Bangalore District Court
Munivenkatappa vs Ramappa .V on 16 July, 2025
KABC030380872018
Presented on : 25-05-2018
Registered on : 25-05-2018
Decided on : 16-07-2025
Duration : 7 years, 1 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 16th day of July- 2025
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.14037/2018
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 08.10.2015
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Ramappa.V
S/o. Late.Motappa(Abated)
Judgment 2 C.C.No.14037/2018
A4. Shekar
S/o. Late.Ramappa,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at. No.126, 2nd Cross,
Jambusavari Dinne,
J.P.Nagar.
A5. Ramesh
S/o.Lakappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at. Behind Anjineyaswamy
Temple, Vaddarapalya,
J.P.Nagar, 8th Phase,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/s. 323, 341, 504, 506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 20.09.2021 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 23.06.2025
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.4 to 5 are Acquitted
Date of Order 16.07.2025
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.14037/2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the
offences punishable U/s. 323, 341, 504, 506 R/w sec., 34
of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, on 08.10.2015 at about 10.30, the Cw.1
had purchased site within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura
police station, Sy.No.39/916, Kothanur Village and the Cw.1
was constructing the house in the said site, at that time, the
accused persons came to said place and restrained the Cw.1
from not moving forward and abused the Cw.1 in filthy
language and assaulted the Cw.1 by their hands and caused
simple injuries and further given life threat to the Cw.1 and
thereby the accused persons have committed the above said
Judgment 4 C.C.No.14037/2018offences punishable U/s. 323, 341, 504, 506 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC.
03. During the pendency of the case, the accused No.1
is reported to dead and the case against the accused No.1 is
Abated. Further, the accused No.2 and 3 are left out from the
charge sheet as their was not proved prima facie alleged
offences against them. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance
taken for the offence punishable U/s. 323, 341, 504, 506
R/w sec., 34 of IPC against the accused No.4 and 5. The
accused accused No.4 and 5 were released on bail. Copy of the
prosecution papers furnished to the accused accused No.4 and
5 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge.
Charge has been framed and read over to the accused accused
No.4 and 5 wherein they have denied the same and claim to be
tried.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.14037/2018
04. In order to secure the Cw.2 to 5 witnesses this court
repeatedly issued Summons, NBW and Proclamation, even
though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they
have failed to secure these witnesses. Hence, this court
dropped Cw.2 to 5. Moreover this case is 08 years old one. In
this regard relied on the following Hon’ble High Court, full
bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The
State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24
March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it
held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely,
whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a
Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not produce
the witness for several hearings and does not
serve summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunity to
serve the summons or to produce the witnesses,
is the one that directly arises for determination
Judgment 6 C.C.No.14037/2018in these appeals. The second question which
arises for determination by us incidentally is
whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused
under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to any
of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not serve
the summons on the witnesses despite having
been granted sufficient opportunities to serve
the summons on the witnesses or to produce
the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section
255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though
the cases had been posted for hearing on
various dates and summons had been issued
to the witnesses for all the hearings, the
witnesses were not produced on any of the
hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued
that the case would be disposed of without
examining the witnesses if they are not
produced the prosecution did not choose to let
in any evidence and as such the Magistrate
found that the prosecution had no evidence to
let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
Judgment 7 C.C.No.14037/2018follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of the
witnesses, the court could legitimately come to
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate
can record an order of acquittal if there is no
evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the
prosecution did not take proper steps to
produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give
them time to do the same, or to issue fresh
summons, the court was not bound to fix
another date. The police has a duty towards
the citizen. When the accused is brought before
the court and the prosecuting department does
not take any steps it will be an abuse of the
process of the court to continue the trial.
Bringing a person before the court accusing him
of some offence is a serious matter and
however petty the offence may be, the
prosecuting department, must do its duty
towards the accused as well as the court. When
Judgment 8 C.C.No.14037/2018
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions in
which it had been held that an acquittal of the
accused on the failure of the prosecution to
produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State
v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v.
Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ
1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed
Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v.
Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of
Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v.
Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ
1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972
Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973
Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker);
State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965
Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai
Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ
1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v.
Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker);
Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad
25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960
Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR
Judgment 9 C.C.No.14037/2018
1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers
Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S.
Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR
1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan
Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren
Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these
decisions, there are the following decisions in
which it has been held that acquittal on the
ground of non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
failed to produce their witnesses, a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in
State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)’2 Cri
LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a charge Is
framed In a warrant case on police report, if
owing to the failure of the prosecution to
produce their witnesses and owing also to the
failure of the prosecution to make full
endeavour to serve the summonses according
to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70
and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence
before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit
the accused under Section 251A (11).”
Judgment 10 C.C.No.14037/2018
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v.
Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970
Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real
distinction between the two decisions is as to
whether there was remissness and want of
diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency
in producing the witnesses before the Court
and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case applied to the facts of the
case with which the Division Bench was
concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case, it was found on the facts
that the prosecution was not at all diligent as
the non-bailable warrants issued to the
witnesses had neither been served nor
returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the
same the Magistrate would be justified in
refusing to grant an adjournment and to
proceed to acquit the accused on the material
Judgment 11 C.C.No.14037/2018
on record. We may note here that in State of
Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138
the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After
carefully considering all the aforesaid
decisions and the views expressed therein, we
are of the view that if the prosecution had
made an application for the issue of summons
to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or
254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the
duty of the court to issue summons to the
prosecution witnesses and to secure the
witnesses by exercising all the powers given to
it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as
already indicated by us and if still the
presence of the witnesses could not be secured
and the prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does
not produce the witnesses after the Court had
given it sufficient time and opportunities to do
so, then the Court, being left with no other
alternative would be justified in acquitting the
accused for want of evidence to prove the
prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C.,
in the case of warrant cases instituted on a
police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C.
in summons cases, and we answer the two
questions referred to us in the above terms.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.14037/2018
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.2
to 5 are dropped. Further the Cw.6 to 8 are given up as prayed
by the Learned Sr. APP. In order to prove the guilt of the
accused No.4 and 5, the prosecution has examined 03
witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.3 and 03 documents are got marked
as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.
05. Thereafter examination of accused No.4 and 5 under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused No.4 and 5 denied
the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not
chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.14037/2018
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt,
08.10.2015 at about 10.30, the Cw.1 had
purchased site within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura police station,
Sy.No.39/916, Kothanur Village and the
Cw.1 was constructing the house in the
said site, at that time, the accused
persons came to said place and restrained
the Cw.1 from not moving forward and
thereby the accused persons have
committed an offence punishable
U/s.341 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt Further
the accused persons abused the Cw.1 in
filthy language and thereby the accused
persons have committed an offence
Judgment 14 C.C.No.14037/2018
punishable U/s.504 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons assaulted the Cw.1
with their hands and caused simple
injuries to Cw.1 and thereby the accused
persons have committed an offence
punishable U/s.323 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons given life threat to
Cw.1 and thereby the accused persons
have committed an offence punishable
U/s. 506 R/w sec., of IPC?
5. What order.?
Judgment 15 C.C.No.14037/2018
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : In The Negative
Point No.3 : In The Negative
Point No.4 : In The Negative
Point No.4 : As per final orderREASONS
9. Point No.1 to 4 : These points are inter connected to
each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the
prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this
judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to
appreciate the evidence on records. Further, I have carefully
perused the oral and documentary evidence on records, in my
humble opinion, some portion of the evidence is irrelevant,
Judgment 16 C.C.No.14037/2018
hence without wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy
this court proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
10. The PW.1 Vajramuni, who is the IO in this case, in
his evidence he deposed before the court, On 10.06.2017, he
has received the file of this case from Cw-9 and continued the
investigation. On 15.06.2017, he received the statement of
witnesses Cw-2 to 4. On 26.09.2017, he appointed the Cw-6
to 8 to find the accused in this case. They produced accused
No. 1, 4 and 5 of this case at Vaddarapalya behind Anjaneya
Swamy Temple within the police station limits. On 28.10.2017.
he had completed the investigation and submitted the charge
sheet on 28.10.2017.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.4 and 5
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he
did not recorded the re statement of the complainant, he do
not know the check bandi of the incident place, on 08.10.2015
Judgment 17 C.C.No.14037/2018
he recorded the statements of the witnesses but it is a incident
date and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the
learned counsel for the accused persons.
