Bangalore District Court
Ccb, Ocw Squad Hosakote P.S vs A1 Tippu on 26 June, 2025
KABC010057712016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-63)
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri. Raghavendra S. Channabasappa, B.A., LL.B (Spl).,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 279/2016
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By CCB Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused A1) Tippu,
S/o. Basha Bi.
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.165, in front of Akbar Masjid,
Anepalya, Neelasandra,
Bangalore.
A2) Masthan,
S/o. Late Amanulla,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.129, 7th Cross,
Anepalya Road, Neelasandra,
Bangalore-47.
A3) Gafur (Abated)
2 S.C No.279/2016
A4) Goru (Abated)
A5) Sadiq Ahmed @ Kalu,
S/o. Late Rafiq Ahmad,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at 4th Cross, Near Arabhi College,
Govindapura, Bangalore-45.
A6) Suraj (Absconded)
Date of commission of offence 24.10.2006
Date of report of offence 24.10.2006
Date of arrest of the Accused 29.07.2015 (A1, A2 & A5)
Date of release of the accused on 02.02.2007 (A1, A2)
bail 16.12.2015 (A5)
Name of the complainant Dr.Noor Khan
Date of commencement of trial 13.03.2018
Date of closing of prosecution
10.01.2025
evidence
Date of Judgment 26.06.2025
Offences complained of U/Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A,
343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and
Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1, 2 and 5 are
acquitted
JUDGMENT
The CCB Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 of the offences punishable U/Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act 3 S.C No.279/2016 before the learned XI Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, who committed the case for disposal in accordance with law.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as under; On 24.10.2006 at 9-05 p.m., accused No.1 to 6 with common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly near Vardapur gate within the jurisdiction of Hoskote Police Station by hiding their identity with closure of their face and wrongfully restrained CW-2 Nasir Khan, who came in his Scorpio Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-187 and Accused No.1, 4 and 5, who possessed unlicensed revolver gave threat to CW2 by pointing said revolver with the presence of CW2 Tabassum Khanum and CW4 Shahin Taj and got get down CW2 from the Car and take him through their white colour Qualis Car bearing No.KA-23-P-8900 and wrongfully confined in a house door No. 7/79, Banian Basha Street, Gundappa Garden, Bangalore and demanded ransom of Rs.2 Crore with CW1 Dr.Noor Khan, who is member of family of CW2 to release him through mobile No.99844021203 of CW1. Accused assaulted CW2 with iron rod and hands and caused injuries, CW2 was transmitted to another house door No.129, Masjid street, South Cross Street, Papanna 4 S.C No.279/2016 Bag, R.K.Garden, Neelasandra. Special Squad nominated to trace the accused of the above crime raided house No.129, Masjid Street and took accused No.1 and 2 for their custody and set free of CW2. It is further version of prosecution that, when the Special Team attempted to take custody of other accused on 01.11.2006, accused No.3 and 4 indulged with shooting through their illegal revolver against CW.25 to 35 and CW.26 to 27 shooted towards Accused No.3 and 4 to protect their lives, due to which act accused No.3 and 4 succumbed to injuries during the say to hospital. The revolver used for commission of offence were recovered on the basis of information disclosed by Accused No.1 and 2. Hence the complaint. The respondent police registered case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under section U/Secs. U/Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act in Crime No.519/2006 of Hoskote Police Station.
3. On the complaint registered by the complainant in Crime No.519/2006 of Hoskote Police and Police have registered FIR against accused persons for the offences punishable under section 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC 5 S.C No.279/2016 and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act and after completion of investigation, the I.O. of CCB Police Station have submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.
4. During the investigation when the CCB Police after arresting accused No.1, 2 and 5 were trying to trace-out. Initially accused No.6 absconding from the spot and case was split-up against accused No.6. Remaining accused No.3 and 4 fired at CCB Police and tried to escape and the police retaliated by firing and in the encounter accused No.3 and 4 died, hence case against accused No.3 and 4 is abated. Therefore, case continued only against accused No.1, 2 and 5 only and charge has been framed only against accused No.1, 2 and 5 on 27.06.2017. The Accused No.1, 2 and 5 faced the trial through his counsel and thereafter, charge for the offences punishable U/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act have been framed against the Accused No.1, 2 and 5, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 6 S.C No.279/2016
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 25 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 and Material Objects i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.16 were marked and closed their side. Thereupon, the Accused No.1, 2 and 5 have been examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by stating the incriminating evidence appearing against them, wherein they have denied the same and they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf and thereby, the defence evidence is taken as nil.
