Bangalore District Court
Basaswadi Ps vs A1 Raju Alias Khadar on 2 April, 2025
KABC010059892019
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,
LII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.289/2019
Complainant : State of Karnataka by
Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
Accused : 1. Raju @ Khadar,
S/o Thirupathi, C/o Rani House
3rd Cross, Near Mariyamma
Temple, Sathyanagara M N Nagara
Post, Bengaluru.
2. Raju @ Thambavaram, S/o. Ayoti,
Aged 21 years,
Residing at No. 178, 4th Cross,
A Block, Janakirama Layout,
2
S.C.No.289/2019
Lingarajapuram, Bangalore.
3.Subhash Raj, S/o Raj, No.255 A Block
7th Cross Janakirama Layout,
Lingarajupura Bengaluru.
4. Michael @ Michael D'Souza
S/o Late Balan, No.B11,
Muniswamappa Layout,
Ramaswamypalya, Kammanahalli
Main Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri NDL for A1)
Sri M.J.S. for A2
Sri T.G.S. for A3 and A4)
1. Date of commission of offence 09.09.2018
2. Date of report of occurrence 09.09.2018
3. Date of commencement of evidence 13.01.2023
4. Date of closing of evidence 30.01.2025
5. Name of the complainant Kaleem Pasha
6. Offences complained of U/Sec.341, 302, 114 r/w.34 of
IPC.
7. Opinion of the Judge As per final order
8. Order of sentence Offence not proved
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Banaswadi police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused before learned XI ACMM Court, Bangalore, alleging the offences punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/w.34 of IPC.
3S.C.No.289/2019
2. After filing of the charge sheet, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused and registered the criminal case bearing CC.No. 59543/2018.
3. The accused was in judicial custody when the charge sheet was filed. After securing the presence of the accused from judicial custody, the Learned Magistrate had complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., by furnishing the copy of charge sheet and other papers annexed with the charge sheet to the accused.
4. Since the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 4 punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/w.34 IPC are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Learned Magistrate had committed the case to Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru for trial by exercising the power u/ Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
5. After committal of the case, SC.No.289/2019 was registered against the accused and made over to this court. Thereafter direction was issued to the jail authority to produce the accused before the court. As per the direction of court, the accused was produced before the court from judicial custody. Then the matter was posted for hearing the accused on charge.
4S.C.No.289/2019
6. The Accused were heard on the charge. Since there are sufficient prima facie materials in the charge sheet to proceed with trial against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/w.34 of IPC, charge was framed for the said offences and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the matter was posted for evidence of the prosecution.
7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has got examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7. The prosecution has produced 29 documents on its behalf and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.29. The prosecution has produced 7 material object and got them marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7 and closed its side. During the trial of the case , the accused was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the matter was posted for recording the statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.
8. All the incriminating evidence appearing against accused in the evidence of P.W.1 to 7 were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. The accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused have submitted that they have no defence evidence. Hence, the matter was posted for arguments.
5S.C.No.289/2019
9. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for the accused and Learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the charge sheet, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, written arguments and other materials available on record.
10. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration :
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 09.09.2018 at about 8.15 pm at Janakiram layout, A block, main road, when the deceased was moving on his bike the accused wrongly restrained him on the road, thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec. 341 r/w 34 of IPC?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused No.4 abetted the other accused to kill deceased, hence A1 stabbed deceased with knife on his chest and A2 stabbed on his head, face and hands and as a result deceased Imran pasha sustained severe injuries and died , thereby the accused committed the offence punishable u/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that A4 abetted A1 to A3 to kill the deceased, thereby A4 committed an offence punishable u/sec. 114 of IPC?
(4) What order?
