Bangalore District Court
Subramanyapura P.S vs Muniraju Alias Moosi on 2 February, 2026
KABC010152972015
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2026.
S.C.No.782/2015
COMPLAINANT: State by
Subramanyapura Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Muniraju @ Moosi,
S/o.Muiniyappa,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.No.35/1, 5th Cross,
Near Yellamma Temple,
Chunchaghatta,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.B.S., Advocate)
2. Raghu @ Punith @ Burude,
S/o.Venkatesh,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.904,
C/o.Vasantharao,
2 S.C.No.782/2015
Water Tank Road,
Near KEB Office,
Soudhamini Layout,
Bank Colony,
Konanakunte,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.R., Advocate)
3. Suman,
S/o.Late Manjunath.
...... (Juvenile Offender)
4. Ashoka @ Ashwath @ Kariya,
S/o.Shivaraju,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.525,
Banashankari Steel Shop Road,
Adjacent road of
Chennakeshava Bar,
Chunchaghatta Main Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.A.M.N., Advocate)
5. Harsharaju @ Harsha,
S/o.Late Lokesh,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.516,
Behind Banashankari Steels,
Chunchaghatta Circle,
Konanakunte Post,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.R., Advocate)
6. Durga @ Raghu @ Kaddi,
S/o.Late Krishnappa.
..... (Abated)
7. Venkatesh @ Vajra,
S/o.Vajrappa.
..... (Split-up)
3 S.C.No.782/2015
8. Santhosh Kumar.V. @ Kunta @
Pille,
S/o.Venkataramu.
........ (Abated)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302 and 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the offences under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, the case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.02.2015 at 9-30 p.m., at the play ground abutting to Karavali Bakery situated on Kothanur to Chunchaghatta Road, within the limits of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused have criminally conspired to commit the murder of Uday Shankar to take revenge against 4 S.C.No.782/2015 him in respect of smoking ganja and in furtherance of their common object, they have formed an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons in their hands committed rioting and and assaulted C.W.1 with a dragger and club on his head & shoulder causing grievous injuries. In furtherance of their common object to take away the life of Uday Shankar, the accused have assaulted him with a club on all parts of his body, resulting which Uday Shankar fell unconscious and while undergoing treatment in the hospital he succumbed to the said injuries and thus committed the murder of Uday Shankar.
Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302 and 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
4. After committal of the case, the accused No.8 is reported to be dead. Hence the case against accused No.8 was abated.
On securing the presence of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302 and 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case is posted for prosecution evidence. In order to prove the 5 S.C.No.782/2015 guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7, the prosecution has examined 30 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 30 and got marked 45 documents Exs.P.1 to 45 and M.Os.1 to 17 (M.O.15 is marked as Ex.P.42).
During the course of trial, the accused No.6 is reported to be dead. Hence the case against accused No.6 was abated. Further, the accused No.7 remained absent before the court. Hence the case against accused No.7 was split-up and ordered to register split- up case against him.
After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them. The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have chosen not to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 5.02.2015 at 9-30 p.m., at the play ground adjacent to Karavali Bakery situated on Kothanur to Chunchaghatta Road, within the limits of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with child in 6 S.C.No.782/2015 conflict with law (accused No.3), abated accused Nos.6 & 8 and split-
up accused No.7 have criminally conspired in order to commit the murder of Uday Shankar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120(B) of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with child in conflict with law (accused No.3), abated accused Nos.6 & 8 and split-up accused No.7 have formed an unlawful assembly to commit the crime and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with child in conflict with law (accused No.3), abated accused Nos.6 & 8 and split-up accused No.7 being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object were holding deadly weapons in their hands, committed rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with child in conflict with law 7 S.C.No.782/2015 (accused No.3), abated accused Nos.6 & 8 and split-up accused No.7 being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object were holding deadly weapons in their hands, have assaulted C.W.2 with a dragger causing grievous bleeding injuries and attempted to commit the murder of C.W.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with child in conflict with law (accused No.3), abated accused Nos.6 & 8 and split-up accused No.7 being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of Uday Shankar with clubs on all parts of his body, causing grievous bleeding injuries, while undergoing treatment he was succumbed to the said injuries and thus committed his murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.