6. Heard arguments.
7. The points for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on 24.10.2006 at 9-05 p.m., accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 with common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly near Vardapur gate within the jurisdiction of Hoskote P.S and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.143 R/w. Sec.149 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 in 7 S.C No.279/2016 furtherance of their common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.144 R/w. Sec.149 of IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that date, time and place accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 with common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly committed and offence of rioting and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.147 R/w. Sec.149 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that date, time and place accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 with common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly committed rioting, armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec.148 R/w. Sec.149 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the date, time and place, accused No.1, 2 and 5 8 S.C No.279/2016
along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 with common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly and abducted CW-2, demanded ransom of Rs.2 Crore with CW1 Dr.Noor Khan, who is member of family of CW2 to release him through mobile No.99844021203 of CW1 and thereby you all accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 364-A read with 34 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution beyond all
reasonable doubt proves that on the date,
time and place, accused No.1, 2 and 5
along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 with common intention to kidnap CW2 Nasir Khan and formed an unlawful assembly by hiding their identity with closure of their face and wrongfully restrained CW-2 Nasir Khan, who came in his Scorpio Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-187 and Accused No.1, 4 and 5, who possessed unlicensed revolver gave threat to CW2 by pointing said revolver with the presence of CW2 Tabassum Khanum and CW4 Shahin Taj and got get down CW2 from the Car and take him through their white colour Qualis Car bearing No.KA-23-P-8900 and 9 S.C No.279/2016 wrongfully confined in a house door No.7/79, Banian Basha Street, Gundappa Garden, Bangalore and thereby accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 343 r/w. 149 of IPC ?
7) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place in furtherance of their common object accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other
accused No.3, 4 and 6 formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted with hands on CW2 and voluntarily caused hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 323 of IPC ?
8) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 in furtherance of their common object formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted CW2 with iron rod and caused bleeding injuries to him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.
324 R/w. Sec.149 of IPC ?
10 S.C No.279/2016
9) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1, 2 and 5 along with other accused No.3, 4 and 6 were kidnapped CW2 Nasir Khan and confined him, further CW2 was transmitted to another house door No.129, Masjid street, South Cross Street, Papanna Bag, R.K.Garden, Neelasandra. Special Squad nominated to trace the accused of the above crime raided house No.129, Masjid Street and took accused No.1 and 2 for their custody and set free of CW2 and when the Special Team attempted to take custody of other accused on 01.11.2006, accused No.3 and 4 indulged with shooting and they were in the possession of said dangerous weapon Viz., Revolver without obtaining license from the competent authority and attempted to use the same against CW.25 to 35 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.3 and 25 of of Indian Arms Act?
10) What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under :-
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
11 S.C No.279/2016
Point No.2 : In the Negative,
Point No.3 : In the Negative,
Point No.4 : In the Negative,
Point No.5 : In the Negative,
Point No.6 : In the Negative,
Point No.7 : In the Negative,
Point No.8 : In the Negative,
Point No.9 : In the Negative,
Point No.10 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No. 1 to 9 :- Since these points are interconnected to each other they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
10. PW1 R.Riyaz deposed in his chief examination that he identified the signature on Ex.P.1, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.1 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned Public Prosecutor also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross- examination.
11. PW2 Dr.Noor Khan deposed in his chief examination that he identified the signature on Ex.P.5, but he did not 12 S.C No.279/2016 deposed about the contents of Ex.P.1 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
12. PW3 Nazeer Khan deposed in his chief examination that, he did not deposed about the involvement of these accused persons and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
13. PW4 Smt.Thabasum Khan deposed in his chief examination that, he did not deposed about the involvement of these accused persons and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
14. PW5 Smt.Shaheen Taj deposed in his chief examination that, he did not deposed about the involvement of these accused persons and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P 13 S.C No.279/2016 also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
15. PW6 Mahammad Asif deposed in his chief examination that he identified the signature on Ex.P.7, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.7 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
16. PW7 Nawaz Khan deposed in his chief examination that he identified the signature on Ex.P.7, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.7 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
17. PW8 Sadiq deposed in his chief examination that he identified the signature on Ex.P.5, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.5 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
14 S.C No.279/2016
18. PW9 Dr.Rajareddy G.V. deposed and he examined the victim on 01.11.2006 and also he deposed manner of treatment to the victim, but he did not say or identified the accused persons.