6S.C.No.289/2019
11. My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1 to 3 .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.4 .. As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
12. Points No.1 to 3:- These two points are
interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
13. The Police Inspector of Banaswadi police station had filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging the offences punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/wsec. 34 of IPC, before learned ACMM, Bengaluru. The allegations made in the charge sheet against the accused are as follows:
The complainant's brother Imran is resident of Jeevanahalli, Modi Garden and was doing sofa work near by Lingarajapuram, K.R.Puram and other places, he used to take order to prepare sofa and supply them. On 9.9.2018 at 7.30 p.m. in order to obtain order, he went to Janakiram layout, Lingarajapuram. At about 8.15 p.m. when the deceased was returning to his house in a Two wheeler near Janakiram layout, 'A' Block main road, at that time, accused No.1 to 3 were engaged in controlling the traffic on the eve of St. Mary Festival and they restrained Imran Pasha on the way, on being asked by the deceased to unblock the road and permit 7 S.C.No.289/2019 him to go in the said road, at that time, this accused and his associates enraged with his words abused him and did not permit to go in the said road. On the other hand, they threatened by stating he belongs to other area, inspite of that, without giving any respect to them, he has arrogantly asking them to leave the way and started quarrelling with Imran, at that time, the rowdy accused No.4 Michel D'Souza came to the spot and accused No.1 to 3 informed him about the fact, to which the accused No.4 instigated accused No.1 to 3 to assault and murder him. Therefore, accused No.1 stabbed with knife to the left portion of the chest and caused grievous injury. Accused No.2 also assaulted with knife to his head and assaulted with his hands to his face forcibly and caused injuries due to which, the deceased sustained grievous bleeding injuries and collapsed on the floor. CW.2, 8 and 9 took him to Gian Hospital at about 8.30 p.m. but the treatment was not successful, he succumbed to death.
14. The prosecution in order to prove the aforesaid allegations made against the accused had adduced the evidence of 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to 7. Among them, P.W.1 and 5 are the seizure mahazar witnesses for seizure of knife at the instance of the accused, PW. 2 and 3 are the seizure mahazar witnesses for seizure of MO. 1 to 7, PW. 4 is the complainant, PW. 6 is also the I,O who did the investigation and PW. 7 is the IO who filed the charge sheet 8 S.C.No.289/2019
15. Now let us examine the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses and documents produced on behalf of the prosecution in order to adjudicate whether their evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts or not.
16. P.W.1 is the mahazar witness for seizure of knife. He deposed that he do not know deceased Imran Pasha and he do not know how he died. He deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time. He do not know about the case and he had not seen the knife. He had identified his signature as per Ex.P.1(a). The sample seal is marked as Ex.P.2. He do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and he had not given any statement to the Police. No articles were seized in his presence. He has not identified shirt, banian, pant, belt, shoe and cotton before the court. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Learned PP cross-examined the witness. But nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination by the PP he has denied about the seizure of the articles. His statement before the Police is marked as Ex.P.3. He has denied the suggestions put by the PP. He has not identified M.O.1 to 7 before the court.
17. PW.2 Syed Nasir has deposed that he do not know Imran Pasha, how he died and he had not seen the accused. He do not know about the case. He has not identified M.O.1 to 7 before the court. His signature is marked as Ex.P.1(b) and 9 S.C.No.289/2019 Ex.P.2(b) and M.O.1(b) to M.O.7(b). Learned PP treated the witness as hostile and he was subjected to cross-examination. But nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination by the PP he has denied suggestions put to him. His statement before the Police is marked as Ex.P.4. He has denied the suggestion that A1 to A3 have abstracted the vehicles at Zakir Layout 'A' block Main Road on the eve of St.Maries festival and there was quarrel between accused and deceased and accused stabbed deceased with knife on his chest, head and face and caused severe bleeding injuries and immediately the Police rushed to the spot and draw mahazar.
18. PW.3 the another mahazar witness has deposed that he do not know Imran Pasha, he do not know how he died and he had not seen the accused at the earlier point of time. He had not seen knife. He had not given any statement to the Police and he has not identified the articles before the court. Learned PP treated the witness as hostile and he was subjected to cross-examination. But nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. In the cross- examination by the PP he has denied suggestions put to him. His statement before the Police is marked as Ex.P.5.