Section 149 of IPC ?
6. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative, POINT No.2 - Negative, POINT No.3 - Negative, 8 S.C.No.782/2015 POINT No.4 - Negative, POINT No.5 - Negative, POINT No.6 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. POINTS Nos.1 TO 5 : These points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order of avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.02.2015 at 9-30 p.m., at the play ground abutting to Karavali Bakery situated on Kothanur to Chunchaghatta Road, within the limits of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused have criminally conspired to commit the murder of Uday Shankar to take revenge against him in respect of smoking ganja and in furtherance of their common object, they have formed an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons in their hands committed rioting and and assaulted C.W.1 with a dragger and club on his head & shoulder causing grievous injuries. In furtherance of their common object to take away the life of Uday Shankar, the accused have assaulted him with a club on all parts of his body, resulting which Uday Shankar fell unconscious and while undergoing treatment in the hospital he succumbed to the said injuries and thus committed the 9 S.C.No.782/2015 murder of Uday Shankar. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302 and 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Shashikumar has stated that on 5.02.2015 at about 6-00 p.m., near Karavali Bakery, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase, he along with deceased Udaya Shankara and C.Ws.1 and 3 to 7 were drinking tea, at a nearby place, Yogesh and Chamaraj were consuming ganja, so the deceased Uday Shankar asked them not to consume ganja and assaulted them with the hands and abused them. On the same day at 9-30 p.m., he along with C.Ws.1, 3 to 5 and 7 were having party with drinks in a vacant place behind the bakery, at that time some people came there in an auto and 2 wheeler and assaulted them, so they ran away. Uday Shankar was assaulted by a dragger and club and C.W.1 was assaulted with a dragger causing head injury. As it was dark, he was not able to see the assailants. They then shifted the injured Uday Shankar to NIMHANS and he succumbed to the injuries on the next day morning. He stated that the accused present before the court and the accused produced before the court through V.C., were not present at the spot. He stated that a club was also used to assault. The number of the Honda Activa was KA-05-JE-797 and auto was bearing No.KA- 05-B-2883. He has identified the photos of the said 10 S.C.No.782/2015 vehicles (Exs.P.1 to 3). He stated that as it was dark, he cannot identify the dragger and club.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied all the suggestions regarding the witnessing the incident, identification of the accused. He has denied having given statement (Ex.P.4) and further statement (Ex.P.5) to the police.
11. P.W.2-Sri.Dilipa has also deposed about the incident that took place near Karavali Hotel near a bakery on 5.02.2015 as deposed by P.W.1. Further he stated that one hour after the incident, behind the bakery in a vacant place he along with deceased Uday Shankar, Praveen and Shyama were having drinks, at that time all the accused came there in an autorickshaw and 2 wheeler. The accused No.2 was talking to Udaya Shankar, while accused No.7 assaulted Uday Shankar on his leg and other parts of the body with a club and also caused bleeding head injury, resulting which he fell unconscious. Also the accused No.8 had assaulted deceased with a club. He stated that the accused No.1, 3 to 6 had assaulted the deceased. When he went to pacify the quarrel, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 assaulted him on his head with a knife causing bleeding injury. He then ran away from the spot to save himself and also 11 S.C.No.782/2015 the accused ran away. He then informed about the incident to Rajesh, brother of the deceased and to his friend Ramesh. They took him to Rajiv Gandhi Hospital for treatment. While Uday Shankar was taken to NIMHANS Hospital. On the next day morning at 6-00 a.m., Udaya Shankar was reported as a dead. He then lodged a complaint (Ex.P.6) in Subramanayapura Police Station, Bengaluru. The police conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P.7) in his presence. They seized M.Os.1 to 14 i.e., blood stained mud, sample mud, slipper, 3 empty liquor bottles, knife, which was used to assault him, 7 clubs. He has identified the photographs of the auto and motorcycle (Exs.P.1, 2, 8 and 9). He has given his further statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile regarding lodging of complaint. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 5.02.2015 at 9-30 p.m., Rajesh and Ramesh took him to the hospital for treatment and thereafter at 11-30 p.m., he lodged the complaint in the Police Station.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that at 8-30 - 9-00 p.m., he fell down from the staircase of Karavali Hotel and sustained injuries. It is elicited that at that time he was along with C.Ws.2, 3, 5 and Uday Shankar. It is elicited 12 S.C.No.782/2015 that he had consumed half bottle of alcohol and after he fell down he was unconscious and he does not remember as to who took him to the hospital. It is elicited that he has signed the complaint and mahazar in the Police Station. He has stated that he has given a written complaint and admitted that the complaint before the court is a typed complaint. He admitted that he does not know as to what is written in the complaint which is typed. He admitted that the police informed him that the accused had assaulted Uday Shankar causing injuries. He admitted that he seen the photographs of the autorickshaw and 2 wheeler for the first time before the court. He admitted that for the first time he seeing the knife, stick, bottle, slippers in the court. It is elicited that the police did not seize his blood stained clothes. He has denied the suggestion that even though he did not sustain injuries in the alleged incident, he is deposing falsely as per the instructions of the police.
