Bangalore District Court
Kumar Swamy Layout Police Station vs Anandkumara on 12 November, 2025
KABC030659062024
Presented on : 30-11-2024
Registered on : 30-11-2024
Decided on : 12-11-2025
Duration : 0 years, 11 months, 12 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 12th Day of November-2025
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.39222/2024
Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C
Date of Offence 11.07.2024
Complainant State by K.S.Layout Police Station.
(R/by: Learned Senior APP)
V/s.
Accused A1. Anandakumara,
S/o. Gunashekar,
Aged about 25 years,
A2. Shanmuga.G
S/o.Gunashekar,
Aged about 27 years,
Judgment 2 C.C. No.39222/2024
Both are R/at.House No.663,
Pragathipura Banashankari,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru City.
A3. Sanjay
S/o. Late.Ramesh,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at.No.358, Ganesha Temple,
Road, Sarabandepalya,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec.,115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352,
351(3), R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 13.08.2025 and accused
persons are pleaded not guilty.
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order 12.11.2025
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 3 C.C. No.39222/2024
JUDGMENT
The accused persons are facing trial for the charge sheet submitted by the K.S.Layout Police, for the offences punishable U/sec.,115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(3), R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that, on 11.07.2024 at about 09.00 PM, within the jurisdiction of K.S.Layout police station, Swarga Bar, Kanakapura Main Road Junction, Gangadhar Nagar, J.P.Nagar Post, when the Cw.1 was going at that time, the accused persons illegally restrained the Cw.1 from not moving forward and assaulted the Cw.1 with their hands and caused simple injuries, further the accused persons in furtherance of common intention, abused the Cw.1 in filthy language and among them, the accused No.1 assaulted the Cw.1 with a stone on Cw.1's head and caused injuries and further the accused No.2 and 3 in furtherance of common intention given life threat to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said alleged offences which are punishable U/sec.,115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(3), R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS.
Judgment 4 C.C. No.39222/2024
3. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offences punishable U/sec.,115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(3), R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS against the accused persons and the accused persons were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the accused persons in kannada language, wherein they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons, the prosecution has been examined 01 witness as Pw.1 out of 8 witnesses and during the examination of Cw.1 has got marked Ex.P1& 2. Further in this case the Cw.1 is the complainant/injured witness has turned hostile to the prosecution case. Hence, this court rejected the prayer of the learned Senior APP to examine other charge sheet witnesses, as no purpose would be served in examining them and also the valuable time of the court would be saved. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, hence the examination of the accused persons as required U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has been dispensed with.
Judgment 5 C.C. No.39222/2024
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available on record.
6. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points arise for consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 11.07.2024 at about 09.00 PM, within the jurisdiction of K.S.Layout police station, Swarga Bar, Kanakapura Main Road Junction, Gangadhar Nagar, J.P.Nagar Post, when the Cw.1 was going at that time, the accused persons illegally restrained the Cw.1 from not moving forward and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said alleged offence which is punishable U/s.126(2) R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons abused the Cw.1 in filthy language and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said alleged offence which is punishable U/s. 352(2) R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS?
Judgment 6 C.C. No.39222/2024
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, further the accused persons assaulted the Cw.1 with their hands and caused injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said alleged offence which is punishable U/s.115(2) R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, further the accused No.1 assaulted the Cw.1 with a stone on Cw.1's head and caused injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said alleged offence which is punishable U/s.118(1) R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, further the accused No.2 and 3 given life threat to Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed the above said alleged offence which is punishable U/s.351(2) R/w sec., 3(5) of BNS?
6. What order?
7. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Judgment 7 C.C. No.39222/2024
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINTS NO.1 TO 5: These points are inter connected to each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. Further, I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint here also, since I have already narrated the same at the inception of this judgment.
