Bangalore District Court
Konanakunte Ps vs Manjunath Alias Bonda Manja on 5 January, 2026
KABC010163982013
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 5th day of January 2026.
S.C.No.452/2021
COMPLAINANT: State by
Konanakunte Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Manjunath @ Bonda Manja,
S/o.Mariyappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at.No.183, Gulakamale,
Taralu Post,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.T.G.S., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, K.R.Puram Sub-Division, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet 2 S.C.No.452/2021 against the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 307 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 offense under Section 307 of IPC is 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:
On 18.11.2020 at about 00-35 hours, near Sri Krishna Temple on Double Road, within the limits of Narayana Nagar, the Inspector and his staff overtook him and instructed the accused Manjunath @ Bonda Manja to stop his Bike bearing bearing No.KA-11-EK-8445, but he did not stop his vehicle and tried to push the complainant and his staff. He fell down from the bike and one Head Constable Sri.Nagaraju was trying to hold him. At that time, the said Manjunatha @ Bonda Manja took out a dragger and attempted to stab on the Head Constable (C.W.2) on his chest. While trying to avoid the 3 S.C.No.452/2021 assault, the C.W.2 sustained severe injury on his left leg. In spite of instructions to surrender, the accused tried escape. As such, the Inspector was opened fire in the air. As the accused did not stop, the Inspector shot him on his leg, resulting which he fell down and he was then taken to Jayanagar Hospital for first aid and then he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332 and 353 of IPC.
4. On securing the presence of the accused, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against him for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 307 of IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked 45 documents from Exs.P.1 to 45 and M.Os.1 to 13. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence stated against him. The accused has chosen not to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
4 S.C.No.452/20216. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.11.2020 at about 00-35 hours, near Sri Krishna Temple on Double Road, within the limits of Narayana Nagar, the accused assaulted C.W.2 a police officer with a dragger and tried to assault C.W.1 on duty and prevented them from performing their official duty and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, when C.W.1 and C.W.2 tried to arrest the accused, the accused assaulted C.W.2 with a dragger and threatened to assault C.W.1 and obstructed him to discharge his duty and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused with an intention to kill C.W.2 assaulted him with a dragger causing grievous injury and thereby 5 S.C.No.452/2021 accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC ?
4. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative POINT No.2 - Negative POINT No.3 - Negative POINT No.4 - As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. POINTS Nos.1 TO 3: Since these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
9. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.11.2020 at about 00-35 hours, near Sri Krishna Temple on Double Road, within the limits of Narayana Nagar, the Inspector and his staff overtook him and instructed the accused Manjunath @ Bonda Manja to stop his Bike bearing bearing No.KA-11-EK-8445, but he did not stop his vehicle and tried to push the complainant and his staff. He fell down from the bike and one Head Constable Sri.Nagaraju was trying to hold him. At that time, the said Manjunatha @ Bonda Manja took out a 6 S.C.No.452/2021 dragger and attempted to stab on the Head Constable (C.W.2) on his chest. While trying to avoid the assault, the C.W.2 sustained severe injury on his left leg. In spite of instructions to surrender, the accused tried escape. As such, the Inspector was opened fire in the air. As the accused did not stop, the Inspector shot him on his leg, resulting which he fell down and he was then taken to Jayanagar Hospital for first aid and then he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment. Thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332 and 353 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.R.Punithkumar, Dy.S.P., has stated that on 17.11.2020 he was deputed to trace the absconding rowdy in Bengaluru City. He further stated that there were 23 cases filed against the present accused who is a rowdy sheeter in Bannerghatta Police Station and he was absconding in Crime No.65/2020. In order to trace the accused along with him C.Ws.2 to 7 were along with him. On the same day he received the information that near Avalahalli the accused had made plans to go towards Hosur in Tamil Nadu State, the accused was going on a 2 wheeler towards Thalaghattapura, C.Ws.2 and 3 went behind the accused in a 2 wheeler. While they went in a jeep on Narayanapura Double Road, C.Ws.2 and 3 stopped the way of the accused with their 2 wheeler, but the 7 S.C.No.452/2021 accused tried to run over the bike of C.W.2. Then the accused assaulted C.W.2 with a dagger and attempted to kill him. At that time C.W.2 kept his hand in front, resulting which he sustained injury on his hand. The accused tried to stab C.W.2 on his chest. He then got down from his jeep along with his staff. He asked the accused to surrender, but the accused did not listen to him but came forward to assault him. So with his service revolver he shot fire in the air. Then the accused came to assault him, so he shot at the accused on his left leg, resulting which he fell down. He then shifted the accused to the hospital for treatment. He then lodged a complaint to the Konanakunte Police Station. He stated that the accused had tried to commit his murder. He stated that the alleged incident took place at 12.30- p.m., and he lodged a complaint at 2.15 midnight. He stated that after shifting the injured to the hospital he went to lodge a complaint, so there is a delay in lodging the complaint. On 18.11.2020 the Investigating Officer conducted the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) at the place shown by him. They seized blood stained mud, sample mud, dragger which was used for assaulting was left at the spot, Pulsar bike and the service revolver produced by him, 2 empty cartridges, 3 live bullets. He stated that the blood stains and the soil was collected with cotton. He stated that he can identify the properties which are marked from M.Os.1 to 8. He has identified the accused.