In his re-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he himself has gave the complaint (Ex.P.6) in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that the police seized M.Os.1 to 6 in his presence at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that as he has compromised with the accused, he is deposing falsely before the court.
In his further cross examination by the learned 13 S.C.No.782/2015 advocate for accused, it is elicited that he does not remember as to when he gained conscious in the hospital. He admitted that he signed the mahazar when he had been to the Police Station.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Shyam Kumar has stated that he knows the deceased Uday Shankar, C.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 who are his friends. He also knows the accused Nos.1 to 8. he stated that he has not seen the accused persons at 7-30 p.m., near the bakery. He has stated that he has not witnessed the quarrel between the accused and deceased person. He stated that he called the deceased to come with him, he did not do so, so he went to his house. He stated that he has not seen the accused assaulting deceased and P.W.2 with a knife or with a club. He has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 5.02.2015 at 6-00 p.m., he along with his deceased friend were drinking tea in front of a bakery. He admitted that the deceased had questioned the accused about them smoking ganja and then the accused had left the spot. He has denied the suggestion that at 9-30 p.m., he went near a vacant place near the bakery where he, deceased and his other 14 S.C.No.782/2015 friends C.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 consumed alcohol. He has denied the suggestion that he had witnessed the incident. He has refused identifying M.Os.7 to 14, Exs.P.1, 2, 8 and 9. He has denied the suggestion that he had given a statement (Ex.P.10) at the time of inquest. He has denied the suggestion that on 7.02.2015 he has given his further statement (Ex.P.11). He admitted that the accused are his friends. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to help the accused persons.
13. P.W.4-Sri.Manjunatha has stated that he does not know anything about the fight between the deceased and accused. He has denied having witnessed the incident. He has stated that he has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied having witnessed the incident. He has refused identifying M.Os.7 to 14, Exs.P.1, 2, 8 and 9. He denied the suggestion that he has given a statement (Ex.P.12) to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in spite of witnessing the incident.
14. P.W.5-Sri.Shyam Sundar has also deposed about the incident that on 5.02.2015 at 6-00 p.m., near 15 S.C.No.782/2015 Karavali Bakery while they were drinking tea, the deceased scolded the accused for having consumed ganja. He stated that after one hour in a vacant site near Karavali Bakery, he along with deceased, C.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 were consuming alcohol, at that time the accused came in an auto, the accused Nos.1 and 3 were speaking in a rude language with the deceased. Accused No.3 assaulted with a club and thereafter he ran away. He stated that he has not observed as to who were present along with accused. He stated that they chased P.W.2 to assault, but he had ran away. Thereafter he has gone to NIMHANS Hospital to see the injured Uday Shankar who died on 6.02.2015. He stated that he cannot identify the clubs (M.Os.7 to 14). He has not given any statement to the police. He has identified the photograph of the auto and 2 wheeler (Exs.P.1, 2, 8 and 9).