19. PW.4 the brother of deceased has deposed that Imran Pasha is his brother, he do not know how he died and he had not seen the accused at the earlier point of time. He has 10 S.C.No.289/2019 deposed that he had signed Ex.P.6 as per Ex.P.6(a) and Ex.P.1(c). He do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and 2. The Police have not seized any articles in his presence. He has identified Ex.P.7 and 8. He had not given any statement to the Police and he has not identified the articles before the court. His complaint before the Police is marked as Ex.P.6.
20. PW.5 the another seizure mahazar witness has deposed that he do not know Imran Pasha, he do not know how he died and he had not seen the accused at the earlier point of time. No articles were seized in his presence. He has not deposed about the seizer of T-Shirt, banian, pant, belt, shoe and bike. He had not given any statement to the Police and he has not identified the articles before the court. Learned PP treated the witness as hostile and he was subjected to cross-examination. But nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination by the PP he has denied suggestions put to him. His statement before the Police is marked as Ex.P.9.
21. PW.6 the then PSI of complainant Police Station has deposed that on 09.09.2018 at about 10.15 PM when he was on duty, CW.1 has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.6. Hence, he has registered the case in Crime No.463/2018 and sent the FIR as per Ex.P.16 to the court. Ex.P.16(a) is the signature. He deposed that on the same day, he received the death memo from Gian Hospital as per Ex.P.11. Thereafter, he sent 11 S.C.No.289/2019 the dead body to Ambedkar Hospital. On 10.09.2018 CW.21 to 24 have produced A1 to A3 before him. Accordingly, he has arrested the accused and recorded their statement and visited the spot along with CW.2 to 4 and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.1 and seized M.O.1 to 7 and also seized one bike No.KA01 HR 2566 and subjected the same to PF No.140/2018- Ex.P.17 and submitted the same to the court. The signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.2(c), Ex.P.1(d), Ex.P.17(a). He deposed that on the same day he recorded to the statement of CW.2 to 4 as per Ex.P.3 and 4 and on the same day, conducted inquest mahazar at Ambedkar Hospital as per Ex.P.10 and sent requisition as per Ex.P.10 to conduct. As per the statement of A1 to A3, they had been to Janakiram Colony, 'A' Block, near Railway Track behind Muneshwara Temple, where the accused produced two steal knives which was allegedly used for commission of offense. Hence, he has drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.23 and seized the same. Ex.P.23(a) is the signature. Two knives are marked as M.O.8 and 9 and they were subjected to P.F.141/2018. His signature is marked as Ex.P.24(a).
22. He further deposed that on the same day, he drawn the rough sketch of the spot as per Ex.P.26. Ex.P.26(a) is his signature. On the same day he recorded the statement of CW.13 to 15 and then produced accused before the court and then recorded the statement of CW.8, 9, 10 to 12. On 26.09.2018, received the PM report and the cloths of 12 S.C.No.289/2019 deceased. CW.27 has produced the same. Thereafter, he has subjected the said articles i.e., underwear and socks, P.F.No.157/2018 and sent the report as per Ex.P.28. The said underwear and socks are marked as M.O.10 and M.O.11. He sent the samples seal to FSL for examination on 05.10.2018 and he received the acknowledgment as per Ex.P.13. He further deposed that on 06.04.2017 he recorded the statement of the injured at St. John`s Hospital. He handed over further investigation to PW.31. He has identified A1 to A3 before the court.
23. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused he has denied the suggestion that he has prepared the complaint as per his whims and wish and he has not seized any articles at the spot and he obtained signatures of the panchas at the Police Station and he also denied the suggestion that he took the photos of the vehicle at the police station and he has prepared the rough sketch for the purpose of this case. He admitted that he has not issued notice to the panchas. He has also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to help the complainant.