8 S.C.No.452/2021In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that only the Commissioner of Police in Bengaluru can give direction to trace the absconding accused. He stated that he does not know the case numbers which are filed against the accused. He stated that he had the photo of the accused which he received from the office. It is elicited that before he left the office, he had sent 2 police personnels. It is elicited that there were 6 people including the driver in the government jeep. It is elicited that he had informed his higher officials about going to the spot, but had not mentioned the same in the station book. He has not mentioned in the complaint that before they went in the jeep and had sent 2 of their personnels to the spot. He has denied the suggestion that on 17.11.2020 there was Covid lock down. He admitted that the alleged spot where they caught hold of the accused is a main road and they reached the spot at 12-35 in the midnight. It is elicited that he has not mentioned the number of the 2 wheeler in which two of his personnels were going. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not there at the spot. It is elicited that he was at a distance of 20 feet when the accused assaulted C.W.2. It is elicited that he saw the accused from a distance of 10 feet, at first he fired in the air and then shot at the accused. It is elicited that the empty cartridge of the bullet which was fired in the air was 9 S.C.No.452/2021 traced, but he does not know as to what happened to the front portion of the cartridge which was shot at the leg of the accused. It is elicited that while he was going to the Police Station, he knew that the dagger had fallen at the spot, but it was not seized. It is elicited that in the Government vehicle, he shifted the injured accused along with police personnel to Jayanagar Hospital along with 4 other police personnels. It is elicited that after he went to the Police Station, he deputed the police personnels of the local Police Station to the spot. It is elicited that he has not handed over the service revolver to the concerned police personnels. It is elicited that the jurisdictional police have not seized the dagger, but he had intimated the same to them. It is elicited that when he lodged the complaint at Konanakunte Police Station, he did not handover his revolver to the SHO. He admitted that firing of the shot from the service revolver has to be intimated to the higher officials and accordingly he has informed the same to Sri.Jagannath Rai, ACP (OCW), East. It is elicited that on 18.11.2020 as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer at 11-00 a.m., he directly went to the spot from his house. He stated that he has not gone to the hospital. He stated that the bullet which had hit the leg of the accused was not traced. It is elicited that the local police personnels had patrolled the spot. He has denied the suggestion that the jurisdictional police had not collected the blood samples 10 S.C.No.452/2021 and blood stained mud, sample mud from the spot. He has denied the suggestion that M.Os.1 to 8 was not there at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that with an intention to add the accused as a rowdy sheeter he has created a false complaint and he is deposing falsely before the court.
11. P.W.2-Sri.B.Nagaraj, A.S.I., has stated that he was member of the team of C.W.1 consisting of himself C.Ws.3 to 7. They were collecting information about the activities of the rowdies in CCB South Division. They had received the information that the accused is a rowdy sheeter who was wanted in Crime No.65/2020 was absconding and there were about 23 cases against him in various Police Stations. On 17.11.2020 they received the information that the accused was in Avalahalli, so C.W.1 directed him and C.W.3 to go to the spot, so they went to Avalahalli Double Road, where they ascertained that the accused is present and informed the same to C.W.1. C.W.1 directed them to watch the accused and informed that they would come over there. After some time C.W.1 came over there with his team, but the accused was going on a bike towards Thalaghattapura. At that time he along with C.W.3 went on a bike behind the accused and C.W.1 along with the team members in the jeep chased the accused. At Narayanapura Double Road 11 S.C.No.452/2021 junction, he and C.W.3 with their motorcycle blocked the path of the motorcycle of the accused. Also C.W.1 stopped the path with their jeep. He then went to chase the accused, but the accused tried to pierce the dagger to his chest, at that time he kept his left hand in front, resulting which he had sustained injury on his left hand. He stated that the accused with an intention kill him came to pierce with the dragger. The accused also tried to assault C.W.1. At that time C.W.1 fired bullet in the air, but again the accused went forward to assault C.W.1, at that time C.W.1 shot a bullet towards the left leg of the accused. All the personnels surrounded the accused and caught hold of him. C.Ws.1, 3 and 4 took the accused in the jeep to the hospital. C.W.6 took him in the bike to the hospital. On 25.11.2020, he went to the Police Station and produced his full sleeved shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident. The Investigating Officer has seized the shirt (M.O.9) by conducting seizure mahazar (Ex.P.3). He has signed the slip affixed on M.O.9 as per M.O.9(a). He has identified the dagger (M.O.3). He has identified the accused before the court.