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied having witnessed the accused Nos.2, 4 to 8 assaulting the deceased and C.W.1. He has denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 had assaulted C.W.1 on his head. He has denied the suggestion that he had witnessed accused No.8 assaulting C.W.8 with the club. He has denied the suggestion that he had witnessed accused 16 S.C.No.782/2015 No.1 assaulting Uday Shankar with a knife. He has denied the suggestion that he had seen M.Os.7 to 14 at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that he has given the statement as per Ex.P.14.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Yogaraj and P.W.9-Sri.Thimmaraya are the witnesses to the mahazar (Ex.P.7). They stated that they have signed the mahazar in Subramanyapura Police Station. They have stated that they have not signed the mahazar at the spot where the Uday Shankar was murdered.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor , nothing has been elicited in support of the pro case. They have denied the suggestion that M.O.6 was seized in their presence from the spot by the police.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Raja and P.W.10-Sri.Gopi are the witnesses to the mahazar (Ex.P.14). They have identified the signatures on the mahazar. They have stated that they have signed the mahazar in the Police Station. They have stated that the police did not take them to the place where Uday shankar was murdered. They have stated that the police did not seize any vehicle, dragger and club in their presence.
As the witnesses have not supported the prosecution 17 S.C.No.782/2015 case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor they have been treated as hostile. In their cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. They have denied the suggestion that the accused had shown the Honda Activa, auto and M.Os.7 to 14 to the police. Accordingly the police have seized the same in their presence.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Ganapathi and P.W.11-Sri.Naveen are the witnesses to the mahazar (Ex.P.15). They have stated that they have signed the mahazar in NIMHANS Hospital on the request of the police. They have not given any statement regarding the murder of Uday Shankar.
As the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor they have been treated as hostile. In their cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
18. P.W.12-Sri.Pushpanath and P.W.13-Sri.Krishnappa have identified their signatures on the mahazars (Exs.P.16 and 17). They stated that they signed both the mahazars in Subramanyapura Police Station.
As the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor they have been treated as hostile. In their cross examination 18 S.C.No.782/2015 by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
19. P.W.14-Dr.Manju Prakash has deposed about medical examination and treatment given to the injured Dilip on 5.02.2015. he has given the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.18).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has admitted that when the injured came to the casualty, the parents of the injured had told that he had fallen from the stairs. It is elicited that after receiving the police requisition, they called the patient and asked for the history of the assault. Accordingly, they have mentioned the new version of history in the Wound Certificate. He has denied the suggestion that he has given a false Wound Certificate as per the request of the police.
20. P.W.15-Dr.Alok has deposed about medical examination of the patient Uday Shankar on 5.02.2015. On 6.02.2015 at 6-45 a.m., he had died. In this regard, he has given the police intimation (Ex.P.19).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has not treated any patient on 5.02.23015 and has given a false intimation as per the request of the police.
19 S.C.No.782/201521. P.W.16-Sri.Y.H.Ramu, Assistant Engineer has deposed about preparing the sketch (Ex.P.20) at the spot shown by C.W.27.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has created the sketch in his office.
22. P.W.17-Sri.Lokesh, Head Constable has deposed about handing over the dead body to the family of the deceased.
23. P.W.18-Sri.Mohan has deposed about signing the Inquest mahazar. He stated that he does not know about the incident resulting in the death of Uday Shankar.
24. P.W.19-Sri.Govindaraju.T. is the father of the deceased. He has stated that on 7.02.2015 he came to know about the quarrel between Uday Shankar and the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and others. On the same day, the accused assaulted his son with a dragger and club. He stated that he does not know who assaulted Dilip. He has identified the photos of his deceased son.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 20 S.C.No.782/2015 6.02.2015 the police have recorded his further statement. He admitted that he has given the further statement to the police that his son Rajesh informed him over phone that the accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 assaulted his son Uday Shankar and Dilip with dragger and club. He admitted that his son was declared as dead on 6.02.2015 at 6-45 a.m. He admitted that he can identify the accused present before the court.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court against the accused. He has denied the suggestion that his son was in intoxicated condition, fell down from the stairs and due to the injuries sustained by him, he died.
