Bangalore District Court
Rajarajeshwari Nagara P S vs A1 Rama on 2 May, 2025
KABC010305712019
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C.R. B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2025
S.C.No.1456/2019
Complainant: State by Rajarajeshwari Nagara
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused: 1. Rama @ Sampangirama,
S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.E-97/488, 8th cross,
Hosakere Halli, Bengaluru.
3. Arjun @ Bommi,
S/o Challappa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.884, 9th cross,
Bangarappa Nagara,
R.R. Nagara, Bengaluru.
4. Venkatesh N,
S/o Nalli Gowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.487, 2nd main road,
5th cross, Bangarappa Nagara,
Rajarajeshwari Nagara,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. J.V.S, Advocate)
2 S.C.No.1456/2019
Date of offences: 13.12.2017
Date of report of 13.12.2017
offences:
Name of complainant: Mahesh
Date of recording of 24.03.2023
evidence:
Date of closing of 04.10.2024
evidence:
Offence complained of: U/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 of IPC
Opinion of the judge: Acquittal
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is submitted by Police Sub-Inspector, Rajarajeshwarinagar Police station against the accused No.1, 3 and 4 for the offences punishable u/s. 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 504 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case:
The Complainant Mahesh has alleged that on 13/12/2017 at about 06.10 his relative Mohan had called stating that he along with Abishek were coming in bike from Nayandahalli towards Marappa Layout. At about 6.00 pm when they came near D'zousa nagar, Kohli of Bangarappa nagar, Rama, Bommi and another person were quarreling with one omni car driver, at that I stopped my bike and went to see the quarrel at that time the said four persons abused me in filthy language for that I asked why are you abusing. Bommi took my bike key and he went away, I and Abishek were pushing the bike and when he met Bommi, I asked for the keys but didn't give the key, I am coming with him you come and talk to him and ensure that keys are handed over. Accordingly, the complainant has stated he will be coming near Marappa Garden, Manjunatha bakery, when he came there, Mohan along with him brought Bommi, at that time complainant 3 S.C.No.1456/2019 asked Bommi why he taken the keys of his friend and asked to return the keys. At that time Bommi's friend Ram, Kohli and others of Bangarappa Layout came there in car and bikes and threatened why he has taken his friend with him, they having threatened complainant and Mohan they have assaulted him with long, rod and knife. When they were assaulting the complainant and Mohan to various parts of the body at that time bakery Manjunath his son Gopinath, Munirajus son Manjunath came to their rescue, at that time the accused persons ran away in car and bikes, later the Muniraju's son Manjunath has taken the complainant to BGS Hospital in Bolero Jeep. The complainant alleging the said facts complaint has lodged and on the basis of the said complaint the case in Crime No.284/2017 against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s. 143, 144, 147, 148,307, 504 r/w Sec.149 IPC.
The Police after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 10 for the offence punishable u/s. 143, 144, 147, 148,307, 504 r/w Sec.149 IPC.
3. The trial court after securing the presence of the accused No.1 to 10 have committed the case to Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and later the case has been made over to this Court. By securing the presence of accused No.1 and 2, this Court has framed the charges against them and read over and explained to them, however the accused persons pleaded not guilty of the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried, hence the trial was conducted.
4. The prosecution to prove their case has totally cited 26 witnesses as C.Ws.1 to 26. However, the prosecution was able to 4 S.C.No.1456/2019 secure and examine 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.16. In spite of issuance of proclamation against C.Ws.3 and 5, the Police have not published the same and hence their evidence was dropped. In so far as C.Ws.7, 10 an 13 are concerned, though proclamation was issued against them is duly published, they are not secured and as such, the evidence of C.Ws.6, 7 and 9 to 13 are dropped. C.Ws.8 and 17 are reported to be dead. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused No.1 and 2 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them, which was read over and explained to them. However, they have not chosen to lead any defense evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my consideration in both cases are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.12.2017 at about
6.00 p.m. at Marappa Extension, 1 st M ain, 3rd Cross, Opp. SLV Bakery, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with an object to commit an offence and used criminal force and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.143 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No. 1, 3 and 4 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like iron rod and knife, which can be used as a weapon of offense and are likely to cause death, and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.144 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, 5 S.C.No.1456/2019 time and place, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.147 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.148 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with other accused persons abused C.Ws.1 and 2 in filthy words and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.504 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with other accused persons with an intention to kill C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.307 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
7. What Order?
6. My answer to the above points are:
Points No.1 to 6: In the negative, Point No.7: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Points No.1 to 6: These points are taken together for discussion as they are interconnected to each other.