In his Cross-Examination by the advocate for the accused : It is elicited that they went to the spot at 10.30 pm. When they intercepted the accused, CW-1 came with the team. The accused was riding a bike. He had went to the spot on CW-3's bike, but he doesnot know its number. It was 12.35 am when they chased 12 S.C.No.452/2021 and intercepted the accused. At 10.30 pm,he has sent the information about the accused's whereabouts to C.W.1 who told him that he would come to the spot. It is elicited that he had given statement that he had seen the accused at 10.30 pm. He admitted that same is not mentioned in his statement. But denied the suggestion that he had not given any statement to the Investigating Officer. He admitted that there was Covid in May 2020. He has denied the suggestion that at that time there was a lock down for about eight months. It is elicited on that day he was wearing a full-sleeved shirt. It is elicited that when the accused came to stab him on his chest, he kept his left arm across resulting which he sustained one and a half inch long and wide wound on his left elbow. After he was injured, C.W.1 first fired a shot in the air. After the second bullet hit the accused, all the members of the team surrounded the accused and caught hold of him. The dragger which was in the accused's hand was lying on the spot, but he does not know who took it later. He does not not know about the bullet that hit the accused on the leg. He took treatment as outpatient in the hospital. The investigating officer has not taken his blood sample. He has denied the suggestion that he was not knowing the identity of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that their superior officer did not order them to arrest the accused. But stated that his superior officer had orally ordered themn to arrest the accused. He has 13 S.C.No.452/2021 denied the suggestion that he was not in the team with C.W.1. He has denied the suggestion that accused was not at the place. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not attack him. He has denied the suggestion that as per the instruction of CW1 he is giving false evidence . He denied the suggestion that M.O-9 does not belong to him. He has denied the suggestion that at the time and place of the incident, C.W.1 did not have any pistol. He denied the suggestion that the place of the incident as shown in the charge sheet is in no way connected with this incident. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was beaten by tying his hands and feet in another place and they falsely showed that the incident taken place at the spot as stated in the charge sheet. He admitted that there was no animosity between the accused and the police officers, He denied the suggestion that the police personnel fired at the accused and filed a false complaint. He has denied the suggestion that the CCB officers shot the accused to get praise from their superiors and filed a false and fabricated case. He has denied the suggestion that MOs in this case are not pertaining to this case. He has denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Shantaraju, ASI has stated he was assigned to collect information about rowdies and about the notorious rowdy Manjunath @ Bonda Manja and 14 S.C.No.452/2021 catch him along with C.Ws.2, 4, 5, 6, along with him. The accused was absconding in a kidnapping case in Talaghattapur and Bannerghatta Rural Police Station. On 17.11.2020, he and C.W.2 were patrolling on Talaghattapur, Avalahalli, Narayan Double Road, Bannerghatta Road on our own two-wheeler to collect information. At that time, C.W.1 called them and informed them that the accused was in Avalahalli. While they were in Avalahalli, C.W.1 and other team members reached Avalahalli at 11.30 pm. They were waiting on the road collecting information at the spot. Around 12.15 in the night, the accused was going on a bike. Then he and C.W.2 followed the accused on their bike. C.W.1 was coming behind them in a jeep with his team. Then they went ahead of the two-wheeler of the accused and signaled the accused to stop the two- wheeler. The accused stopped his vehicle and got stuck at the spot. Then Cw2 went there to catch the accused. Then the accused took out a dragger which he had with him and went to stab C.W.2 directly in the chest. When C.W.2 held his hand resulting his hand was injured. At that time C.W.1 came there and instructed the accused to surrender but he was not in a state to listen so C.W.1 fired a bullet in the air. Then the 2nd bullet hit the accused near the knee of his left leg. They all tied the accused's leg together and gave him first aid. They sent him, C.Ws2, 4, 5 along with the accused to Jayanagar Public Hospital in a jeep. After getting first aid accused 15 S.C.No.452/2021 was taken to Bowring Hospital to remove the bullet. He has given a statement to the Investigating Officer about the incident. He has identified the accused before the court. He further stated that the accused had aimed a dragger at C.W.2's chest with the intention of killing him, but C.W.2 had kept his hand in the opposite direction. This act of the accused had obstructed their government duty. He has identified the dragger (M.O.3) and pistol (M.O.4).
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused:It is elicited that he did not mention that he had a mobile phone with him and that the Inspector called him. He has denied the suggestion that in his statement he did not mention that he had followed the accused on his own two-wheeler. He admitted that he has not stated in his statement about giving first aid to the accused at the spot. He admitted that he has not stated in his statement that accused has obstructed their official duty. He has stated that there was Covid at that time, but there was no Covid lock-down on that day. It is elicited that it was 12.35 am when he was there and it was very dark. It is elicited that there was no dirt on that road. It is elicited that there were residential houses 80-90 meters away from that road, but the residents of any house were not called. It is elicited that when the Inspector pointed his gun at the accused, he and the police constable were next to the Inspector and Nagaraj was on his left. The Inspector 16 S.C.No.452/2021 was on his right. The accused was 5 feet away from the accused. It is elicited that they had parked the vehicles about 20 feet away from the scene of the incident and then they went to the scene. When they went to the scene, there were total of 8 police personnel including the driver and the inspector. When they went to the scene, there were total of two of their vehicles. It is elicited that none of the personnels were in uniform on that day. He admitted the suggestion that they were not able to see what was lying there in the dark and they could not see how much blood was splattered everywhere at that scene. He admitted that if a vehicle skids on the road there will vehicle marks at that place. It is elicited that he and Arun Kumar, Hanumesh and the inspector took the accused who had fallen at the place to the jeep. He did not see any blood on the way from the scene to the jeep. It is elicited that Nagaraj's clothes were stained with blood when he caught the accused and took him to the jeep, but he does not know whose clothes were stained with the accused's blood. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
13. P.W.4-Smt.Manjula S. Lab Technical Officer has stated that 25.11.2020, Inspector Sri.Nagaraju of Konakunte Police Station was brought to their Primary Health Centre for blood test. She did blood test of Nagaraju. His blood group was found to be 0 +ve. She 17 S.C.No.452/2021 has done blood test in slide method. In this regard she has given her report (Ex.P.5).
In her cross examination by the advocate for the accused: She has denied the suggestion that she did not do the blood test of C.W.2 and has given a false report and is deposing falsely before the court.