25. P.W.20-Sri.Rajesh is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed about the injuries he had seen on the deceased. He stated that he does not know as to who assaulted his brother and why they assaulted him. He has stated that he has not given any statement to the police., As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.21.
21 S.C.No.782/201526. P.W.21-Sri.Ramesh has stated about the injuries he had seen on the deceased. He stated that he does not know as to who assaulted his brother and why they assaulted him. He has stated that he has not given any statement to the police., As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.22.
27. P.W.22-Sri.Mohammed Sadiq, A.S.I., has stated that on 8.02.2015 he along with C.Ws.30, 31, 32, 34 to 36 were deputed along with C.W.38 to trace the accused in this case. At 5-30 p.m., they went near the house where 8 persons were residing. They apprehended the accused and brought them to the Police Station in TATA ACE vehicle and produced them before C.W.39. C.W.38 gave a report (Ex.P.33). He has identified the accused present before the court.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that the accused are in no way connected to this case. He has denied the suggestion that even though they did not apprehend the accused, they have filed a false report 22 S.C.No.782/2015 and he is giving false evidence before the court.
28. P.W.23-Sri.Manjunath, Police Inspector has also deposed about arresting of 8 accused persons as deposed by P.W.22. He has given the report as per Ex.P.23. He has identified the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that the accused are in no way connected to this case. He has denied the suggestion that even though they did not apprehend the accused, they have filed a false report and he is giving false evidence before the court.
29. P.W.24-Sri.Shivananda H. Sarawada, Police Constable has deposed about taking the FIR to the learned 2nd ACMM Court. He has given his statement to the Investigating Officer.
30. P.W.25-Sri.Girish.R. Head Constable has stated that on 6.02.2015 he was deputed to receive the clothes of the deceased from NIMHANS Hospital. On 4.03.2015 he went to NIMHANS Hospital, he collected the clothes of the deceased person (M.Os.19 and 20) and produced the same before C.W.39 along with his report (Ex.P.24).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that he is seeing M.Os.19 and 20 for the first time before the 23 S.C.No.782/2015 court. It is elicited that on 4.03.2015 the Investigating Officer had conducted the seizure mahazar with respect to M.Os.19 and 20, but he has not signed the same. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
In his re-examination in chief by the learned Public Prosecutor, he stated that he was deputed to duty on 4.03.2015.
31. P.W.26-Sri.Parashuram S. Bhajantri, Police Constable has deposed about taking 13 sealed articles to the FSL. He has identified the Passport (Ex.P.25) given to him and FSL Acknowledgment (Ex.P.26) received by him. In this regard, he has given a statement before the Investigating Officer.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that he has not taken any articles to the FSL and he is deposing falsely before the court.
32. P.W.27-Sri.Annayyappa, P.S.I., has deposed about receiving death memo (Ex.P.19) from NIMHANS Hospital.
33. P.W.29-Sri.S.K.Malatheesh, Dy.S.P., has deposed about receiving the file from C.W.39 on 1.04.2015. On completion of investigation, on 7.04.2015 he has filed the charge sheet against 8 accused persons.
24 S.C.No.782/2015In the cross examination of P.Ws.27 and 29, they have denied the suggestion that they have deposing falsely before the court.
34. P.W.28-Smt.Dhanalakshmi has stated that she does not know anything about the case. She has stated that the auto that can be seen in Ex.P.3 was parked near her house, but she does not know as to who purchased it in whose name. She has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor she has been treated as hostile. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. She admitted that the auto bearing No.KA-05-G-2883 does not stand in her husband's name. She has denied the suggestion that her husband had purchased the auto from one Aminuddin, but had not transferred the vehicle documents to his name. She has denied the suggestion that her son was riding the auto. She has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.27.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, she admitted that she does not know the number of the auto that can be seen in the photograph. She admitted that near her house, many auto will be parked.
