Bangalore District Court
Rajagopala Nagara P.S vs A3 Krishna on 9 January, 2026
KABC010004692023
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
Sri. S.N. Kalkani, B.Com, LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
S.C.No.22/2023
Complainant: State by Rajagopala Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused: 1. Harisha @ Kuri
2. Guruprasad
3. Krishna
4. Naveena @ RX Naveena
5. Rakesh @ Appaji,
S/o Jayaram,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.580, 4th Main,
7th Cross, Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
P/R/at Dodderi Village,
Mayasandra Hobli,
Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
6. Halagu S/o Perumal
7. Ravi @ Tiles Ravi
8. Umesha S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.20, 2nd Cross,
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
2 S.C.No.22/2023
9. Bharatha
10. Praveena @ Hitacha,
S/o Ravi, R/at No.9,
Anandappa Building,
Vinayaka School Road,
Raghavendra Layout,
Anjananagar, Bengaluru.
11. Abhi @ Andraalli Abhi
12. Santhosha @ Apple Santhu
13. Shashi @ Hatti Shaashi
14. Vasu
15. Khani
16. Rizwan
17. Rakesh
18. Muzahid @ Kattibabu
19. Anil Kumar @ Ani
20. Satheesh
21. Vinay @ Vini
22. Praveenkumar @ Praveen
23. Shivu @ RX Shiva @ Dande Shiva
A-1, 4, 11, 12 & 18 to 23: S.C.No.583/2017
A-2, 9 & 13 to 16: Split up
A-3 & 17: S.C.No.1215/2025
A-6: S.C.No.2090/22
A-7: Dead
(A-5: By Sri. R.Y, Advocate)
(A-8: By Sri. K.R, Advocate)
(A-10: By Sri. M.L, Advocate)
Date of offence: 03.07.2016
Date of report of offence: 04.07.2016
Name of complainant: Savithramma T.
Date of recording of 23.10.2024
evidence:
Date of closing of 21.07.2027
evidence:
Offence complained of: U/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324
& 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
Opinion of the judge: Acquittal
3 S.C.No.22/2023
JUDGMENT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the Rajagopala Nagar Police in Cr.No.587/2017 against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that:
Earlier to the alleged incident of this case, there were frequent altercations between C.W.2 who is also rowdy and the accused persons. C.W.2 along with his associates was often troubling rowdy- Bharath. Being frustrated by this, rowdy Bharath in order to take revenge against C.W.2, on 04.07.2016 at around 10.30 p.m, in front of house No.292/1, behind New Carmel school, 7th Cross, Hegganahalli Mayura Nagar, within the limits of complainant Police station, along with the accused persons assembled by holding deadly weapons like long, machete and knife etc. and when they started assaulting C.W.2, the C.W.1 came for the rescue of C.W.2 and sprinkled chilli powder on the accused persons and thereafter the accused persons damaged the house windows and doors and trespassed into the house and assaulted C.W.1 and caused bleeding injuries and also tried to commit the murder of C.W.2.
3. After completion of investigation, the complainant Police filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 23 before the trial Court. As the offences charge sheeted against the accused are exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn, the said case has been made over to this Court for disposal. During the proceedings in S.C.No.583/2017, except the accused No.1, 4, 11, 12 4 S.C.No.22/2023 and 18 to 23, the other accused persons remained absent and thus, split up cases have been registered against accused No.6 in S.C.No.2090/2022 and S.C.No.22/2023 against accused No.3, 5, 8, 10 and 17. During the proceedings of this case in S.C.No.22/2023, the accused No.3 and 17 remained absent and hence, split up case S.C.No.1215/2024 has been registered against them.
4. After hearing the counsel for accused No.5, 8 and 10 and also learned Public Prosecutor on framing charge, this Court has framed charge against the accused No.5, 8 and 10 for the offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC, to which they have pleaded not guilty and thereby claimed to be tried of the said offences.
5. In support of the case of prosecution, 8 witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 and has got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to 16 and adopted the M.Os.1 to 7 marked in S.C.No.583/2017. After closing of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statements of accused No.5, 8 and 10 are recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C, in which they have denied incriminating materials forthcoming against them in the prosecution evidence as false. The accused have got marked Ex.D.1 on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 04.07.2016 at around 10.30 p.m, in front of house No.292/1, behind New Carmel school, 7th Cross, Hegganahalli Mayura Nagar, Rajgopalnagar, the accused No.5, 5 S.C.No.22/2023 8 and 10 along with other accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly with an object to commit 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.5, 8 and 10 along with other accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like Long, machete and knife, which can be used as a weapon of offense and are likely to cause death, and thereby committed offence of rioting punishable u/s.147 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No. 5, 8 and 10 along with other accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.148 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.5, 8 and 10 along with other accused persons broken the house window and door of C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.427 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.5, 8 and 10 along with other accused persons committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.447 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.5, 8 and 10 along with other accused persons caused grievous 6 S.C.No.22/2023 injuries to C.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.324 r/w Sec.149 IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused No.5, 8 and 10 along with other accused persons assaulted C.W.2 with an intention to kill him and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.307 r/w Sec.34 IPC?