14. P.W.5.Dr.D.Ravi Shankar has stated that on 28.11.2020 at 11.35 a.m., he did blood test of Manjunath alias Bonda Manju. His blood group was found to be 0+ve. In this regard he has given his report (Ex.P.7). He has identified the accused.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that he did not do the blood test of of the accused and has given a false report and is deposing falsely before the court.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Mahalingiah, Head Constable has deposed that C.W.20 had deputed him and instructed him to go to Bowring Hospital and collect the items related to the accused from the medical officers and bring them to the police station on 20.11.2020 at 8.00 pm. He went to the hospital and met the doctor, collected the items, brought them to the police station and presented them before C.W.20. He brought 4 sealed boxes. He identified the 4 sealed boxes. In this regard, 18 S.C.No.452/2021 he gave the report (Ex.P.8).
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that he did not receive any property from the hospital at the direction of C.W.20. He has denied the suggestion that he has given a false report and is deposing falsely before the court.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Venkateshaiah, Retired P.S.I., has deposed that on 17.11.2020, he was assigned to patrol duty at the police station from 11.00 pm to early morning. While he was on patrol, Head Constable 7957 asked him come to the police station. Accordingly, he went to the police station and made an entry in the police station diary and accepted the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by C.W.1. He registered the FIR (Ex.P.9).
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that C.W.1 did not appear at the police station and did not file any complaint. He has denied the suggestion that he created a false complaint and filed a false FIR to benefit this case.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Kiran Kumar.G. Head Constable has stated that on 27.11.2020 C.W.21 deputed him along with C.W.16, the accused Manjunatha @ Bonda Manja, who was undergoing treatment as an inpatient at Bowring Hospital. He met the medical officer 19 S.C.No.452/2021 Somashekhar at around 2.00 pm and gave the letter given by C.W.21. After getting information about the accused's health, the doctor gave the accused to our custody at 3.00 pm after taking the accused, he and C.W.16 went to the police station at around 4.30 pm and handed over the accused before C.W.21 and C.W.16 gave a report (Ex.P.16). He has given his statement to the Investigating Officer. He has identified the accused who appeared through VC before the court.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that he has not arrested the accused and is deposing falsely before the court
18. P.W.9.Dr.Laxminarayanappa has stated that on 18.11.2020 at 1.11 am night Bonda Manja, 36 years old, was brought to the hospital by Konanakunte Police Head Constable 8895. He was brought with the history that on 18.11.2020 at 12.35 am he had sustained gun shot injury on Thalaghattapura, Thippasandra Main Road. He examined and confirmed the following injuries.
1. Entry wound over left thigh above the knee joint of size 1x1cm (2cm above knee joint).
2. Exit wound over left medial side of knee joint of size 1.5x1.5cm.
20 S.C.No.452/2021He has given him first aid and sent him to Bowring Hospital for further treatment. The further treatment given to the injured person at Bowring Hospital is as per his radiology report and X-ray report that the above injuries are of a general nature. He has given the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.12). If a bullet of 4 mm caliber is fired from the pistol shown to him, the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are likely to be caused.
On 18/11/2020, Nagaraju.B was brought to the hospital by Head Constable-6729 Mohan Kumar after being assaulted by the accused Manjunath @ Bonda Manja. He was examined at 1.12, the following injuries were found.
Incised wound of size 4x0.5cm over left forearm {Upper 1/3rd} He has given a wound certificate (Ex.P.13) stating that it is a simple injury. If any person is hit by the M.O.3- dragger shown to him, there is a possibility of getting the injuries as mentioned by him.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He admitted that it is an MLC case. He has denied the suggestion that he has not treated the accused and C.W.2. He has given false wound certificates and is deposing falsely before the court.
21 S.C.No.452/202119. P.W.10-Sri.T.M.Dharmendra, Police Inspector has stated that on 18.11.2020 he gave a reminder (Ex.P.14) to C.W.20 to proceed with the investigation. On the same day, he recorded the statements of C.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6. On 20.11.2020, C.W.12 brought to the police station the items collected by the doctors during the treatment of the injured from Bowring Hospital, namely a blood stained black and grey track pants, a pair of black shoes, a pair of grey socks, bullet proof vests and produced them with a report (Ex.P.8). He has included them in the P.F.No.210/2020. On 24.11.2020, he submitted a request (Ex.P.16) to the Medical Officer of Jayanagar Public Hospital to issue the wound certificate and blood group certificate of the accused. On the same day, he submitted a requisition (Ex.P.17) to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP Subramanyapura to prepare a rough map of the crime scene. On 25.11.2020, he issued a notice (Ex.P.18) to C.W.2 to bring and produce the clothes worn at the time of the crime. Later on the same day, C.W.2 produced the clothes worn by him at the time of the crime and he seized them in the presence of C.Ws.10 and 11 under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.3) and entered them in the PF 216/20 (Ex.P.20). The seizure mahazar was conducted from 12.00-12.45 pm. The said clothes is a white full- sleeved shirt with brown stripes. There was a two-inch tear near the elbow of the left arm and it was blood stained. He wrapped the said clothes in a cloth and 22 S.C.No.452/2021 sealed them with the letter T.V. The clothes M.O.9 was identified. On 27.11.2020 he deputed Cws.16 and 17 to bring the accused who was undergoing treatment at Bowring Hospital. Accordingly, C.Ws.16 and 17 produced the accused before him and gave a report (Ex.P.11). He has enquired the accused and the accused has confessed about his involvement in the crime, so he arrested him and recorded his voluntary statement. He also recorded the statements of C.Ws.16 and 17. Then on 28.11.2020, he produced the accused before the court. On 01.12.2020, C.W.18 was deputed to deliver the seized goods in P.F.No.204/20 to F.S.L., and he has submitted the acknowledgment letter (Ex.P.23) along with Sample seal (Ex.P.25). For further investigation he handed over the case file to C.W,22.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He admitted that C.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 are all police witnesses. He has denied the suggestion that C.Ws.3 to 6 work under C.W.1. He admitted that C.W.1 was under the control of DCP. C.Ws.1 to 6 work in OCW, CCB. He has denied the suggestion that he obtained the statements of the said witnesses 7 days after the incident, but stated that he obtained their statements on the same day. He admitted that he obtained the statement of C.W.2 on 25.11.2020. He denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statements of any of the witnesses.
