Bangalore District Court
Sringeri Ps vs A1 B G Krishnamurthy Alias Vijaya Alias ... on 22 November, 2024
KABC010253992023
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE [SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA
CASES], (CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 22nd day of November, 2024
PRESENT:
SRI GANGADHARA C.M.,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
[Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases],
(CCH-50) Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.2104/2023 C/W SPL.C.No.1519/2024
The State of Karnataka by Sringeri Police,
Complainant Chikkamagaluru District.
(By : Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 Sri B.G. Krishnamurthy @ Vijay @ Bhagath
in @ Sumanth @ Che @ Kumara
Spl.C.No.2104/2023 @ Bhaskara, S/o Late B.K. Gopal Rao, Aged
about 46 years, R/o Nemmar Estate,
Nemmar Post, Sringeri Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District.
Accused No.3 Ms. Hosagadde Prabha @ Sandhya
in @ Madhu @ Netra, D/o Narayana Shetty,
Spl.C.No.1519/2024 Aged about 24 years, R/o Hosagadde,
Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga District.
(By : Sri. S.S., Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence : Under Sections 120B, 121 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC, Section
13 of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967.
2
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
2. Date of Commission of : 24.04.2009
Offence
3. Date of F.I.R. : 24.04.2009
4. Date of arrest of the : Accused No.1 secured under
accused production warrant on
14.03.2022
Accused No.3 secured under
production warrant on
22.07.2024
5. Name of the complainant : Sri Sadananda Thippannavar
6. Date of commencement : 03.10.2024
of evidence
7. Date of closure of : 14.11.2024
evidence
8. Date of pronouncement : 22.11.2024
of judgment
9. Result of the Case : Accused Nos.1 and 3 are
acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections
120B, 121 r/w Section 34 of the
IPC, Section 13 of the U.A.(P)
Act, 1967.
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Investigating Officer, Sri Abdul Ahad, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Koppa Sub-Division, Koppa,
Chikkamagaluru District, has submitted the charge sheet against the
accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
3
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
referred to as 'IPC'), and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.A.(P) Act').
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:
(a) PW.5, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, received information
from PW.3, Sri Abdul Ahad, that members of a Naxal organization
had distributed pamphlets in Koppa and Jaipura calling for a boycott
of the Lok Sabha elections. Based on this, PW.5 was directed to
monitor these activities. Acting on the information provided by PW.3,
PW.5 began checking vehicles at Thekkuru Cross on Mense Main
Road, within the jurisdiction of Sringeri Police Station, around 8:00
a.m. on 24.04.2009. At that time, a bus named Master arrived from
the Jaipur side. During the search, a person seated at the back on
the right side was found with a plastic cover and a green suitcase.
Upon inspection, the plastic cover contained a red nighty, a turkey
towel, a shirt, and, hidden among the clothes, eight Naxal-related
pamphlets. When PW.5 questioned the individual, he identified
himself as Shankarappa and provided his address. When asked
about the pamphlets, Shankarappa stated that Naxal leaders B.G.
Krishnamurthy, Mundagaru Latha, Hosagadde Prabha, Horale
Saroja, and others had given him the pamphlets with instructions to
drop them from the bus on his way to his village. PW.5 then seized
the pamphlets in the presence of PW.1, Sri Manu, CW.3, Sri
Mohammed Irshad, and CW.6, Sri Surendra, under a mahazar.
Shankarappa was apprehended at the scene. Following the arrest,
PW.5 went to the Sringeri Police Station, where he lodged the first
information report (FIR) with Station House Officer PW.2, Sri M.
Ningappa. PW.5 produced the accused, the mahazar, and the
4
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
seized pamphlets. Based on this information, a case was registered
under crime No. 47/2009 against the accused.
(b) PW.5 continued the investigation under the oral directions
of PW.3, Sri Abdul Ahad. PW.5 recorded the statements of PW.1, Sri
Manu; CW.3, Sri Mohammed Irshad; CW.4, Sri Vasu Poojary; CW.5,
Sri Daru; and CW.6, Sri Surendra. Thereafter, PW.5 produced the
accused, Shankarappa, before the Court.
(c) PW.3, Sri Abdul Ahad, received the case papers from
PW.1, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar, and continued the
investigation. He recorded the statements of CW.26, Sri Sachin
Kumar; CW.7, Sri K.H. Shankarappa; CW.8, Sri Nandeesh; CW.9,
Sri Avinash; CW.10, Sri Dinesh; CW.11, Sri Shankarappa; CW.12,
Sri B.L. Krishna; CW.13, Sri Srinivasa; CW.15, Sri D.N. Ravindra;
CW.16, Sri Prasanna; CW.17, Sri D.B. Chandrashekar; CW.18, Sri
Harish; CW.19, Sri Kallesh; CW.21, Sri H.D. Nagaraj; CW.22, Sri
H.A. Sridhara; CW.23, Sri H. Nataraj; CW.24, Sri Rajakumar;
CW.25, Sri Raghu; and CW.14, Gopa @ Gopala. He obtained the
sanction order from the Government to prosecute the accused
persons under the provisions of the U.A.(P) Act. Upon concluding
the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet before the learned
Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, against accused Nos. 1 to 4,
indicating that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were absconding.
3. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, took cognizance of the offences and registered
a case against the accused persons in C.C. No. 17/2011. Since
accused Nos. 1 to 3 were absconding, the learned Civil Judge and
5
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
JMFC, Sringeri, ordered a split-up and registered a separate case
against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accordingly, a separate case was
registered against them in C.C. No. 33/2011. Since the complainant
police were unable to secure accused Nos. 1 to 3, the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, after complying with Sections 82 and 83
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
"Cr.P.C."), posted the matter for recording the evidence under
Section 299 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sringeri, recorded the evidence of the charge-sheet
witnesses and sent the records to the Hon'ble Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for seeking permission to send
the said case to LPR. With the permission of the Hon'ble Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, a case was registered
in LPR No. 1/2021 against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Subsequently,
accused No. 1 was produced before the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sringeri, on 14.03.2022, on a production warrant, in LPR No.
1/2021 and a separate case was registered in C.C. No. 83/2022
against accused No. 1. The learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri,
furnished the copy of the charge sheet and its enclosures to accused
No. 1 in compliance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, committed C.C. No.
83/2022 to the Sessions Court, Chikkamagaluru, on 25.05.2022, for
trial, as the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Sessions.
4. After receiving the case file from the learned Civil Judge
and JMFC, Sringeri, the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkamagaluru, registered a case as S.C. No. 71/2022 and
made over this case to the learned 1st Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for final disposal in accordance
6
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
with the law. The learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge
secured the presence of accused No. 1 under a production warrant.
The arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel for accused No. 1 were heard before framing charges. Since
there were sufficient materials against accused No. 1 in the charge
sheet, charges were framed, read over, and explained to accused
No. 1. He denied the charges as false and claimed to be tried.
Therefore, the matter was posted for the evidence of the
prosecution. Subsequently, the learned 1st Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, transferred the aforementioned
case to this Court on the grounds of jurisdiction.
5. Further, accused No. 3 was secured before the court of the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, under a production warrant
on 22.07.2024, in LPR No. 1/2021. As per the order of the learned
Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, a separate case was registered
against accused No. 3 in C.C. No. 354/2024. Subsequently, the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, transferred C.C. No.
354/2024 to this Court on the grounds of jurisdiction on 22.07.2024.
6. After receiving the case files from the learned 1st Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, and the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sringeri, this Court took cognizance of the
offences and registered separate cases against accused Nos. 1 and
3. The learned counsel for accused No. 3 submitted that charges be
framed against accused No. 3. Accordingly, this Court framed the
charges, which were read over and explained to accused No. 3 in a
language known to her. Accused No. 3 denied the charges as false
and claimed the right to be tried. Hence, the case against accused
7
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
No. 3 was posted for prosecution evidence. Based on the application
filed by the prosecution, this Court ordered a joint trial in both cases
and examined the witnesses in Spl.C. No. 2104/2023.
7. In order to prove the allegations made against accused
Nos. 1 and 3, the prosecution examined five witnesses, designated
as PW.1 to PW.5, marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6, and
closed its evidence.
8. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, the incriminating
circumstances that appeared in the evidence adduced by the
prosecution were read over and explained to accused Nos. 1 and 3,
in a language known to them, as required under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. The explanations offered by accused Nos. 1 and 3 were
recorded. The accused chose not to adduce any defense evidence
on their behalf.
9. This court has heard the arguments of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for accused
Nos.1 and 3.
10. The points that arise for the Court's consideration are as
follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, in the month of April 2009,
within the jurisdiction of Sringeri Police Station,
accused Nos. 1 and 3, along with other accused
persons, being members of CPI (Maoist), which is
part of the Communist Party of India (Maoist-
Leninist), connived with each other to persuade the
people to boycott or ban the Lok Sabha Election by
circulating Naxal-related pamphlets/handbills, thereby
8
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
committing the offence of criminal conspiracy
punishable under Section 120B read with Section 34
of the IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on the above-mentioned date,
time, and place, in furtherance of a common
intention, accused Nos. 1 and 3, along with other
accused persons, being members of CPI (Maoist),
which is part of the Communist Party of India (Maoist-
Leninist) and banned by the Government of India,
committed unlawful activities such as waging,
attempting to wage, or abetting to wage war against
the Government of India, thereby committing the
offence of waging war against the Government,
punishable under Section 121 read with Section 34 of
the IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that, in order to achieve the object
of the criminal conspiracy, accused Nos. 1 and 3,
along with accused No. 2, handed over Naxal-related
pamphlets / handbills to accused No. 4
(Shankarappa), and that on 24.04.2009, on Sringeri-
Jayapura Road, accused No. 4 threw the Naxal-
related pamphlets/handbills from the window of the
Master bus with the intent to circulate them to the
public to boycott or ban the Lok Sabha Election,
thereby committing the offence of unlawful activity
punishable under Section 13 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
3) What order?