8. What Order?
7. After hearing arguments of both the parties and on considering oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are:
Points No.1 to 7: In the negative, Point No.8: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 7: These points are taken up together for discussion as they are inter linked.
9. As already the averments of complaint being the facts of prosecution case are taken on record, it is necessary to avoid reiteration of the same, but as and when required for the purpose of appreciating the evidence, the same would be considered.
10. As per prosecution case, P.W.3 is wife of C.W.1 who was present at the time of alleged incident of assault on her husband/ C.W.1 and when she tried to rescue him, the accused persons assaulted her also and caused bleeding injuries to her. She has deposed about the ordeal that on 03.07.2016 at about 10.30 p.m, nearly 30-40 people gathered near her house and at that time, her husband- C.W.1 had been to washroom and on hearing the hue and 7 S.C.No.22/2023 cry of her husband, she came outside and saw those persons who were holding long and machete and beating on her house door and window. She has further deposed that she telephoned to the Police and then gave chilli powder to her husband and when she was holding the door as the accused persons were beating it with weapons, at that time, she got blow on her left hand from long and she sustained bleeding injury. It is further deposed that the accused persons with an intention to murder her husband, assaulted him with machete and long and caused bleeding injuries on his forehead and hands.
11. The P.W.3 has further deposed that on arrival of Hoysala Police, the said persons fled away from the spot and the accused came on the leadership of Tiles Ravi and Bharath. She has further deposed that she lodged complaint as per Ex.P.14 and identified her signature on it. In the further chief-examination, P.W.3 has deposed with respect to drawing of spot-mahazar at the spot of incident i.e., in front of her house in the presence of C.Ws.3 and 4 and she has further deposed that thereafter she went to Police station and handed over the blood stained T-shirt at M.O.1 marked in S.C.No.583/2013 and the Police seized the same by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.3 and she does not remember who were all present at that time. She has further deposed that on 06.08.2016, the Police called her to the station for identification of accused persons. Except identifying the accused -Anil, she did not identify the accused with their names. The alleged machete and long used for commission of alleged offences are marked as M.Os.2 to 6 in S.C.No.583/2013.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor has treated P.W.3 as partly hostile and cross-examined her. In the evidence in cross-examination, 8 S.C.No.22/2023 she has admitted the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that on 04.07.2016, during drawing of spot-mahazar, the Police have seized the piece of her house door, which is marked as M.O.7 in S.C.No.583/2013.
13. The learned counsel for accused No.5 has cross-examined P.W.3 at length and she has admitted the suggestions that her husband was rowdy-sheeter; there were number of criminal cases registered against him; there were murder case against him; he was a boozer and he underwent imprisonment for two years in the case registered under Goondas Act. P.W.3 has denied the other suggestions made with respect to denying the investigation conducted by the Police. It is pertinent to note that in her further statement given before the Police at the time of identification of accused, she stated that she was informed that the said accused persons are involved in the case, and since P.W.3 has admitted in her cross-examination in respect of giving such narration in her further statement, the learned counsel for accused has got marked the concerned portion in her statement as per Ex.D.1. P.W.3 has further denied the suggestion that as her husband was involved in the murder case of Chethan, she lodged false case against accused persons.
14. In the evidence in examination-in-chief, the P.W.5 who worked as ASI in the complainant Police station has deposed that received the complaint from P.W.3 as per Ex.P.14 and based upon it registered the FIR at Ex.P.15 and thereafter handed over the case file to C.W.25 for further investigation.
15. As could be seen from entire the evidence in examination-in- chief of P.W.2, it reveals that after receiving the case file from P.W.5, 9 S.C.No.22/2023 recorded the statements of C.Ws.2 and 10 to 12 and visited the spot i.e., house of complainant at Sanjeevinagara Hegganahalli as shown by her; drawn the spot-mahazar in the presence of panchas- C.Ws.3 and 4; seized the broken wooden door piece, glass pieces and chilli powder fell near the place of incident by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.2. P.W.2 has identified the broken wooden piece at M.O.7. He has further deposed that C.W.1 produced the blood stained shirt of her husband before the Police station and he seized the same by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.5. The P.W.2 has further deposed with respect to his further investigation performed in this case, such as, deputing the staff- C.Ws.13 to 17 for tracing of accused; production of accused by them along with report at Ex.P.4; recorded the voluntary statements of the accused persons; seized the vehicles bearing No.KA-04/JB-1763 and KA-53/J-7094 produced by the staff, which are said to have used for commission of alleged offences, and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P.5. It is further deposed that as per the voluntary statements of accused No.6, 7 and 1 at Exs.P.6 to 8 respectively seized the longs at M.Os.2 to 6 in their respective houses by drawing respective mahazar at Ex.P.16 in the presence of panchas- C.Ws.6 to 8 and further recorded the statements of C.Ws.14 to 17 and collected the wound certificates of injured as per Exs.P.12 and 13 and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
16. The learned counsel for accused No.5 has cross-examined the P.W.2 at length by denying the part of investigation done by him and he has denied all those suggestions. The P.W.2 has admitted the suggestions that he did not receive MLC from the hospital and not sent M.O.1 for FSL; the husband of C.W.1 was in the rowdy-sheeter list and there were many murder, kidnap and robbery cases against C.W.2 10 S.C.No.22/2023 and he was in prison in the case registered under the Goondas Act. The learned counsel has further suggested that C.W.1 gave further statement that she was informed by Police that the accused persons are involved in the case. The P.W.2 has further denied the suggestion that though there is no connection of accused with this case, he has filed false charge sheet against them.
17. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.6 who was worked as PSI in complainant Police station, it reveals that on 18.08.2016, he received the case file from C.W.25 for further investigation and on 19.08.2016, his staff have produced the accused- Shivu @ RX Shivu @ Dande Shivu along with report of C.W.20 at Ex.P.16, against whom split up case has been registered. The P.W.6 has further deposed that after recording the voluntary statement of said accused, he was produced before the Court and thereafter handed over the case file to C.W.25 for further investigation.
18. P.Ws.1, 4 and 8 are the Police officials who were deputed for tracing of accused persons of this case. P.Ws.1 and 8 have given similar evidence that they along with C.Ws.16 and 17 apprehended the accused No.1, 2, 5 to 8 and 23 on 05.07.2016. The P.W.1 has further deposed that himself, C.Ws.14, 16 and 17 arrested the accused No.19 to 22 and produced them before C.W.25 along with report at Ex.P.6. The P.W.4 has deposed that on 17.07.2016, himself and C.W.19 have arrested the accused No.16 and 17 and produced them before C.W.25 along with report at Ex.P.10. The P.W.8 has further deposed that on 18.07.2016, he and C.W.19 arrested the accused No.18 and produced before C.W.25. In the evidence in cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 4 and 8, the learned counsel for accused has made suggestions by denying their part of duty performed in this case, however denied the same.
11 S.C.No.22/202319. On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is noticed that P.W.3 being the complainant has reiterated the complaint averments in her evidence. Her allegations are that on the date of alleged incident the accused persons assaulted her and her husband with long and machete with an intention to commit their murder and thereby they sustained bleeding injuries. The rest of the witnesses - P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 8 are Police officials. The C.W.2 is material witness to this case. Since he is reported to be dead, his evidence is not available for prosecution. Though P.W.3 has deposed that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences against her and her husband- C.W.2, there is no corroborative evidence by any independent witness. The P.W.2 has also deposed that he conducted the mahazar at the spot as per Ex.P.2 and seized the wooden piece in presence of the C.W.1- complainant, but the signature of the complainant is not forthcoming in the said Ex.P.2. further, the prosecution has not examined any other pancha to prove the spot and seizure mahazar. The prosecution having failed to prove the mahazar of the place of incident, it creates doubt regarding the alleged incident.
20. In the evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, the P.W.3 has admitted that her husband/ C.W.1 was rowdy sheeter and involved in many other cases. Further, there is no evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of Police witnesses, regarding particular overtact and did identification of all the accused herein and based on their evidence, the accused cannot be held guilty of the alleged offences. Further, the accused No.1, 4, 11, 12 and 18 to 23 of the same crime number are already on same evidence acquitted in S.C.No.583/2017. Hence, in view of aforesaid reasons, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences u/s.143, 144, 147, 12 S.C.No.22/2023 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC against accused No.5, 8 and 10 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No.5, 8 and 10 are entitled for acquittal. In view of these reasons, I answered Points No.1 to 7 in the negative.
21. Point No.8: As discussed herein above, the accused No.5, 8 and 10 deserve to be acquitted of the said offences. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.5, 8 and 10 are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
The personal bonds of the accused No.5, 8 and 10 and surety bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar, transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 9th day of January, 2026) (S.N. Kalkani) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:
P.W.1: Jaishankar P.H.
P.W.2: Santhosh Rao
P.W.3: Savitramma T.
P.W.4: Chowdegowda
P.W.5: B.G. Govindaraju
P.W.6: Sharath Kumar H.P
P.W.7: V. Srinivas
P.W.8: Sudhakar K.G.
13 S.C.No.22/2023
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Requisition Ex.P.2: Spot-mahazar Ex.P.3: Seizure-panchanama Ex.P.4: Requisition Ex.P.5: Seizure-mahazar Exs.P.6 to 8: Voluntary statements of A-6, 7 & 1 Ex.P.9: Seizure-mahazar Exs.P.10 & 11: Requisitions Exs.P.12 & 13: Wound certificates Ex.P.14: Complaint Ex.P.15: FIR Ex.P.16: Requisition
List of material object marked in S.C.No.583/2017 on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1: Blood stained T-shirt M.Os.2 to 5:Long M.O.6: Knife M.O.7: Wooden door piece
List of witnesses examined and material objects marked on behalf of defence: -Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D.1: Marked portion in the statement of P.W.3 LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by
Shankarappa Shankarappa
Nimbanna Nimbanna Kalkani
Kalkani Date: 2026.01.19
15:52:07 +0530