23 S.C.No.452/202120. P.W.11-Sri.Srinivas Prasad, P.S.I., has stated that on 18.11.2020, after receiving the reminder letter ExP.14 given by C.W.21. He issued a police notice (Ex.P.26) to CW8 and 9 to be panchas to conduct a spot panchanama at the place where the crime had taken place. He conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.2) from 11.00 am to 12.15 pm. The blood of the accused that had fallen at it was collected with cotton, the sample cotton and was put in a plastic container, then wrapped with a cloth and sealed as K.E.P.. The dragger knife used by the accused was found at the spot, it was checked, it had a one-foot long wooden handle and was 1.3 wide, it was wrapped in a white cloth and sealed as K.E.P., then the Bajaj Pulsar two-wheeler No.KA-11-EK-8445, which was there at the spot was seized. Later C.W.1 produced the service revolver at the spot. The left side of the barrel was marked Smith & Vision, the right side barrel was marked 38 S&W SPL, and the bottom of the revolver's grip was marked A309202. When the cylinder of the said revolver was taken out, there were a total of 3 live bullets and remaining two were fired C.W.1 had stated that he shot the accused on his left leg with that revolver. On the back of each bullet, S.N.W. 38 was written. Then the used bullets were put in separate covers, pinned, tied with a cloth, sealed with the word KEP. Then three live bullets were put in separate covers, pinned, tied with a cloth, sealed with the word KEP. He has identified M.Os.1 to 6. He has 24 S.C.No.452/2021 identified the 2 photos of the bike. The properties were mentioned in P.F.204/2020 (Ex.P.27). The copy of the sample seal (Ex.P.28). He recorded the statements of C.Ws.8 and 9. On 19.11.2020, he has submitted a report (Ex.P.29) to the learned 2nd ACMM Court regarding the accused being treated at Bowring Hospital. On the same day, he had given a request to Subramanyapura, Hulimavu, Bannerghatta and Talaghattapura Police Stations to get information about the accused and the cases registered against him. The four letters seeking information were marked as per Ex.P.30 to 33.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He admitted that he had failed to mention taking the equipments and materials required for writing the panchnama to the scene. He admitted that there was no entry in the document regarding the presence of fingerprint experts at the scene. He admitted that mahazar does not state that it was written on tar road. He admitted that the location had been recorded as the place of the incident. He admitted that place of incident shown to be being near the park, but not mentioned as a tar road. He does not remember as to how many police personnel where at the spot. He admitted that no vehicle registration numbers is mentioned in the mahazar. He stated that C.W.1 had accompanied them from the police station to the scene in a departmental vehicle, yet the name of 25 S.C.No.452/2021 any driver was omitted from the Mahazar. Finally, he described the place of incident as consisting of both tar and mud roads. The witness stated that it was not mentioned anywhere that the incident site consisted of a tar and mud road. He noted that when they arrived at the spot, a few members of the public--approximately two or three people had gathered. However, he could not specify the exact number of people present at the scene, including both his staff and the public. It is elicited along with C.W.1 his staff where present at the spot. It is elicited that there were barricades at the place of incident. He admitted that the barricades had been removed and placed on the side of the road upon his arrival. He stated that he found a bike, a dragger knife, two used bullets, and blood stains. He stated that blood stains were visible at the spot, though they had not spread for a long distance from the central area. He admitted that a dagger and a knife are two distinct objects and that the difference between them is visually apparent. He admitted that he had not written anywhere in the mahazar about the presence of a two- wheeler or a piece of glass. He has denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the place of incident and further refuted the claim that the incident had not taken place at that location, as stated by him. It is elicited that he did not know whether CW 1 had a revolver when they left the station together. He admitted that he had not recorded an examination of 26 S.C.No.452/2021 the revolver in the mahazar, but he has denied the suggestion that the mahazar was written at the station. He admitted that when he opened the cylinder of the revolver, he found only live bullets inside. The witness further stated that no case had been registered against the accused, Manjunath, at their station. He admitted that C.W.1 and Dharmendra were Circle Inspectors and were his superior officers. It is elicited that the crime staff Siddegowda, Nagaraju and Kiran had helped in lifting the two-wheeler and removing unwanted items from the scene of the incident, but he admitted that he had not obtained their statements. Further stated that the photos had been taken by their station writer- Sri.Ramesh. He confirmed that they had the necessary facilities in the station to take photos and videography. He admitted that he had not entered the fact of whether the photos were taken on mobile or private cameras. He denied that photos and videos was not taken at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
21. P.W.12-Sri.Dilip.K. has identified his signature on the mahazar (Ex.P.3). He stated that the said mahazar had been conducted at the Konanakunte Police Station on 25.11.2020. He further stated that when C.W.2 went to arrest the accused Manja, the officer was attacked, resulting which his clothes was stained with blood and his shirt being torn near the left elbow. He 27 S.C.No.452/2021 stated C.W.2 had produced the shirt, which the police then wrapped it in a white cloth and secured with a seal marked "T.V.". The mahazar was conducted between 12:00 PM and 12:45 PM. He stated that while he was near the government hospital, a person named Nagaraju had approached him and issued a notice to participate in the mahazar. He has identiifed the shirt MO.9.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that Nagaraj is his friend. He has denied the suggestion that Nagaraj had not produced any shirt (M.O.9) in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that mahazar was not written in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that even though he does not know any thing about the case and mahazar he is deposing falsely before the court.