11. The findings of this Court to the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative;
9
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
Point No.2 : In the negative;
Point No.3 : In the negative;
Point No.4 : As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS
12. Point Nos.1 and 2 :- The prosecution has alleged that
accused Nos. 1 and 3, along with the other accused persons, are
members of the banned organization CPI (Maoist). It is claimed that
these accused persons conspired with each other to persuade the
public to boycott the Lok Sabha elections by circulating Naxal-related
pamphlets and handbills. In doing so, the prosecution asserts that all
the accused have committed offences under Sections 120B and 121
read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since these allegations are
interrelated and the prosecution has relied on the same set of
witnesses to prove them, this Court finds it appropriate to consider
these points together to avoid repetition and ensure a
comprehensive analysis.
13. The criminal law was set in motion following the first
information report filed by PW.5, Sri Sadananda Thippannavar. He
testified that on 23.04.2009, he received a phone call from PW.3, Sri
Abdul Ahad, informing him of an alleged plan by Naxals to disrupt
the Lok Sabha elections by circulating handbills in the Koppa and
Jaipur areas. Acting on this information, PW.5 and his team began
checking vehicles on the morning of 24.04.2009 at Thekkuru Cross,
Menase - Sringeri main road, within the jurisdiction of Sringeri P.S.
At around 08:25 A.M., they intercepted a bus named Master,
traveling from Jaipur to Sringeri. During the search, they found a
person, later identified as Shankarappa, sitting with a plastic cover
10
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
and a green suitcase. The plastic cover contained eight Naxal-
related handbills, along with women's clothing. Upon questioning,
Shankarappa revealed that on 21.04.2009, he had received these
pamphlets from Naxal leaders Mundagaru Latha, accused No. 1,
B.G. Krishnamurthy, Horale Saroja, and others, with instructions to
distribute them by throwing them from the bus on his way to his
village. The pamphlets were seized at the scene in the presence of
witnesses PW.1, Sri Manu, CW.3, Sri Md. Irshad, and CW.6, Sri
Surendra, under a mahazar from 09:00 A.M. to 10:30 A.M.
Shankarappa was apprehended and later brought to Sringeri P.S.,
where a report was prepared, and he was handed over to the SHO
of Sringeri Police Station.
14. PW.4, Sri Sachin Kumar, who was present during the
search of the Master bus, testified that on 24.04.2009, PW.5
received credible information that a Naxal was aboard the bus and
was throwing Naxal-related pamphlets out of the window. Acting on
this information, PW.5 and his team, including several other
witnesses, proceeded to Thekkuru Cross, where they waited for the
bus. When the bus arrived at approximately 08:25 A.M., they
intercepted it for the purpose of search. A person with a plastic cover
and a suitcase was sitting at the back of the bus. Upon searching the
plastic cover and suitcase, they found eight pamphlets and clothes.
When PW.5 questioned the said person, he disclosed his name as
Shankarappa, provided his address, and stated that the Naxal
leaders Mundagaru Latha and accused No. 1, B.G. Krishnamurthy,
had given him the pamphlets to throw from the bus. Accordingly, he
had thrown the pamphlets from the bus on his way.
11
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
15. He also testified that based on Shankarappa's statements,
PW.5 secured the presence of panch witnesses at the scene, seized
the eight pamphlets, and prepared a mahazar from 08:30 A.M. to
10:00 A.M. Shankarappa was then taken to the Sringeri Police
Station, where he was formally arrested, and the seized pamphlets
were submitted.
16. PW.1, Sri A. Manu, the conductor of the Master bus,
testified that Shankarappa boarded the bus at Jayapura on
24.04.2009. The police intercepted the bus near Menase Bridge,
about 1 km from Sringeri, as they had received information that
Shankarappa had been throwing handbills from the window.
Shankarappa was apprehended and was found in possession of a
plastic cover containing the pamphlets. PW.1 also testified that he
and the bus driver, CW.3, Sri Irshad, signed the mahazar prepared
by the police at that time, and photographs were taken.
17. The evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes that
Shankarappa was traveling on the Master bus with eight Naxal-
related pamphlets, which were seized under the mahazar. PW.4 and
PW.5 testified that Shankarappa disclosed that Naxal leaders,
including accused Nos. 1 and 3, had given him the pamphlets with
instructions to distribute them by throwing them from the bus.