25 S.C.No.782/201535. P.W.30-Sri.Arjun.C.R. Police Inspector has deposed about the investigation carried out by him. On 5.02.2015 he has received the complaint (Ex.P.6) and registered the FIR (Ex.P.29). Thereafter on receiving the death memo he field the second FIR (Ex.P.30) by adding Section 302 of IPC. On 6.02.2015 he conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P.7) between 8-30 to 9-30 a.m., at the place shown by C.W.1 in the presence of C.Ws.15 and 16. He collected M.Os.1 to 4 at the spot. On the same day he conducted the Inquest and handed over the deadbody to the family of the deceased. He has also recorded the statements and further statements of C.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 16. On 8.02.2015 C.W.38 produced the accused No.1 to 8 produced him and gave a report (Ex.P.23). He arrested the accused. On 9.02.2015 he produced the said 8 accused persons before the court and took them to the police custody and then recorded their voluntary statements. The accused persons have stated that they will show the place of incident and the place where they had kept the weapons used for committing the offence. The portion of voluntary statement of 7 accused are marked as Exs.P.33 to 39. On 10.02.2015 In the presence of C.Ws.17 and 18 at the place shown by the accused, they seized black colour Honda Activa bearing No.KA- 05-KE-7978 and also bearing No.KA-05-B-2883 by conducting mahazar (Ex.P.14). On 11.02.2015 in the presence of C.Ws.19 and 20, he conducted mahazar at 26 S.C.No.782/2015 the place of incident shown by the accused No.1. On the same day between 11-30 a.m., to 12-30 p.m., he conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.17) at the place where the accused conspired to commit the offence. On 12.02.2015 he produced the accused before the court. On 13.02.2015 he gave a requisition to Jayanagar RTO for documents of the auto and 2 wheeler. On 14.02.2015 C.W.28 produced before him the blood stained cloths of the deceased person. Further investigation, he handed over the case file to C.W.40.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that even though he has not conducted any investigation, he has created the documents in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
36. On considering the oral evidence placed before the court, it is at first necessary to refer to the complaint (Ex.P.6) given by C.W.1/P.W.2. The complaint was given on the very same day of the incident on 5.02.2015 at 11-30 p.m., i.e., within 5 hours after the alleged incident. It is stated that one Venkatesh (accused No.7) had suddenly assaulted Uday Shankar on his legs and body, Raghavendra assaulted Uday Shankar within a deadly weapon on the left side of the head, resulting which Uday Shankar sustained bleeding injury and fell unconscious. Then 27 S.C.No.782/2015 Raghavendra, Santhosh (deceased accused No.8) and Harsha (accused No.5) attacked him with deadly weapons causing bleeding injuries. It is also stated that Santhosh (deceased accused No.8), Venkatesh (split-up accused No.7), Raghavendra, Ashok (accused No.4), Harsh (accused No.5) without any provocation had assaulted them with deadly weapons causing bleeding injuries. He has stated that Ramesh took him to Raja Nandini Hospital, while Rakesh took Uday Shankar to NIMHANS hospital. Further in the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.18) dated:24.03.2015 in the Col.No.7-Brief History, it is stated that "Alleged fall from stairs in the house at about 9-30 p.m., on 5 th Feb. 15. he was accompanied by a couple claiming to be his parents. Patient was bleeding profusely and wound was sutured and patient was sent home". Further in Ex.P.18, in the history column it is further mentioned as under:
On receipt of requisition from police on 9th Feb. 15, we came to know that it was a case of assault. Patient was contacted and details noted. Hence police were informed on 24th March 2015.
Patient was allegedly assaulted by Muniraj, Raghu, Vajra, Ashok and others. While patient was consuming alcohol with his friend. He was assaulted using hand and dagger. Patient smells of alcohol".28 S.C.No.782/2015
37. On taking into consideration the contents of the complaint (Ex.P.6), history in the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.18) along with the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.2 and doctor (P.W.14), who treated C.W.1 and issued Wound Certificate (Ex.P.18), it is evident that there is contradiction regarding who took the injured C.W.1 to the hospital. Even though the said contradiction is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. But the history on injury as "fall from the stairs" given to the doctors goes unexplained. Even otherwise it is not stated that the injured informed them that he sustained injury due to an assault. But the hospital came to know about the same from the police requisition dated:9th Feb. 2015.