22. P.W.13-Sri.Krishna Murthy, Police Constable has deposed about giving the articles to FSL Madiwla on 1.12.2020 as per instruction of C.W.21. He was given the passport (Ex.P.34) and also he received the acknowledgment (Ex.P.23) from FSL. On 19.12.20 he has given the clothes seized in this case to FSL and obtained the acknowledgment (Ex.P.36).
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that he 28 S.C.No.452/2021 has not given any articles to FSL. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court
23. P.W.14-Sri.Nanjegowda has stated that on 06.12.2020, he after being transferred to the said station, he obtained the case file from C.W.21 and continued the investigation. He received the wound certificate (Ex.P.13) from C.W.15. He has also received the wound certificate (Ex.P.12) of the accused from C.W.15. On 19.12.2020 he sent the articles to the FSL with C.W.18 Then he received the FSL Receipt and report from C.W.18. He received the sketch (Ex.P.43) of the place of offence along with a covering letter (Ex.P.42). Later on 23.12.2020, he received the discharge summary (Ex.P.44) of the accused undergoing treatment at Bowring Hospital. He has also received the case records registered against the accused at Talaghattapur, Bannerghatta and Hulimavu Police Stations. On 19.01.2021, he filed the charge sheet against the accused in this case. On 31.03.2021, he received the F.S.L.Report (Ex.P.38) from Dr.Lingegowda. On 02.08.2021, he received the report (Ex.P.40) from Dr. Sheela.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He admitted that the accused was not wanted in any case in their police station. He further admitted that no FIR had been registered against the accused in the CCB office. Furthermore, it is elicited that 29 S.C.No.452/2021 no document had been produced to show in which vehicle the accused had traveled for 13 km, nor any any details are provided regarding the vehicle's number, color or its driver. He admitted that place of incident is Narayanpura double road. He admitted C.W2 has not stated in his statement that his shirt was torn. He said that he does not know whether accused who been hit by a bullet had suffered a fractured bone. When it was pointed out that in the discharge summary, it is stated that the accused suffered from a humerus fracture on both sides as well as a thigh to which he stated that he was unfamiliar with medical terminology. He has denied the suggestion the wound certificate was being issued at the instance of the police. He denied that he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused
24. P.W.15-Dr.Linge Gowda has deposed about conducting examination on M.Os.1 and 9 to 11. He has given the FSL Report (Ex.P.38). He has opined that it contained O+ve human blood.
In his cross examination by the advocate for the accused: He has denied the suggestion that he has given a false FSL report at the instance of the police.
25. P.W.16-Dr.Sheela has deposed about ballistic examination done on cartridges, bullets, revolver. In this 30 S.C.No.452/2021 regard, she has given her report (Ex.P.40).
In her cross examination by the advocate for the accused: She has denied the suggestion that she has given a false FSL Report at the instance of the police.
26. P.W.17-Sri.S.E.Srinivas, Retired AEE has deposed that he had received a letter from the Konanakunte Police Station regarding the case and had forwarded it to Ward Engineer-Sri.Kumar. He stated that Sri.Kumar had visited the spot accompanied by the police and prepared a sketch (Ex.P.43) and presented it to him, which he had then signed in the office. He further stated that he had sent a letter (Ex.P.42) dated 16.12.2019 to the Konanakunte Police Station.
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.
27. P.W.18:Dr.Somashekar has stated that the patient by name Manjunath (also known as Bonda Manja), was admitted to his hospital on 18.11.2020 and was subsequently discharged on 27.11.2020. He had suffered from a gunshot wound on his left thigh and he had personally treated him for this injury. He has recorded all relevant medical details and treatment 31 S.C.No.452/2021 protocols on his discharge summary. Although he provided the treatment, but his assistant doctor signed the discharge summary on his behalf at the time of discharge.
28. I have considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court.
29. It is the specific contention that there is contradiction regarding the place of incident. PLACE OF INCIDENT :
In this regard it is at first necessary to note that in the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 3 who are examined as P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.1 has stated that the incident occurred near Narayanagar Double Road. While P.W.2 has stated incident occurred at Nrayanapura Double Road junction and P.W.3 has stated it as Avalahalli.
While in the complaint the place of incident is shown is mentioned as "near Shri Krishna Temple on Narayananagar Double Road."