11. The Pw.2.Munivenkatappa, who is the complainant
in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court
that, Cw-2 is his friend. Cw-3 is his acquaintance. He had
purchased property No. 30/916 in Kothanur village from
Lakshmayya and Rajeshwari and their children in 2015. The
said property is registered in his name. It is a vacant plot of
600 sq. ft. in area. A person named Rajeshwari had put up a
small shed on the said plot. It had collapsed. He had his own
land next to the said plot. While he was working on the
construction of an apartment building at the place belongs to
him, on 08.10.2015 at 10.30 am, the accused No.1 and his
wife Muniyamma, Shekhar, Ramesh, Manja, Somashekhar
and others came and trespassed, stopped him from working,
Judgment 18 C.C.No.14037/2018
and restrained him from not moving forward and abused him
in filthy language. Then Ramappa and Shekhar showed him a
machete/ matchu and threatened that if you do not leave the
said place, they will kill him and later Muniyamma and
Ramesh dragged him and tore off his shirt which he was
wearing, and hit assaulted him on his chest and back with
their hands. Further, the Manja and Ramappa threated him by
showing the machu. After that, he went to the
Subramanyapura police station and filed a complaint against
them.
Further the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, the
disputed Sy.No.30/916 which is situated at Kothanur
purchased by himself, Lakshmaiah and Rajeshwari and their
children about 8 years ago through absolute sale deed.
Further the above said site is originally belongs to Lakshmaiah
Judgment 19 C.C.No.14037/2018
father Motaiah, further the accused persons had filed a case
against him in CC.No.676/2015 but, he said both the paries
had lodged the complaint against each other, the accused
persons had filed civil suit against the Cw.1 and 3, on the date
of sale deed, he was the president of the Kothanuru Grama
and further denied the rest of the suggestions put by the
learned counsel for the accused persons.
12. The Pw.3 H. Govinda, who is the 1 st IO in this case,
he deposed in his evidence before the court that, On
08.10.2015, when he was in charge of the police station, he
received the written complaint given by Cw-1 and registered a
case as Police Crime No. 677/2015 and submitted the report
to the Honorable Court and the superiors. On the same day,
he received Cw-4 and 5 at the place shown by the Cw-1 and
conducted a panchanama in their presence. Then he handed
over the file of the said case to Cw-10 for further investigation.
Judgment 20 C.C.No.14037/2018
Further the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he
do not know that, both the parties had lodged the complaint
on the same day against each other, at the time of
panchanama the Cw.1 had produced anything before him,
further not given any notice to panchas and not preparted any
rough sketch while conducting the panchanama and not taken
any photo of the incident place and further denied the rest of
the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
16. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.4 and 5 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused No.4 and 5 can not be held
guilty of the alleged offenses.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.14037/2018
17. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.2 to 5
respectively this court repeatedly issued summons, NBW and
proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police,
the concerned police have failed to secure these witnesses.
Hence ,Cw.2 to 5 are dropped. Moreover, non examination of
the said material witness is fatal to the prosecution case.
Moreover, this prosecution witness ie,. Pw.1 & 3 who are the
police officials and they have deposed as per their investigation
and their evidence is not helpful to prove the case against the
accused No.4 and 5. Under such circumstances, the case
against the accused No.4 and 5 are certainly would be entitled
to benefit of the doubt. As such, in the absence of proving the
allegation against the accused No.4 and 5, they certainly
would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, regarding the
allegations made by the prosecution. Regarding this I have
relied on the following Judgment.
Judgment 22 C.C.No.14037/2018
18. 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 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
Judgment 23 C.C.No.14037/2018the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
19. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and the accused No.4 and 5
are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. Moreover,
non examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. The prosecution has not able to prove the alleged
offences against the accused No.4 and 5 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I Answer to the Points No.1 to 4 in the
Negative.
20. Point No.5: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The Powers Confirmed upon me
U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.4 & 5 are
hereby Acquitted for the offences punishable
U/sec., 323, 341, 504, 506 of IPC.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.14037/2018
The bail bond of Accused No.4 and 5
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 and after corrections made by
me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 16th day of July-2025)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Vajramuni
P.W.2 : Sri. Munivenkatappa
P.W.3 : Sri. Govinda.H
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Judgment 25 C.C.No.14037/2018
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Digitally signed
by THIMMAIAH
NIL THIMMAIAH G
G Date:
2025.07.23
16:10:29 +0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 26 C.C.No.14037/2018