The Complainant Mahesh has alleged that on 13/12/2017 at about 06.10 his relative Mohan had called stating that he along with Abishek were coming in bike from Nayandahalli towards Marappa 6 S.C.No.1456/2019 Layout. At about 6.00 pm when they came near D'zousa nagar, Kohli of Bangarappa nagar, Rama, Bommi and another person were quarreling with one omni car driver, at that I stopped my bike and went to see the quarrel at that time the said four persons abused me in filthy language for that I asked why are you abusing. Bommi took my bike key and he went away, I and Abishek were pushing the bike and when he met Bommi, I asked for the keys but didn't give the key, I am coming with him you come and talk to him and ensure that keys are handed over. Accordingly, the complainant has stated he will be coming near Marappa Garden, Manjunatha bakery, when he came there, Mohan along with him brought Bommi, at that time complainant asked Bommi why he taken the keys of his friend and asked to return the keys. At that time Bommi's friend Ram, Kohli and others of Bangarappa Layout came there in car and bikes and threatened why he has taken his friend with him, they having threatened complainant and Mohan they have assaulted him with long, rod and knife. When they were assaulting the complainant and Mohan to various parts of the body at that time bakery Manjunath his son Gopinath, Munirajus son Manjunath came to their rescue, at that time the accused persons ran away in car and bikes, later the Muniraju's son Manjunath has taken the complainant to BGS Hospital in Bolero Jeep.
8. The prosecution in support of their case has examined P.Ws.1 to 9. According to the prosecution, C.W.1/ P.W.1- Mahesh is complainant and victim, C.W.2/ P.W.2- Mohan is eyewitness/Victim, C.W.6/ P.W.3- Sunil is the eyewitness, C.W.07/ P.W.4- Anant is the eyewitness, C.W.18/ P.W.5- Manjappa, C.W.19/ P.W.6-K.S.Kumar, CW.24/PW-7- Rangaswamy, C.W.26/ P.W.8- Munibasavayya and 7 S.C.No.1456/2019 C.W.24/ P.W.6 - Laxman.C are the Tahsildar, HC and ASI respectively.
9. P.W.1 being complainant as well as injured in this case has given complete goby evidence stating that he does not have any information of this case; he has not given any further statement to the Police about and he could not identify the machete. Whereas, he has identified his signature on complaint at Ex.P.1 and has stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and he signed the document in the Police station. As such, the prosecution has treated him as hostile witness and cross-examined him with the permission of the Court, wherein he was suggested the prosecution case that on the date, time and place of alleged incident, the accused No.1 and 2 restrained him and C.Ws.2 and 3 from proceeding further and accused No.1 blew a machete on C.W.3 and he escaped from the blow and fell down and when C.W.1 came for rescue of C.W.3, the accused No.1 with intention to commit the murder of C.W.1 assaulted with machete on his right leg and left palm and caused bleeding injuries. The learned Public Prosecutor has also suggested to P.W.1 that he has given the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and later by mentioning the names of accused persons, he has given further statement at Ex.P.2. However, the P.W.1 has denied all those suggestions and also denied the suggestion that though he has full information about this case and has given further statement as per Ex.P.2, in order to assist the accused persons, he he is deposing false evidence.
10. According to prosecution case, the P.W.1 came near Manjunatha bakery to meet P.W.2/ C.W.2 when the complainant came near Marappa garden Manjunatha bakery, there Mohan along with him 8 S.C.No.1456/2019 brought Bommi at that time complainant asked Bommi why he taken the keys of his friend and asked to return the keys. At that time Bommi's friend Ram , Kohli and others of Bangarappa Layout came there in car and bikes and threatened why he has taken his friend with him, they having threatened complainant and Mohan they have assaulted him with long, rod and knife. When they were assaulting the complainant and Mohan to various parts of the body at that time bakery Manjunath his son Gopinath, Muniraju's son Manjunath came to their rescue at that time the accused persons ran away in car and bikes, and as such, P.W.2 is an victim/eyewitness to the incident of this case. P.W.2 has given the similar evidence as that of P.W.1 stating that he has no information about this case and he has not given any statements to the Police. According to prosecution, P.W.2 is also eyewitness/victim and he could not identify the weapons and accused persons. In the cross-examination also, P.W.2 withstood his evidence by denying the suggestions of the learned Public Prosecutor. He has further denied the very statements given before the Police as per Ex.P.3 and 4.