While in the Mahazar (ExP2) the place of incident is mentioned as :
"Narayananagar 2nd Block, Narayananagar Double Road going from Kanapura Main Road towards Avalahalli, near the park located at the at the junction where Narayananagar and Thippasandra Road meet"32 S.C.No.452/2021
The Schedule mentioned in the mahazar (Ex.P.2) is as follows:
"To the East: - There is a double road leading to Narayananagar from the double road. Then there is a HKGN puncture shop, and a food cart. To the West: - There is an iron gate of the BDA Park built on the divider.
To the North: - There is a double road leading to Avalahalli from the Kanakapura road. To the South:- There is a double road going from Avalahalli side to Kanakapura Road."
30. From the plain reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 along with complaint and Mahazar, it is be said that there is contradiction regarding the place of incident. P.Ws.1 to 3 are police personnels who are very aware of the topography of the area, name of the locality, when that being so explanation is forthcoming as to why it is stated as near Krishna temple in the complaint. Even otherwise in the sketch (Ex.P.43) prepared by the Engineer has not mentioned about temple. Also as per the sketch the place of incident is shown in green color and it is mentioned as :
" No.31, 3nd floor Sri Kamadenu Building Soft Road Gubbalala. The place where the incident has taken place."
31. As per the evidence of P.W.17, the Ward Engineer 33 S.C.No.452/2021 Kumar went to the spot with the police and prepared the said sketch and the said sketch was signed by him in the office. Even though he has been treated as hostile by the L.PP but nothing has been elicited to disprove his evidence. Hence it can be safely said that as per sketch ExP43 place of incident is totally contradicts with the case of the prosecution.
32. Here itself it is necessary to note that along with CW1 CW4 to CW7 had gone in the jeep while C.W.2 and C.W.3 went in a two wheeler. But the prosecution has chosen not to examine C.Ws.4 to 7 to corroborate the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 3.
33. In view of the inconsistent and contradictory oral and documentary evidence placed before the court it can be safely said that prosecution has failed to place convincing evidence to establish the place of the alleged incident.
34. EVIDENCE OF C.W.1 TO C.W.3 As discussed supra, the prosecution has chosen not to examine the police personnels (C.Ws.4 to 7) who had accompanied C.W.1 to the place of incident and they are the eye witnesses to the said incident. Even otherwise the evidence of CW1 to CW3 contradicts regrading the place of incident.
34 S.C.No.452/202135. Further as per the evidence of C.W.1, C.Ws.2 and 3 went behind the accused in a 2 wheeler. While they went in a jeep on Narayanapura Double Road, C.Ws.2 and 3 stopped the way of the accused with their 2 wheeler, but the accused tried to run over the bike of C.W.2. Then the accused assaulted C.W.2 with a dragger and attempted to kill him. At that time C.W.2 kept his hand in front, resulting which he sustained injury on his hand. The accused tried to stab C.W.2 on his chest. He then got down from his jeep along with his staff. He asked the accused to surrender, but the accused did not listen to him but came forward to assault him. So with his service revolver he shot fire in the air. Then the accused came to assault him, so he shot at him which hit him against the left leg of the accused, resulting which he fell down.
36. While CW2/PW2 has stated that he along with C.W.3 stopped the path of the accused. Then the accused assault him with a dragger and also accused tried to assault CW1.
37. While CW3 has stated that they were on patrol duty ,when that being so, then they are expected to be on in their official vehicle. On the contrary they were going in the private 2 wheeler of C.W.3. Nothing was placed before the court to establish that CW1 had deputed them to go there in their private 2 wheeler 35 S.C.No.452/2021 vehicle. Also the evidence placed before the court is silent regarding the number of the said 2 wheeler of C.W.3.
38. Further with respect the incident he i.e., C.W.3 and C.W.2 chased accused in his two wheeler they went ahead of the accused vehicle made hand signal for the accused to stop and the accused had stopped the vehicle resulting which accused had a skid. When C.W.2 went to catch the accused, C.W.2 was being attacked the accused by trying to pierce a dragger directly to chest when C.W.2 kept his hand in front his hand was injured. C.W.1 who came over there asked accused to surrender but as accused was not in a condition to listen, so C.W.1 shot fire in the air and 2 nd shot to the leg of the accused. Thereafter they dressed the wound of the accused and gave first aid.
39. C.W.1 and C.W.3 have stated that accused along with injured CW2 and other other police personnel and CW3 took them to the hospital. But same has been contradicted by CW2 who has specifically stated that he went to the hospital with CW6 in a bike.
40. Admittedly C.W.2 had taken treatment as a out patient and he had given his OPD slip to the IO. He has stated that he was discharged , then on 25/11/2020 Konanakunte police asked him to produce the shirt worn 36 S.C.No.452/2021 be him at the time of the incident, which he did. But in the evidence placed before court by the Investigating Officer, no explanation is forth coming as to why there is delay of 8 days in collecting the shirt of C.W.2.
In view of the evidence of C.Ws.1 to 3, it can be safely said that their evidence contradicts regarding the manner in which the incident had occurred.
41. SEIZURE OF DRAGGER AND BIKE OF THE ACCUSED:
It is the case of the prosecution that after the incident, the dragger used by the accused had fallen at the place of incident. Also the bike of the accused was at the spot. The said dragger and bike was seized at the time of spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) from the place shown by C.W.1
42. Here itself, it is pertinent to note that the mahazar has 2 photos, in one photo 4 people are standing, out of them one is in police uniform, in the said photo no M.O., is visible. While the 2 nd photo, there is a fallen bike, but one cannot see its number or its make. But there is no photo of the dragger. Also in the said photos, no blood stains or bullets can be seen. The prosecution has got 2 photos (M.Os.7 and 8) of bike bearing No.KA-11-EK-8445 which are evidently taken in the vehicle yard and not at the place of incident.