9. Pw.1 is the complainant/injured witness to the case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, he knows the accused persons and there was no quarrel between himself and the accused persons, further he has identified his signatures in the Ex.P1and 2 and he had signed the said documents in the police station before 01 year ago and denied the rest of the things which is written in the said documents, further he has not taken any treatment in the hospital regarding the above said incident. Accordingly, the learned Senior APP has failed to elicited the contents of Ex.P1 & 2 from the mouth of Pw.1.
Judgment 8 C.C. No.39222/2024
10. It is crucial to note that Pw.1 is the complainant/injured witness to the case has not supported to the prosecution case. The learned Senior APP made several suggestions to the said witnesses during the cross-examination, but the said witnesses have been denied the all material suggestions, except mere suggestions and denials nothing worth, was elicited in the cross-examination. Regarding the value of suggestions during the cross-examination and burden of proof concerned. The Hon'ble High Court Gujarat in Legal Heirs of Umedmiya R Rathod Vs State of Gujarat, in First Appeal NO. 5952 of 1995 held as under:
"74. .... It is a settled position of law that mere suggestions are not sufficient to dislodge or disprove the case of the plaintiff. Suggestions in cross- examination have no evidentiary value. In absence of any evidence, nor any material traced in the cross examination in support thereof, the findings so far could not have been answered in the affirmative by the Trial Court as well as by this Court in the First Appeal.
78. The expression "burden of proof" is used in two senses, i.e. The burden of proving an issue or issues sometimes termed the 'legal burden', and the burden Judgment 9 C.C. No.39222/2024 of proof as a matter of adducing evidence during the various stages of the trial. What is called the burden of proof on the pleading should not be confused with the burden of adducing evidence which is described as "shifting". See, observations in Narayan v. Gopal [AIR 1960 SC 100]; Pickup v. Thames Insurance Co., [(1878) 3 QBD 594]; Lakshmana v. Venkateswarlu, [76 Ind APP 202 : (AIR 1949 PC 278); 15 Halsbury (Simond) 267]; HuytonwithRoby Urban District Council v. Hunter, [(1955) 2 All E. R. 398 at p. 400] per Denning L. J. These two aspects of the burden of proof are enunciated in Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 shows that the initial burden of proving a prima facie case in his favor is on the plaintiff. When he gives such evidence as will support a prima facie case, the onus shifts on the defendant to adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case made out by the plaintiff. As the case continues to develop, the onus may shift back again to the plaintiff."
11. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, Judgment 10 C.C. No.39222/2024 the accused persons can not be held guilty of the alleged offences.
12. In the present case, the Pw.1 is the complainant/injured witness to the case and has denied the alleged commission of the offences by the accused persons. As such the accused persons, at the initial stage itself certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since Pw.1 material/injured witness has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 - AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon'ble Apex held thus hereunder:
''56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ''may be true''' but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of ''must be true''. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially Judgment 11 C.C. No.39222/2024 has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.''
13. Thus, the above Hon'ble Apex Court decision has opt to the present case on hand and the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The Pw.1 is the complainant/injured witness to the case has not stated anything against the accused persons and has turned hostile to the prosecution case. Hence, this court rejected the prayer of the learned Senior APP to examine other charge sheet witnesses, as no purpose would be served in examining them and also the valuable time of the court would be saved. In view of the Pw.1 complainant/material/injured witness was turned completely hostile to the prosecution and compromise is reported by the parties, the prosecution has not able to prove the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt.
Judgment 12 C.C. No.39222/2024 Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
14. POINT NO.6: In view of the above findings on Points No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
In the exercise of Powers Conferred U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 3 are hereby Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable U/sec.,115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 3 and surety extended for further 6 months in order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of November- 2025) (Thimmaiah G) 30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th Judgment 13 C.C. No.39222/2024 AN EXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Sri. Raja Gopal LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of Pw.1 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENSE:
- NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENSE:
-NIL-
LIST OF MARKED MATERIAL OBJECTS:
-NIL- Digitally
signed by
THIMMAIAH G
THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2025.11.28
16:12:54
+0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 14 C.C. No.39222/2024
Judgment 15 C.C. No.39222/2024
Judgment 16 C.C. No.39222/2024