case registered against him and he has been already declared as proclaimed offender in those cases. Such being the facts, when P.W.1 along with his staff arrested accused, instead of co-operating with police, accused by his act caused obstruction to police in discharge of their official duty and also assaulted them with knife and caused injuries to them. Looking at all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the Accused Person deserves to be convicted as under. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Invoking the provisions of Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years for the offense punishable under Section 353 of IPC, and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine, he shall further undergo SI for two months.36 SC.No.1252/2021
The accused further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 years for the offense punishable under Sec.332 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default to pay fine, he shall further undergo SI for four months.
Sentence as mentioned above shall run concurrently.
As per provisions of Sec.428 of Cr.P.C., the period which the accused is undergone as judicial custody shall be set off against the period of his sentence of imprisonment as mentioned above.
M.O.4 and M.O.5 sample mud, M.O.10 -
Jeans pant of accused, M.O.11 - T-Shirt of P.W.4/Devendra Naik, M.O.12 - T-shirt of accused, M.O.13 - Jeans pant of accused being worthless ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period provided for filing appeal against judgment and order passed in present case.37 SC.No.1252/2021
Interim order of release of M.O.6 - Gun/ Pistol, M.O.7 to M.O.9 live bullets and M.O.2 and 3 - Empty cartridge made absolute after expiry of appeal period provided for filing appeal against judgment and order passed in present case.
Office is directed to furnish copy of judgment to the accused immediately.
XXVIII ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.38 SC.No.1252/2021