However, it is noteworthy that these witnesses did not testify to any
direct involvement of accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the physical act of
handing over the pamphlets to Shankarappa. The only evidence
linking accused Nos. 1 and 3 to the crime comes from
Shankarappa's oral disclosure, which, in the absence of
12
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
corroborative testimony, is insufficient to establish their active
participation in the alleged conspiracy or unlawful activity.
18. The investigating officer, PW.3, Sri Abdul Ahad,
corroborated the steps taken in the investigation, including recording
witness statements, obtaining government sanction, and submitting
the charge sheet. However, PW.3 did not receive any statements
directly implicating accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the act of distributing the
pamphlets or instructing Shankarappa to do so. There is no evidence
to indicate that Shankarappa actually dropped the pamphlets at any
location along the way, or that he had received instructions from
accused Nos. 1 and 3 at any specific place. Furthermore,
Shankarappa was not taken to the location where he allegedly
received the pamphlets, and there were no witnesses to confirm that
accused Nos. 1 and 3 handed the pamphlets to him. Thus, the
prosecution's case rests solely on the voluntary statement of the
accused Shankarappa, which, without further corroboration, fails to
establish the involvement of accused Nos. 1 and 3 beyond
reasonable doubt.
19. Given the lack of direct evidence linking accused Nos. 1
and 3 to the act of circulating Naxal-related pamphlets or conspiring
to boycott the elections, and in the absence of credible testimony or
physical evidence corroborating the oral disclosure made by
Shankarappa, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to
prove the allegations against accused Nos. 1 and 3. Consequently,
Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
13
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
20. Point No.3 :- The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1
and 3, along with other co-accused, conspired to boycott the Lok
Sabha elections by circulating Naxal-related pamphlets. It is further
claimed that they handed over these pamphlets to accused
Shankarappa, instructing him to distribute them by throwing them
from the bus on his way to his village, thereby committing an offence
under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
21. It appears from the records that the prosecution examined
witnesses PW.1 to PW.5 to substantiate these allegations. None of
the witnesses provided testimony that directly links accused Nos. 1
and 3 to the circulation of the pamphlets or to the act of handing
them over to accused Shankarappa with instructions to distribute
them. There is no evidence on record that proves accused Nos. 1
and 3 were involved in any such transaction or that they participated
in any unlawful activities as alleged. The mere oral disclosure of
accused Shankarappa, without corroborative evidence, does not
suffice to establish the involvement of accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the
commission of unlawful activities.
22. In the absence of any direct evidence or testimony that
directly connects accused Nos. 1 and 3 to the alleged crime, the
prosecution's case remains unsubstantiated. Accordingly, this Court
finds that there is no evidence to show that accused Nos. 1 and 3,
along with the other accused, took part in or committed, advocated,
abetted, advised, or incited the commission of any unlawful activity.
As a result, Point No. 3 is answered in the negative.
14
Spl.C.No.2104/2023
C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024
23. Point No. 4 :- A thorough analysis of the evidence reveals
that the prosecution has failed to produce any credible evidence
establishing that accused Nos. 1 and 3, along with the other
accused, conspired to commit any criminal act, or were involved in
the circulation of pamphlets intended to boycott or ban the Lok
Sabha election. There is no proof that they participated in,
advocated, abetted, advised, or incited any unlawful activity. As a
result, the prosecution has not substantiated the allegations against
accused Nos. 1 and 3, and has not proven their guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the charges
against them are unproven and proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER
Accused No. 1, Sri B.G. Krishnamurthy @ Vijay @ Bhagath @ Sumanth @ Che @ Kumara @ Bhaskara, and Accused No. 3, Ms. Hosagadde Prabha @ Sandhya @ Madhu @ Netra, are found not guilty of any of the charges alleged against them.
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 120B, 121 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The office is hereby directed to retain the original judgment in Spl.C.No. 2104/2023 and a copy of the same in Spl.C.No. 1519/2024.
(Dictated to the Senior Sheristedar / the then Stenographer Grade-I, directly computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court on 22nd day of November, 2024) (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
15Spl.C.No.2104/2023 C/w Spl.C.No.1519/2024 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW.1 Sri Manu PW.2 Sri M. Ningappa PW.3 Sri Abdul Ahahad PW.4 Sri Sachin Kumar PW.5 Sri Sadananda Tippannavar
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 True copy of the mahajar Ex.P.2 Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 True copy of the first information statement Ex.P.4 True copy of the FIR Ex.P.5 True copy of the sanction order Ex.P.6 True copy of the pamphlet List of MOs. identified on behalf of the prosecution :-
NIL List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence :-
NIL List of documents and MOs. marked on behalf of the defence :-
NIL (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
*HRN/-