37 S.C.No.452/202143. It is the settled position of law that the recovery of weapon used for committing the offence if recovered at a place accessible to multiple people and without any independent witness supporting the seizure of weapon/dragger, same cannot relied upon to establish the accused guilty and it requires careful scrutiny in the light of judicial precedents. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has not established the said recovery of dragger distinctly relates to the present case in hand. Also the chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage is incomplete and not duly proved by the prosecution. Though the FSL Report states human blood of O +ve was found on the dragger. But it does not state that it is the blood of C.W.2 who is said to have been attacked with the dragger by the accused.
44. Further it is pertinent to note that there is vehement argument regarding the non-recovery of bullet by the FSL as per procedure. Also inconsistency regarding in the pistol or revolver being used to shoot the accused. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that in this case, the court is just giving finding on Sections 353, 332 and 307 of IPC and it is not the case of the prosecution that after the accused was shot, he assaulted C.W.2. As such, no reasoning is given about the shoot out, pistol/revolver and bullets.
45. Further the prosecution has failed to examine 38 S.C.No.452/2021 any independent witnesses to the mahazar (Ex.P.2). Hence, in view of the discussion made supra, Ex.P.2 is not proved.
46. Further from the evidence placed before the court, it is evident that it was dark at the place of incident and whole incident took place in the light of jeep and 2 wheeler. To corroborate the same, no convincing evidence is placed before the court.
47. Here itself it is pertinent to note that from the evidence before the court, it is evident that none of the police personnel including C.W.1 were in uniform. When that being the case, it is the primary duty of the prosecution to place documentary evidence namely duty deputation order or any related instructions from the higher officials to show that C.Ws.1 to 7 were on official duty on that date and time of incident.
48. In view of the discussion made supra, in the absence of cogent and corroborating evidence regarding seizure of weapon dragger and in the absence of evidence of independent witness. Also in view of the inconsistent evidence placed before the court, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 307 of IPC. Hence, the Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
39 S.C.No.452/202149. POINT No.4: In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 3 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 307 of IPC.
The accused is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
M.Os.1, 2, 5 and 7 to 13 being worthless, are ordered to destroyed, M.O.3 is ordered to be confiscated to the State and M.Os.4 and 6 is sent to State Armory, after the appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of January 2026) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Punithkumar.R.
P.W.2 B.Nagaraj
P.W.3 Shantharaju.B.L.
40 S.C.No.452/2021
P.W.4 Manjula.S.
P.W.5 Dr.D.Ravishankar
P.W.6 Mahalingaiah
P.W.7 Venkateshaiah
P.W.8 Kiran Kumar.G.
P.W.9 Dr.Lakshminarayanappa.D.C.
P.W.10 T.M.Dharmendra
P.W.11 Srinivas Prasad.K.
P.W.12 Dilip.K.
P.W.13 Krishnamurthy
P.W.14 Nanjegowda.S.
P.W.15 Dr.Lingegowda.M..
P.W.16 Dr.Sheela.T
P.W.17 S.E.Srinivas
P.W.18 Dr.Somashekara.S.A.
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.3 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.3(c) Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.4 Requisition Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.5 Report Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.6 Requisition Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.7 Report Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P.8 Report Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.10 41 S.C.No.452/2021 Ex.P.9 F.I.R. Ex.P.10 Requisition Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.11 Report of C.W.16 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of C.W.16 Ex.P.11(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.14 Memorandum Ex.P.15 Property Form Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.16 Requisition to Jayanagar General Hospital. Ex.P.17 Requisition to AEE, BBMP, Subramanyapura. Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.18 Notice Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.19 Sample Seal Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.20 Property Form Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.21 Requisition Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.22 Requisition Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.23 Acknowledgment Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.24 Report Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.24(b) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.25 Sample Seal Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.26 Notice Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.27 Property Form Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.11 42 S.C.No.452/2021 Ex.P.28 Xerox copy of sample seal Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.29 Requisition Exs.P.30 to 33 Requisitions
Exs.P.30(a) to Signatures of P.W.11 33(a) Ex.P.34 Passport Ex.P.35 Report Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.35(b) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.36 Acknowledgment issued by FSL Ex.P.36(a) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.37 Passport Ex.P.38 F.S.L.Report Ex.P.38(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.38(b ) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.39 Sample Seal Ex.P.39(a) Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.40 FSL Report Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.40(b) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.41 Sample Seal Ex.P.41(a) Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.42 Letter Ex.P.42(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.42(b) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.43 Sketch Ex.P.43(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.43(b) Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.44 Discharge Summary Ex.P.45 Covering Letter List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Blood stained cotton
M.O.2 Sample Cotton
M.O.3 Dragger
M.O.4 Revolver
M.O.5 Used Cartridge 2
M.O.6 Live Bullets 3
43 S.C.No.452/2021
M.O.7 Photo of the bike
M.O.8 Photo of the bike
M.O.9 Shirt
M.O.10 Pant
M.O.11 Shoes
M.O.12 Socks
M.O.13 Bullet Fragment
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.s Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2026.01.05
17:58:19
+0530