38. Here itself it is necessary to refer to the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.2 who has stated in his examination in chief that the accused No.2 was talking with deceased Uday Shankar, the accused No.7 Venkatesh assaulted Uday Shankar on his legs and other parts of the body with a club, resulting which he fell unconscious and also deceased accused No.8-Santhosh Kumar had also assaulted the deceased Uday Shankar with a club. Further he stated that the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 (accused No.3 juvenile offender, accused No.6 is dead) had assaulted the deceased. When he went to pacify them, the accused No.1-Muniraju, accused No.2-Raghu and deceased accused No.8 assaulted him with a knife 29 S.C.No.782/2015 on his head causing bleeding injury. But in his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that he sustained injuries due to a fall from the staircase of Karavali Hotel. It is elicited that he along with C.W.2, 3 and 5 and deceased Uday Shankar and he does not remember as to who took him to the hospital as he was unconscious.
39. Taking into consideration the complaint (Ex.P.6), Wound Certificate (Ex.P.18) along with the evidence of P.W.1, it can be safely said that there is contradiction regarding the place and manner in which C.W.1 sustained injuries. From the Wound Certificate, it can be safely said that the history of assault was added on instructions of the police and not as per the information given by the injured C.W.1 or by the person who had accompanied him. Even though C.W.1 states that he was conscious, he was taken to the hospital, but the same is not mentioned in the Wound Certificate. Further the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.2, it is contradictory in nature as he has denied the very incident in his cross examination by the advocate for accused. Even otherwise taking into consideration the complaint along with the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.2, it can be safely said that his oral evidence contradicts with the contents of the complaint regarding the role played by each of the accused as alleged by the prosecution.
30 S.C.No.782/201540. Further the prosecution has examined P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 as eye witnesses to the incident. From the evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that on 5.02.2015 at 6-00 p.m., the deceased Uday Shankar who was drinking tea along with his friends had scolded some people for smoking ganja. But the evidence placed before the court is contradictory in nature as to who were the people who were scolded by the deceased person. The eye witnesses to the incident P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was assaulted with a dragger and club by some people who had come in an autorickshaw bearing No.KA-05-B-2883 and Honda Activa bearing No.KA-05- JE-797. But he has specifically stated that the accused present before the court were not present at the alleged spot of incident. P.W.3 and 4 have totally denied witnessing any assault or incident. As such their evidence is not of any helpful to the prosecution.
41. Further P.W.5 has stated that the accused No.1- Muniraju, accused No.3-Suman (juvenile offender) were speaking with the deceased in rude language. He has stated that the accused No.3 i.e., juvenile offender had assaulted with a club and thereafter he ran away. His evidence is totally silent about the presence of other accused persons at the place of incident. As such the evidence of P.W.5 is not of any help to the prosecution to prove that the accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 8 had 31 S.C.No.782/2015 assaulted the deceased Uday Shankar and C.W.1-Dilip.
42. Here itself it is pertinent to note that the complaint (Ex.P.6) is silent regarding the role played by accused No.1-Muniraju. Also in the complaint there is a specific mention of Raghavendra, but as per the charge sheet and the documents placed before the court by the prosecution, the name of accused No.2 is Raghu @ Punith @ Burude, the name of deceased accused No.6 is Durga @ Raghu @ Kaddi. The prosecution has made no efforts to explain before the court as to whether Raghavendra mentioned in the complaint refers to accused No.2 or to deceased accused No.6.
43. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused had gone into Honda Activa bearing No.KA-05- JE-797 and auto bearing No.KA-05-B-2883 to the place of incident on 5.02.2015 and committed the alleged offences. But the seizure of the said vehicles is not proved as the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Also there is no evidence of the eye witnesses to link the accused persons to the seized vehicles to prove that they were in the said vehicles on the alleged day of incident. As such the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 8 had used the Honda Activa and auto on the alleged day of incident.
