Bangalore District Court
Stella vs Andrews on 24 January, 2026
KABC030166492020 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 04-03-2020
Registered on : 04-03-2020
Decided on : 24-01-2026
Duration : 5 years, 10 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 24th Day of January, 2026
C. C. No.4408/2020
(Crime No.100/2019)
State by J.C.Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Adrose,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Sri Late Kanikraj,
R/at No.278, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross, Gandhigrama,
J.C.Nagar, Bengaluru City.
KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020
2. Sri Gunal,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sri Late Krishnan,
R/at No.279, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross, Gandhigrama,
J.C.Nagar, Bengaluru City.
3. Smt. Anitha,
Aged about 35 years,
W/o Sri Moses,
R/at No.278, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross, Gandhigrama,
J.C.Nagar, Bengaluru City ... Accused
(Represented by Sri P. Srinivas Kumar Advocate for
Accused No.1-3)
1. Date of commission of 25-09-2019
offence
2. Date of FIR 25-10-2019
3. Date of Charge sheet 26-09-2019
4. Name of Complainant Smt. Stella
5. Offences complained of Under Section 143,
147, 323, 324, 354(A),
504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC
2
KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020
6. Date of framing charge 13-12-2021
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 23-01-2026
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 24-01-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 24-01-2026
11. Final order Accused No.1 to 3 are
acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of J.C.Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: On 25-09-2019 at about 10.30 pm near Gandhi Grama, Pottery Town within the limits of J. C. Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, the accused No.1 to 3 formed an unlawful 3 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 assembly in public road by parking their vehicles. When CW4 Sri Jayaprakash @ Sri Thomas questioned above the acts of accused, at that time, the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention beaten CW4 with steel and iron pipe and caused simple bleeding injuries. Further, when CW1 namely Smt. Stella, CW5 Sri Murugesh @ David and CW6 Sri Manikanta @ Charles came to rescue the CW4, the accused persons abused CW1, CW5 to CW10 with filthiest language, pulled the Saree of CW1 being woman with an intention to outrage her modesty in the public, beaten CW5 and CW6 with their hands and threatened them with life consequences, thereby accused persons committed alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of first information from CW1, CW12 Sri Gangahonnaiah, ASI of J.C.Nagara Police Station registered Crime No.100/2019 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 354(A), 506, 143, 147, 149, 504, 324, 323 of IPC, prepared FIR and sent the same to the Court.
4. Investigation: Thereafter CW13 Sri Vinod Jirgale, PSI drawn spot mahazar on 26-10-2019 as per Ex.P2, collected the documents, recorded the statements of requisite witnesses and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the 4 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 accused No.1 to 3 for the alleged offences by dropping out the accused No.4 to 6 from the final report.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 3.
6. At pre -cognizance stage, the accused No.1 to 3 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 12-11- 2019
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 to 3.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 to 3, charge for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 13 witnesses and examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents and closed their side. Perused the nature of offences 5 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 and PW1 to PW8 being informant cum injured persons did not support the prosecution case and hence the issuance of witness summons to other witnesses has been dispensed by the order dated 23/01/2026.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: There are no incriminating evidences against the accused No. 1 to 3 found from the evidence of prosecution thereby the recording of statement of accused as per Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 25/09/2019 at about 10.30 p.m., near Gandhi Garma, Pottery Town, J.C.Nagar, the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention formed an unlawful assembly thereby resulted in commission of an offence 6 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 punishable under Sec.143 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their common intention, the accused No.1 to 3 caused riot by arming with deadly weapons i.e., pipe, steel rod thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.149 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention, accused No.1 to 3 with common intention voluntarily hit CW4 namely Sri Jayaprakash @ Thomas with steel and iron pipe and caused simple bleeding injuries thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under 7 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 Sec.324 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 to 3, voluntarily beaten CW5 and CW6 with their hands and legs and caused simple hurt to them thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.323 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 to 3 pulled the Saree of CW1 being woman namely Smt. Stella with an intention to outrage her modesty in the public thereby resulted in 8 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 commission of an offence punishable under Sec.354(A) read with Sec.34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 to 3 abused CW1, CW5 to CW10 with filthiest language with filthiest language, knowingly such abusive words will provoke breach of peace and thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.504 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, place and time in furtherance of common intention the accused No.1 to 3 threatened CW1, CW4 to 10 with life consequences thereby 9 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.506 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
8. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 7 : In the Negative Point No.8 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1 to 7: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses i. CW1 Smt. Stella, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that when she went to police station to sort out the difference of opinion amongst her and accused persons, the police have obtained her thumb impression on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and pleaded 10 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 ignorance about the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. No spot mahazar was conducted in her presence and she has not taken any treatment with the history of assault and did not identify the iron pipe and steel rod. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating her as hostile witness however no favorable answer has been elicited from her to support the prosecution case. Her denial of statement given before the police is marked as per Ex.P3.
ii. CW4 Sri Jayaprakash, being injured person examined as PW2 deposed that no quarrel held between him and accused, he has not taken any treatment with the history of assault and not given any statement before police. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answer has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial of statement given before the police is marked as per Ex.P4.
iii. CW5/PW3 Sri Murugesh, CW6/PW4 Sri Manikanta, CW9/PW5 Smt. Curlin, CW8/PW6 Smt. Asha, CW10/PW7 Sri Kumar and CW7/PW8 Smt. Aishu being victims have deposed that no quarrel had taken place between them and accused and they have not given any statements to police. In this regard, the learned Senior APP has cross examined these 11 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 witnesses by treating them as hostile witnesses however no favorable answers have been elicited from them to support the prosecution case. Their denial of statements given before police are marked as Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 respectively.
15. In this case, the PW1 to PW8 being informant cum victims did not support the prosecution case. Though the prosecution cross- examined these witnesses by treating as hostile witnesses however no favorable evidence have been elicited to support the prosecution case and deposed falsely to help the accused. Hence, this court is of the opinion that even if other witnesses were examined by the prosecution and they supported the prosecution case that would not helpful as PW1 to PW8 themselves did not support the prosecution case. That apart, they admitted that they have compromised with the accused persons however the prosecution failed to elicit anything favourable to the case of prosecution on account of the settlement arrived between the accused persons and the PW1 to PW8, are falsely deposing before this court. Therefore, this court has dispensed with the examination of other witnesses which could be only formal in nature and hence taken the prosecution evidence as closed. At this stage, it is relevant to rely upon the decision in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration 12 KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 and another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"When the judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."
By basing aforesaid principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above case is applicable to this case as well and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the Point No.1 to 7 is answered in the negative.
16. Point No.8:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1 to 7, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.13
KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, the items shown under PF No.50B/2019 shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of January, 2026) Digitally signed DEEPA VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
14KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Smt. Stella Informant PW2: Smt. Jayaprakash Victim PW3: Sri Murugesh Victim PW4 : Sri Manikanta Victim PW5: Smt. Curlin Victim PW6: Smt. Asha, Victim PW7 : Sri Kumar Victim PW8: Smt. Aishu Victim
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1
Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar PW1
Ex.P3: Statement of PW1 PW1
Ex.P4: Statement of PW2 PW2
Ex.P5: Statement of PW3 PW3
Ex.P6: Statement of PW4 PW4
Ex.P7: Statement of PW5 PW5
Ex.P8: Statement of PW6 PW6
15
KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020
Ex.P9: Statement of PW7 PW7
Ex.P10: Statement of PW8 PW8
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: NIL Documents marked on behalf of the defence: NIL DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
16KABC030166492020 CC No.4408/2020 24-01-2026 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 354(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, the items shown under PF No.50B/2019 shall be destroyed.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
17