11. P.W.3 and PW.4 are the eyewitness to the alleged incident, they have also not supported the prosecution case. They have stated that they have no information about this case; they have not give any statement to the Police and they could not identify the accused persons. In the cross-examination also P.W.3 and PW.4 have all those suggestions and also denied the suggestion that though they have full information about this case and they have given statement as per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, in order to assist the accused persons, they are deposing false evidence.
9 S.C.No.1456/201912. P.W.5- H.T. Manjappa the Tasildhar has been examined and he has deposed with respect to recording of the dying declaration of the victim- Mohan Kumar. The PW5 has further deposed that he had contacted the doctor with respect to recording of the statement and the doctor having stated that the patient is fit to give the statement the PW5 in the presence of the doctor at BGS Hospital on 14.12.2017. PW5 has deposed with respect to the statement given by the victim with respect to the alleged incident and the statement and the declaration has been marked as Ex.P7 and P8. In the cross- examination, the learned counsel for accused No.2 has put suggestions by denying the duty done by them in this case and he has also denied the suggestion with respect to preparing Ex.P7 and P8 in the police station, the PW5 has also denied the suggestions of the accused with respect to the recording of the statement of the victim..
13. P.W.6- K.S. Kumar the Head Constable has deposed with respect entrustment of the work to apprehend the accused persons and the articles by CW25 to him and CW20 to 23. The PW6 has deposed with respect to arrest of the 7 accused persons and 3 bikes near Rajarajeshwari Temple, they having apprehended the seven accused persons and three bikes were produced before the CW25 along with the report. In the cross-examination, the learned counsel for accused has put suggestions by denying the duty done by them in this case and he has also denied the suggestion with respect to arrest of the seven accused persons and three bikes near parking of Rajarajeshwari Temple, the PW6 has also denied the suggestions of the accused with respect to the arrest of the accused person along with three bikes and also producing them before CW25 along with the report.
10 S.C.No.1456/201914. PW7- G.Rangaswamaiah was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of complainant Police station. He has deposed that on 13.12.2017 he was on SHO duty and at about 9.45 PM the CW25 had sent the statement of the CW1 recorded at BGS Hospital through PC 13390, the PW7 on receipt of the said statement and on the basis of the said statement the case in Crime No.284/2017 has been registered and FIR was sent to the jurisdictional police. The PW7 has also further deposed that on 14.12.2017 he has conducted the spot panchanama near bakery in the presence of CW5 as shown by him and drawn the panchanama in the presence of CW9 and CW10 and handed over further investigation to CW25. the learned counsel for accused has put suggestions by denying the duty done by them in this case and he has also denied the suggestion with respect to registering of the FIR on receipt of the complaint through PC and also further denied the suggestion with respect to conducting the panchanama as per Ex.P11, PW7 has admitted the suggestion that he has not enquire the houses at place of incident and also admitted that he has not produced the notices of CW9 and 10. The PW7 has also denied the other suggestion of the accused with respect to the performing the official duty.
15. PW8-Munibasavaiah the ASI has deposed that on 20.12.2017 he taken the investigation from CW25 and he having collected the wound certificated of CW1 and 2 and the investigation having completed has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. The accused counsel has cross examined the PW7 wherein he has denied the suggestion that he has not collected the wound certificates, not conducted the investigation and filed false charge sheet against the accused as there was no evidence against the accused. PW7 has 11 S.C.No.1456/2019 also denied the other suggestion of the accused with respect to the performing the official duty.
16. PW9- Lakshman.C the PSI has deposed that on 13.12.2017 he has recorded the statement of CW1 at BGS Hospital, on 14.12.2017 he has taken up the investigation and recorded the statement of CW3 to 8 and also on 16.12.2017 he having recorded the further statement of CW1 with respect to the names of the accused persons. The PW9 has further deposed that on 19.12.2017 he had entrusted the work to apprehend the accused persons and the articles to Cw19 to 23. And on the same day they arrested 7 accused persons and 3 bikes near Rajarajeshwari Temple, they having apprehended the seven accused persons and three bikes were produced before the me along with the report, and he has conducted the mahazar in presence of CW11 and12 and seized the articles and he has recorded the statements of CW19 to 23. The PW9 has also further deposed he having recorded the voluntary statement of the accused No.2 and seizure of the said knife from the spot in the presence of the CW13 and 14 and drawing the panchanama and he has identified the knife and the accused persons present before the court The learned PP has sought permission to treat the said witness has partly hostile and sought permission to cross examine the said witness. The Learned PP having cross examined the said witness with respect to producing the seven accused and three bikes on 19.12.2017 by HC 6777 and also further admitted in the cross examination with respect to recoding of the voluntary statement of the accused No.2 and also the seizure of the three two wheelers under the panchanama.