19. PW10 Ayath Khan identified the signature on Ex.P.5, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.5 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons and his statement is marked as Ex.P.9. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
20. PW11 Taj Khan identified the signature on Ex.P.1, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.1 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross- examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross-examination.
21. PW12 S.Shabeer Khan identified the signature on Ex.P.11, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.11 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the lerned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross- examination.
15 S.C No.279/2016
22. PW13 Sadiq Ulla Khan identified the signature on Ex.P.11, but he did not deposed about the contents of Ex.P.11 and also he did not identify the face of the accused persons. In cross-examination of the learned P.P also to this witness, he denied suggestions made by the learned P.P in the cross- examination.
23. PW14 Dr.P.K.Devdas, Retired Professor, FSL., Victorial Hospital, Bangalore, he deposed that on 01.11.2006 he conducted P.M. of deceased one Goru S/o. Ahmed Khan as request by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he gave report as per Ex.P.14 and also he deposed manner of Post Mortem Procedures.
24. PW15 Sampath Kumar, he deposed he was owner of the Car and he received said Car for his interim custody during the investigation of this case. But he did not say about the identification of the accused person. PW16 Srinivas, he deposed he was mediator for the selling the Car No.KA-23-P-8900 to one Ravi for Rs.2,90,000/-. But he did not say anything about the facts. PW17 N.G.Prabhakar, retired Director of FSL, Bangalore. He deposed with regard to examination of Article No.1 and 2 i.e., 16 S.C No.279/2016 six chamber revolver and 6.380 Caliber rimmed Cartridge and also gave opinion as per Ex.P.16, 17 and 18 and also identified M.O.1 Revolver and M.O.2 to 7 and also deposed a manner of examination of the above said articles.
25. PW18 Dr.B.R.Ravikanthe Gowda, Joint Police Commissioner, Bangalore, he deposed a manner of investigation and also fired towards the accused person while tried caught hold the accused No.1 and 2 and also he also tried to shift the injured accused persons for the Medical examination, but one of the accused by name Gaffur and also Ghor were died while shifting the accused persons to the hospital and also deposed for the further investigation. But no one independent witnesses are mahazar witnesses have supported for this version. Hence there is no corroboration between PW18 and other witnesses.
26. PW19 B.K.Shivaram, Retired ACP., he deposed that on 26.10.2006 CW42 came and gave requisition to him. And he requested to assist for try to caught hold or to trace the accused persons in Crime No.519/2006 of Hoskote Police Station, accordingly he directed to CW27 to 35 after inform the above requisition to CW25, on 31.10.2006 at about 11-00 p.m. CW30 17 S.C No.279/2016 and his staff have produced the accused No.1 before him, he enquired about him and he confessed the commission of offence and recorded his confession statement, in view of his confession they went and apprehend the accused No.2 and also taken saw the CW2 who was confined in the said room belongs to accused No.2 and taken him their possession and send him along with CW29 and his staff for treatment to Victoria Hospital, he and accused No.1 and 2 and along with staff return back to CCB Office and enquired CW2 he told to the Police accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped him and demand Rs.2 Crores from him and confined in Neelasandra and other places. In view of his statement accused No.3, 4 also involved in this case and also apprehend the accused by name Ghore when they try to caught hold the said accused, he fired towards the Police officers, but they escaped from the fire and one bullet was hit to Auto, again the Police fired towards the accused for the purpose of self-defence, accused No.3 and 4 fell down and shifted to Sanjana Hospital, after some time accused No.3 and 4 were died and he lodged complaint before the Koramangala P.S. in Crime No.571/2006. On 01.11.2006 accused by name Tippu and Mastan hand over to CW42 and also hand over two mobile phones and photos to 18 S.C No.279/2016 CW42, He identified Ex.P.7 Mahazar and also identified M.O.8 and M.O.9 two mobiles, and Ex.P.19, 20, 21. But in cross- examination the defence counsel denied the chief-examination of this witness.