32 S.C.No.782/201544. As per the prosecution case, M.Os.7, 8 to 14 i.e., knife and wooden clubs were seized at the place showed by the accused persons in the presence of the witnesses by conducting seizure mahazar by the Investigating Officer. But the injured C.W.1, the eye witness to the incident and the seizure mahazar witnesses have not identified the said weapons. It is also the case of the prosecution that the dragger was being used by the accused persons to assault deceased Uday Shankar, but no explanation is forthcoming as to why the said dragger is not seized by the Investigating Officer. The evidence of the brother of the deceased and one Ramesh to whom C.W.1 said to have informed about the incident i.e., P.Ws.20 and 21, but they have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. In the absence of cogent, corroborative and convincing evidence, it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have committed the offences punishable under Sections Sections 143, 147, 307, 302 and 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC. Hence, I answer the Point Nos.1 to 5 in the Negative.
45. POINT No.6: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 5 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
33 S.C.No.782/2015ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302 and 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 stand cancelled, subject to appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 17 shall be retained till disposal of the case registered against the split-up accused No.7.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of February 2026) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Shashikumar
P.W.2 Dilip
P.W.3 Sham Kumar
P.W.4 Manjunatha
P.W.5 Sham Sundar
P.W.6 Yogaraj
P.W.7 Raja
P.W.8 Ganapathi
P.W.9 Thimmaraya
34 S.C.No.782/2015
P.W.10 Gopi
P.W.11 Naveen
P.W.12 Pushpanath
P.W.13 Krishnappa
P.W.14 Dr.Manju Prakash
P.W.15 Dr.Alok
P.W.16 Y.H.Ramu
P.W.17 Lokesh
P.W.18 Mohan
P.W.19 Govindaraju.T.
P.W.20 Rajesh
P.W.21 Ramesh
P.W.22 Mohammed Sadiq
P.W.23 Manjunath.S.
P.W.24 Shivananda H. Sarawada
P.W.25 Girish.R.
P.W.26 Parashurama M.Bajanthri
P.W.27 M.Annayyappa
P.W.28 Dhanalakshmi
P.W.29 S.K.Malatheesh
P.W.30 Arjun.C.R.
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Exs.P.1 to 3 Photographs of the vehicles Ex.P.4 Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.5 Further Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.6 Complaint Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.7 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.7(c) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.7(d) Signature of P.W.30 Exs.P.8 & 9 Photos of autorickshaw Ex.P.10 Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.12 Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.13 Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.14 Seizure Mahazar 35 S.C.No.782/2015 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.14(c) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.15 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.15(b) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.15(c) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.16 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.17 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.17(b) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.17(c) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.18 Wound Certificate Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.19 Intimation regarding death of deceased Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.20 Sketch Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.21 Statement of P.W.20 (relevant portion) Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.21 (relevant portion) Ex.P.23 Report of C.W.38 Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.23(b) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.24 Report of P.W.25 Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.25 Passport Ex.P.26 FSL Acknowledgment Ex.P.27 Statement of P.W.28 (relevant portion) Ex.P.28 Ex.P.29 F.I.R.
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.30 II FIR Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.31 Property Form Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.32 Property Form Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.30
Exs.P.33 to 39 Voluntary Statements of accused Nos.1 to 7 36 S.C.No.782/2015 Exs.P.33(a) to Signatures of P.W.30 39(a) Exs.P.33(b) to Signatures of accused Nos.1 to 7 39(b) Ex.P.40 Property Form Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.41 Acknowledgment for having received the dead body Ex.P.41(a) Signature of P.W.30 Exs.P.42 to 45 Photos of the deceased List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Blood stained mud
M.O.2 Sample mud
M.O.3 slipper
M.O.4 Empty bottle
M.O.5 Empty bottle
M.O.6 Empty bottle
M.O.7 knife
M.Os.8 to 14 Wooden clubs
M.O.15 (Marked as Ex.P.42)
M.Os.16 and Clothes of the deceased
17
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
RASHMI
RASHMI M
M Date:
2026.02.03
11:22:23
+0530