24. PW. 7 the PI has deposed that on 11.10.2018 he received the case file from CW. 30 and continued the investigation and CW. 25 and 26 have produced the accused No.4 before him and hence he had arrested him and recorded his voluntary statement and as per his statement Ex.P. 29 he 13 S.C.No.289/2019 visited the spot. Then subjected the accused for medical examination and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the PP he has denied the suggestion that he has not arrested A4 and not recorded his statement and he has filed the false charge sheet against the accused.
25. From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, it could be seen that P.W.1 and 5 are the seizure mahazar witnesses for seizure of knife at the instance of the accused, PW. 2 and 3 are the seizure mahazar witnesses for seizure of MO. 1 to 7, PW. 4 is the complainant, PW. 6 is also the I,O who did the investigation and PW. 7 is the IO who filed the charge sheet against the accused. . The seizure panchas have been turned hostile and they have not deposed about the seizure. There are no eye witnesses in this case. The complainant who is the brother of deceased is the hear say witness. The seizure of MO. 1 to 7 is not proved satisfactorily by the prosecution.
26. Further, the evidence of the investigating officer is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses. Only on the basis of the evidence of Investigating Officers PW. 6 and 7, it can not be come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offences. On perusal of the over all oral evidence of the witnesses, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused 14 S.C.No.289/2019 beyond reasonable doubt with cogent, reliable and direct circumstantial evidence as the accused who has committed the murder of deceased.
27. At this stage it is relevant to go through the provision of Sec. 300 of IPC. which reads as under;
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
(Secondly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
(Thirdly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
(Fourthly)-- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
28. On perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, no intention of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased is forthcoming which is one of the ingredient to attract Sec. 300 of IPC. Moreover the other ingredients have also not been proved by the prosecution witnesses. As such, 15 S.C.No.289/2019 in view of the aforesaid reasons this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the alleged guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court of the opinion that accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt regarding commission of alleged offences. Accordingly, this court is the opinion that the accused is liable to be acquitted for the offences punishable u/Sec.341, 302, 114, r/w 34 of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove Points No.1 and 2. Accordingly, this court answered Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.
29. Point No.3: In view of my findings on points No.1 and 2, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to issue release intimation to release A1 if his custody does not require in any other case.
M.Os. are being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the SG I directly on Computer, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of April, 2025) (Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.16
S.C.No.289/2019 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Vijayaraj P.W.2 Syed Naseer P.W.3 Mansoor @ Manju P.W.4 Kaleem Pasha P.W.5 Syed Anwar P.W.6 Ramadevi B S P.W.7 Virupakshaswamy R
Documents marked for the prosecution :
Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.1(a) Spot Mahazar and signature Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.2(a) Sample seal and signature Ex.P.3 Statement of witness Ex.P.4 Statement of witness Ex.P.5 Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.6(a) Complaint and signature of PW.4 dt:15.07.2023 Ex.P.7 & 8 Photos Ex.P.9 Statement of witness Ex.P.10 Inquest mahazer Ex.P.11 Death intimation letter Ex.P.12 P.M.Report Ex.P.13 FSL acknowledgment Ex.P.14 FSL Report Ex.P.15 Sample seal Ex.P.16 FIR Ex.P.17 PF NO. 140/2018 Ex.P.18 & 19 Photoes Ex.P.20 to 22 Statement of accused Ex.P.23 Mahazor Ex.P.24 PF NO. 141/2018 Ex.P.25 Sample Seal Ex.P.26 Rough Sketch Ex.P.27 Report Ex.P.28 PF NO.157/2018 17 S.C.No.289/2019 Ex.P.29 Statement of A4 Witnesses examined for the Accused:
NIL Documents marked for the Accused:
NIL Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
M.O.1 Blood Stained cotton M.O.2 Sample cotton M.O.3 Shirt M.O.4 Pant M.O.5 Banian M.O.6 & 7 Shoes
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bangalore.18
S.C.No.289/2019 Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate order.;
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Sec. 341, 302, 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to issue release intimation to release A1 if his custody does not require in any other case.
M.Os. are being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bangalore.