27. PW20 Umesh K., ASI., he deposed that, CW43 has directed him and CW39 to traced-out the accused Sadiq Ahmed @ Kalu in Crime No.519/2006 of Hosakote P.S. On 6-45 P.M. he and CW39 they went caught hold the accused by name Sadiq Ahmed @ Kalu from near Neelasandra, and Masjid in Tea Hotel and enquired him, he discloses the name as Sadiq Ahmed @ Kalu and same has produced him before CW43 along with report, he identified Ex.P.22. But in cross-examination the defence counsel denied the chief-examination of this witness.
28. PW21 Dr.Kiran, Medical Officer, Gayathri Hospital, Vijayanagara has deposed that when he was enquired CW2 he informed that about 3 weeks back the accused persons had kidnapped him and demand money and assault him, he examined him in Manipal Hospital on 06.11.2006, he found injury No.1 and 2 and gave report as per Ex.P.23 and also he identified the same. 19 S.C No.279/2016 But in cross-examination the defence counsel denied the chief- examination of this witness.
29. PW22 M.P.Jayamaruthi, retired S.P., has deposed that on 26.05.2015 he received case file in Crime No.519/2006 from ACP Siddamallappa and also deposed manner of investigation and identified Ex.P.24, 25, 27 and also drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.11 and seized Qualis Car No.KA-23-P-8900 in presence of CW16 and 17, on 24.07.2015 CW38 and 39 had produced accused by name Kalu before him also with report as per Ex.P.22 and he recorded statement of CW38, 39, on 10.09.2015 he submitted requisition before the concerned Court for seeking body warrant against Accused by name Tippu, after taking custody he recorded voluntary statement and also gave requisition for conducting I.T Parade and recorded statement of witnesses and identified Ex.P.28, 29 and identified the accused persons. But in cross-examination the defence counsel denied the chief-examination of this witness.
30. PW23 M.G.Shankar Narayan, Asst. Director., Bangalore he deposed that on 25.10.2006 he received case file from CW40 for further investigation, on the same day he went to 20 S.C No.279/2016 the spot and draw mahazar as per Ex.P.5 and recorded further statement of CW1 and also he deposed manner of further investigation and identified Ex.P.7 Mahazar and also identified Ex.P.1 Mahazar, Ex.P.2 Mahazar and he identified Ex.P.30 Mahazar and M.O.1 to 7 Pistol and Live bullets and he recorded the statement of CW13 to 15 and also produced property list before the concerned Court and identified Ex.P.16 and he gave requisition to BSNL and Reliance for seeking call details with regard to the Mobile numbers belongs to the accused persons and CW2 and identified Ex.P.25 also identified Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.23 Wound Certificate, he identified the M.O.1 and 8 to 16 and Ex.P.19. But in cross-examination the defence counsel denied the chief-examination of this witness.
31. PW24 Janardhan B.L., Retired P.I., has deposed that CW1 came to Police Station on 24.10.2006 at about 11-45 P.M. and lodged written complaint, he registered case in Crime No.519/2006 and he complied procedures, he identified Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.31 complaint and FIR and on 25.10.2006 he handed over the case file to CW42, he identified Ex.P.32 submitted requisition to concerned Court for seeking to add Section 364(A) 21 S.C No.279/2016 of IPC. But in cross-examination the defence counsel denied the chief-examination of this witness.
32. PW25 Purushothama M.L., S.P., CID., Bangalore has deposed that on 01.11.2006 at about 4-30 A.M., he received information about encounter of two accused persons, immediately he went to the spot by 5-30 A.M., CW26 has lodged written complaint and it was registered in Crime No.571/2006 U/Sec.307, 353, 109 r/w. Sec.34 IPC and 25 of Arms Act. He identified the Ex.P.25, he seized 12 Revolver Bullets, two empty Cartridge, six bullets, three Empty Cartridge, blood stains mud, non-blood stains mud, blood stains paper, ten empty Cartridge, two Paragon chappal, two black shoes, one white cap, one Gunny bag, one Key bunch, records from Ambassador Car No.KA-19-A-3655, Tax paid receipt, R.C., Insurance and seized and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.25 and also seized blood stains cloths belongs to deceased accused Gafur and Ghor, he identified Ex.P.25 and seized three Nokia mobile, one Titan watch, three small telephone directory book, cash Rs.331/-, visiting cards and seized cloths in presence of panchas by name Yogesh and Krishnappa. But in cross- examination the defence counsel denied the chief-examination of this witness.