12 S.C.No.1456/201917. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined P.W.9 at lengthy. The P.W9 has denied the suggestions of denying their part of duty done in this case. The PW9 has denied the suggestion of the accused with respect to recording of the statement of the Cw1 at the hospital and also registering the case. PW9 has also denied the suggestion with respect to the arrest of the accused persons and also recording of the voluntary statement of the accused and also drawing the panchqnamma and seizure of the vehicles and also recording of the statements of the witnesses. He has also denied the suggestion that though there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, they have file false case and filed false charge sheet against them.
18. In the present case, the Police have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 10 and have cited 26 witnesses as C.Ws.1 to 26. The prosecution was able to secure and examine 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.16. In spite of issuance of proclamation against C.Ws.4, 8, 9, 12, 15 and 17 the Police have not published the same and hence their evidence was dropped. In so far as C.Ws.3, 5, 11, 13 and 14 are concerned, though proclamation was issued against them is duly published, they are not secured and as such, the evidence of C.Ws 20 to 23 was given up by the prosecution as such are dropped. C.Ws.10 is reported to be dead.
19. On perusal of evidence of P.W.1, who being the victim and complainant, has not supported the prosecution case. He denied the case of prosecution by deposing that he has not information about this case and he does not know the contents of complaint at Ex.P.1. Even 13 S.C.No.1456/2019 in the cross-examination made by learned Public Prosecutor also he has denied the story of prosecution. Hence, the hostile evidence of P.W.1 is fatal to the prosecution case. Though P.W.2 is victim/eyewitness to the alleged incident of assault on P.W.1 by accused persons, he has also given the similar evidence that he has no information about this case. According to prosecution, P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witness to the said incident have also not supported the prosecution case. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that they have no information about this case and they have not witnesses the said incident. The Tahsildar P.W.5 has deposed about the recording of the statement of CW1 in the hospital with respect to incident and the injuries sustained by the victim. Though the evidence of P.W.5 helps the prosecution case to prove that the P.W.1 has sustained injuries, they do not disclose that the said injuries are caused by the accused persons with intention to cause murder of P.W.1. Further, the PW1 to 4 who are complainant, victims and the eyewitness have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The remaining witnesses available on record are P.Ws.6 to 9, they being Police officials have deposed their part of duty performed in this case.
20. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulders of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. In the present case, the P.W.1/ victim, PW2/Victim and PW3 and PW4 who are the Victims/complainant and eyewitnesses have turned hostile to the entire incident and they have not supported the prosecution case. The P.W.2 /victim is also eyewitness to the incident of assault on P.W.1, but he gave hostile evidence. The burden of proof on the prosecution 14 S.C.No.1456/2019 is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused No. 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to benefit of doubt in the prosecution version. The accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused No. 1, 3 and 4. Therefore I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer the points under consideration in the 'negative'.
21. Point No.7: In view of above discussions and finding to point No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 504 R/w Sec.149 of IPC.
The personal bonds and surety bond of the accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall remain in force for a period of three months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. and the same shall stand cancelled automatically after three months.
The M.O.1 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on Computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 2nd day of May, 2025) (HEMANTH KUMAR C.R.) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.15 S.C.No.1456/2019
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
P.W.1: Mahesh P.W.2: Mohan Kumar P.W.3: Sunil M.K P.W.4: Ananth P.W.5: H.T Manjappa P.W.6: K.S Kumar P.W.7: G. Rangaswamy P.W.8: Munibasavaiah P.W.9: Lakshman C
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Exs.P.1(a & b): Signatures Exs.P.2 to 4: Further statements of PW1 Ex.P.5: Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.6: Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.7: Dying declaration Ex.P.7(a): Signature Ex.P.8: Certified Letter No.1 Exs.P.8(a to c): Signatures Ex.P.9: Report Exs.P.9(a): Signature Ex.P.10: FIR Ex.P.10(a): Signature Ex.P.11: Spot-mahazar Ex.P.11(a): Signature Exs.P.12 & 13: Wound certificates Ex.P.12(a): Signature Ex.P.13(a): Signature Ex.P.14: Seizure-mahazar Ex.P.14(a): Signature Ex.P.15: Voluntary statement Exs.P.15(a & b): Signatures Ex.P.16: Seizure-mahazar Ex.P.16(a): Signature
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1: Knife 16 S.C.No.1456/2019 List of witnesses examined, and documents and material objects marked on behalf of defence: -Nil-
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.