22 S.C No.279/2016
33. It is observed that, except investigation officers, none of the prosecution witnesses CW2, 3/ PW4, PW5 to 8, 10 to 16 have not support to believe to an extent of conducting Spot Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar and to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that CW2, CW3/PW4, PW5 to 8, 10 to 16 are the independent and injured witnesses who completely turned hostile including the victim. PW-19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are the Police officials and investigating Officers, their evidence is not supported with the evidence of independent witnesses and also the recovery and seizure mahazar has not been supported. On these grounds he has submitted that accused persons are to be acquitted.
34. The learned counsel for the accused persons have argued that PW-19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 / Investigating Officers have not collected any records to connect the accused to the alleged claim. In order to prove the motive of the accused for abduction of I.O., even the Investigating Officer has not collected the CC.Tv. Footage from any of the places where he was abducted, the accused persons were trapped, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He has argued that the evidence of other 23 S.C No.279/2016 witnesses is not sufficient to prove the act of each of he accused in the alleged crime and by giving the benefit of doubt, the accused are to be acquitted.
35. In this backdrop, this court has given anxious consideration to the evidence on record. In order to establish the ingredients of Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 of IPC, Section 3 and 5 of Arms Act., prosecution is required to establish that, there was meeting of mind amongst accused persons to kidnap the CW2 for ransom and to commit extraction. It is borne out from the prosecution case that, accused persons had no acquaintance with CW2.
36. Nevertheless, the complaint averments or evidence of complainant disclose about the appearance, features and personality of the unknown persons allegedly kidnapped the CW2 for ransom. Admittedly, police have not conducted Test Identification Parade through executive Tahasildar. Thus, except voluntary statements of accused persons, who were allegedly apprehended there is absolutely nothing on record to believe that, the accused persons have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the 24 S.C No.279/2016 identification of the accused persons is not established up to the mark.
37. In this context, it is profitable to refer the authorities on this point. In a case of Kanand Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1979 SC 1127 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to held that;
"It is well settled that where a witness Identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I. parade to test his power of observations. The Idea of holding T. I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court".
Relying upon the above said rulings, the High Court of Orissa in the case of Shyamalal Pradhan V. State of Orissa reported in 1996 Crl.L.J 1019, wherein the Hon'ble court pleased to held that:-
"Identification parade not conducted-Witness identifying accused for the first time in Court-such evidence cannot be relied in the absence of corroboration by an earlier test identification parade-conviction of accused not proper".
In another judgment in the case of Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 4 SCC 494 at paragraph 11, 13 and 15 Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased 25 S.C No.279/2016 to dealt with the test identification parade and also the effect of the accused persons being shown to the witnesses during the course of investigation by the police. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the following manner "If the witness knew the accused persons either by name or face, the question of the police showing him the accused persons becomes irrelevant. If the witness did not no the accused persons by name but could only identity from their appearance then a test identification parade was necessary, so that, substantive evidence in court about the identification, which is held after a fairly long period, could get corroboration from the identification parade. But in this case prosecution did not take any steps in that regard and no test identification parade has been held. Then again if the police shows the accused persons in the police lock-up to the identifying witness then the so-called identification loses its value, in as much it is only because of the showing the persons the witness is being able to identify and alleged accused. If the accused has been shown to him in the course of investigation then the so-called identification in Court is of no consequence and cannot form basis of conviction. Therefore, if witness was called to the police station while accused persons were in the police lock-up and the witness had been given the opportunity of seeing those persons in the police lock- up then the so-called identification made by the witness in court is of no significance."
38. The inaction on the part of the Investigating officer to take steps to conduct test identification parade at the earliest point of time is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further 26 S.C No.279/2016 observation that, the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to hold that, accused are guilty and they have committed the offences as alleged. Such being the case, the credibility of the voluntary statements allegedly given by the accused persons leading to discover the extorted cash from the complainant on the alleged date of incident, is to be carefully examined for corroboration.
39. In absence of unreliable evidence of complainant and supporting evidence of independent panch witnesses and absence of proof of the seizure mahazars and not proper identification of the accused persons, the evidence of the Investigating officer is formal in nature and not sufficient to connect the accused persons to the offences alleged. To sum up, from the discussion in the forgoing paras, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt Hence, points No.1 to 9 under consideration are answered in the Negative.
40. Point No.10 :- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1 to 9, I proceed to pass the following: 27 S.C No.279/2016
ORDER Acting U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, Accused No.1, 2 and 5 are hereby acquitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.
Their bail bond and surety bonds remains in force for a period of 6 months.
In Committal Order dated.11.02.2016 Accused No.3 Gafur and Accused No.4 Goru were reported to be dead. Hence, case against accused No.3 and 4 reported to be abated.
The properties seized in this case at MOs.1 to 16 are ordered to be retained as split-up case against another accused No.6 is pending.
(Dictated to the stenographer Gr-II, typed by him directly on computer, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of June 2025.) (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
28 S.C No.279/2016ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 R.Riyaz P.W.2 Dr.Noor Khan P.W.3 Nazeer Khan P.W.4 Smt.Thabasum Khan P.W.5 Smt.Shaheen Taj P.W.6 Mahammad Asif P.W.7 Nawaz Khan P.W.8 Sadiq P.W.9 Dr.Raja Reddy G.V. P.W.10 Ayath Khan P.W.11 Taj Khan P.W.12 S.Shabeer Khan P.W.13 Sadiq Ulla Khan P.W.14 Dr.P.K.Devdas P.W.15 Sampath Kumar P.W.16 Srinivas P.W.17 N.G.Prabhakar P.W.18 Dr.B.R.Ravikanthegowda P.W.19 B.K.Shivaram P.W.20 Umesh K. P.W.21 Dr.Kiran P.W.22 M.P.Jayamaruthi P.W.23 M.G.Shankar Narayan P.W.24 Janardhan B.L. P.W.25 Purushotham M.L.,
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P1(a) to (e) Signatures
Ex.P2 Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) to (c) Signatures
Ex.P3 PW1's written statement
Ex.P.4 Complaint
Ex.P.5 Mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) to (d) Signatures
Ex.P.6 PW'3's Re-Statement
Ex.P.7 Mahazar
29 S.C No.279/2016
Ex.P.7(a), (b) Signatures
Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate of Nazir Khan
Ex.P.9 PW10's Written statement
Ex.P.10 PW11's Written statement
Ex.P.11 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.12 PW12's Written statement
Ex.P.13 PW13's Written statement
Ex.P.14 Model Post Mortem Report Form- Goru
(Victoria Hospital)
Ex.P.15 Model Post Mortem Report Form - Abdul Gafur
(Victoria Hospital)
Ex.P.16 Forensic Report
Ex.P.17 Methods of Examination and Reasons for the
-opinion furnished in Cr.519/2006 of Hoskote P.S Ex.P.18 Sample seal Ex.P.19 Photos Ex.P.19(a) to (n) Photos Ex.P.20 Report dated 02.11.2006 from PW19 Ex.P.21 Letter from Police Inspector, Hoskote Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.22 Report by PW20 K.Umesh, P.C.9068 Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.23 Wound Certificate of PW2 Mr.Nazeer Khan Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.24 Requisition from PW22 Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.25 Memo of Evidence in Cr.No.571/2006 Ex.P.26 Letter from ACP dated.26.06.2025 Ex.P.27 FIR in Cr.No.178/2006 Ex.P.28 Order copy of D.C., Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.29 'B' Register Extract Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.30 Mahazar Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.31 FIR Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.32 Submission by PW24 Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW24 30 S.C No.279/2016 List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1- Revalver M.O.2 to 7 Cartridges M.O.8- One iron chain M.O.9- 2 Lockers M.O.10- 60 inch Plastic rope M.O.11- One Plastic Rope M.O.12- Paste M.O.13- 2 Lockers M.O.14- Insulin Tape Roll M.O.15- Nokia Mobile Phone M.O.16- Nokia Mobile Phone
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :- NIL List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL (RAGHAVENDRA S.C.) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
31 S.C No.279/2016JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT Acting U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, Accused No.1, 2 and 5 are hereby acquitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 364-A, 343, 323, 324 r/w. 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.
Their bail bond and surety bonds remains in force for a period of 6 months.
In Committal Order dated.11.02.2016 Accused No.3 Gafur and Accused No.4 Goru 32 S.C No.279/2016 were reported to be dead. Hence, case against accused No.3 and 4 reported to be abated.
The properties seized in this case at MOs.1 to 16 are ordered to be retained as split-up case against another accused No.6 is pending.
(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
33 S.C No.279/2016