Bangalore District Court
Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station vs A7 Manjukumar @ Manju@Harish on 27 April, 2026
KABC030302582026
Presented on : 10-04-2026
Registered on : 10-04-2026
Decided on : 27-04-2026
Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 27th day of April-2026
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.21970/2026
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence ---------
Complainant State by K.S.Layout Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Person A7. Manjukumara
@ Manju @ Harish
S/o. Shivaputhra,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at.House No.26/A,
5th Cross, 7th Main,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.21970/2026
Subbanna Garden,
Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,.120B, 420, 467, 468,
471, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 10.04.2026 and
Accused No.7 Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 04.04.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.7 is Acquitted
Date of Order 27.04.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of K.S.Layout Police Station has
filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences
punishable U/sec,.120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.21970/2026
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the site No. 706, 1st Phase, 58th Cross,
KS Layout, located within the jurisdiction of KS Layout Police
Station, was allotted to Cw-1 by the BDA Department on
27.06.1984. On 19.09.1986, the BDA officials executed a lease
cum sale agreement in the name of Cw-1 at the Basavanagudi
Sub-Registrar’s office. The said house was in the possession of
Cw-4’s mother, Mrs. Shanta, after she became a widow, she
had to leave the house and live somewhere else. After Mrs.
Shanta became a widow, Cw-4 knew that, the said house
belonged to his mother and sold it to the 6th accused. When
informed, the 6th accused took him to the 5th accused, and
accused 2, 5 and 6th, after seeing the original documents,
gave Cw-4 Rs.30 lakhs and vacated the house, saying that,
they would register it with the original owner. The 2nd accused
lived in the said house. In this case, upon learning that, the
children of Cw-1, the owner of the said property, had entered
into an advance purchase agreement without possession with
Cw-3 on 05.08.2023, the 2nd to 6th accused, with the same
malicious intent to seize the property of Cw-1 by fraud, in the
house of the 2nd accused residing at KS Layout 2nd Phase,
Judgment 4 C.C.No.21970/202658th Cross, No. 206, 1st Floor, within the limits of KS Layout
Police Station. Further, The 5th accused, with the co-operation
of the 7th accused, created fake documents on behalf of the
deceased C. Venkatarao, in order to obtain the valuable
certificate and general power of attorney document given by
Cw-1 to the 2nd accused’s father Cw-7 on 23.03.1988.
Further, the accused persons, forged signature and
thumbprint of Cw-1 were put on the created documents and
the 3rd and 4th accused, signed as witnesses, identifying Cw-
1. Further, the even though 5th and 6th accused, were
knowing the fabricated documents,used them to commit fraud
by having a registration done in the name of the 2nd accused
at the Attibele Sub-Registrar’s office on 29.11.2023, by the
father of the 2nd accused, Cw-7. Further, the accused persons
on 11.05.2024, in the afternoon, Cw-1’s son went to Cw-2 and
told him that, he made an agreement which was wrong and
threaten the Cw.2 and thereby the accused persons have
committed the above offences punishable U/sec,.120B, 420,
467, 468, 471, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
03. During the pendency of the trail, there is no prima
facie alleged offense found against the accused No.1. Hence,
Judgment 5 C.C.No.21970/2026
the accused No.1 is dropped from the case. After filing the
charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable
U/sec,.120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC
against the accused No.7. The accused No.7 was released on
bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the The
accused No.7 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before
charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the The
accused No.7, wherein he has denied the same and claim to
be tried.
04. The accused No.2 to 6 are acquitted in the original
C.C.No.24021/2025, as per the order dated:04.04.2026 and
filed separate charge sheet against them and now the Learned
Sr.APP filed memo to adopt the evidence of the witnesses
deposed in the said original C.C.No.24021/2025. On the other
hand counsel of the accused No.7 has given consent to the
same. Accordingly this court considered the same.
05. In order to secure the Cw.3 to 23 witnesses, this
court repeatedly issued Summons and Proclamation, even
though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they
have failed to secure these witnesses. Hence, the said
Judgment 6 C.C.No.21970/2026
witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to
prosecution. In this regard this court 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
in 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
Judgment 7 C.C.No.21970/2026the 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
follows: “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
Judgment 8 C.C.No.21970/2026
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
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
Judgment 9 C.C.No.21970/2026
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
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.21970/2026
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).”
” 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
Judgment 11 C.C.No.21970/2026distinction 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
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
Judgment 12 C.C.No.21970/2026254(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.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, the Cw.3 to
23 witnesses are dropped. In order to prove the guilt of the
accused No.7, the prosecution has examined 03 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked 02 documents as Ex.P1 & 2.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.21970/2026
06. Thereafter examination of accused No.7 under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused No.7 has denied
the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not
chosen to lead his side evidence. No documents are got marked
on his behalf.
07. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
08. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the site
No. 706, 1st Phase, 58th Cross, KS
Layout, located within the jurisdiction of
KS Layout Police Station, was allotted to
Cw-1 by the BDA Department on
27.06.1984. On 19.09.1986, the BDA
officials executed a lease cum sale
agreement in the name of Cw-1 at the
Basavanagudi Sub-Registrar’s office. The
said house was in the possession of Cw-
4’s mother, Mrs. Shanta, after she
became a widow, she had to leave the
house and live somewhere else. After Mrs.
Shanta became a widow, Cw-4 knew that,
the said house belonged to his mother
and sold it to the 6th accused. When
Judgment 14 C.C.No.21970/2026informed, the 6th accused took him to the
5th accused, and accused 2, 5 and 6th,
after seeing the original documents, gave
Cw-4 Rs.30 lakhs and vacated the house,
saying that, they would register it with
the original owner. The 2nd accused lived
in the said house. In this case, upon
learning that, the children of Cw-1, the
owner of the said property, had entered
into an advance purchase agreement
without possession with Cw-3 on
05.08.2023, the 2nd to 6th accused, with
the same malicious intent to seize the
property of Cw-1 by fraud, in the house of
the 2nd accused residing at KS Layout
2nd Phase, 58th Cross, No. 206, 1st
Floor, within the limits of KS Layout
Police Station and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec.,120B R/w sec.,
34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt
that,Further, The 5th accused, with the
co-operation of the 7th accused, created
fake documents on behalf of the deceased
C. Venkatarao, in order to obtain the
valuable certificate and general power of
attorney document given by Cw-1 to the
2nd accused’s father Cw-7 on
23.03.1988. and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec.,471 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
Judgment 15 C.C.No.21970/2026
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, Further,
the accused persons forged the signature
and thump impression of the Cw.1 in the
alleged forged documents and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/sec.,
467, 468 R/w sec., 34 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, Further,
the even though 5th and 6th accused,
were knowing the fabricated
documents,used them to commit fraud by
having a registration done in the name of
the 2nd accused at the Attibele Sub-
Registrar’s office on 29.11.2023, by the
father of the 2nd accused, Cw-7 and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec., 420 R/w sec., 34 of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, Cw-1’s
son went to Cw-2 and told him that, he
made an agreement which was wrong and
threaten the Cw.2 and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/sec.,506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC ?
6. What order.?
Judgment 16 C.C.No.21970/2026
09. 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.5 : In The Negative
Point No.6 : As per final orderREASONS
10. Point No.1 to 5 : These points are inter connected to
each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence. 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,
hence without wasting much time on explaining its irrelevancy
this court proceeds to appreciate the material evidence.
11. The accused No.2 to 6 are acquitted in the original
C.C.No.24021/2025, as per the order dated:04.04.2026 and
filed separate charge sheet against them and now the Learned
Judgment 17 C.C.No.21970/2026Sr.APP filed memo to adopt the evidence of the witnesses
deposed in the said original C.C.No.24021/2025. On the other
hand counsel of the accused No.7 has given consent to the
same. Accordingly this court considered the same. Accordingly
this court considered the same. Under such circumstances,
such evidence this court can be considered. In support of the
same, I relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, reported in Criminal Petition No.6129 of
2024, dated: 24.07.2024, passed in Chethan V/s State of
Karnataka and Others, where it is held as follows:
” 9. The reason for acquitting the other
accused as afore- quoated is the fact that the
complainant himself had turned hostile and
other witnesses had not supported the charge
sheet. If the complainant had turned hostile
and it said that the same would be applicable
to the petitioner as well, notwithstanding the
fact that he was not available for trial. It is
not the case of sending the petitioner for trial
for the very same offences and result being
the same as is ordered on 01.12.2021 in
S.C.No.103/2018. It would be an exercise in
futility to permit further trial, which would
be of no utility and be a waste of judicial
time.
Judgment 18 C.C.No.21970/2026
Thus, in the present case on hand, in the original
CC.No.24021/2025, passed the judgment dated: 04.04.2026
as acquitted against the accused No.2 to 6. Under such
circumstances, It would be an exercise in a futility to permit
further trial, which would be of no utility and be a waste of
judicial time. Therefore, considering the trial which is held in
the original CC.No.24021/2025 and also judgment passed in
the same case.
12. In order to secure the Cw.3 to 23 witnesses, this
court repeatedly issued Summons and Proclamation, even
though the sufficient time given to the concerned police, they
have failed to secure these witnesses. Hence, the said
witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to
prosecution.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.7 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable
doubt, the accused No.7 can not be held guilty of the alleged
offences.
14. The Cw.1 Smt Aruna.E, who is examined as Pw.1 and
complainant in this case, she has deposed in her evidence
Judgment 19 C.C.No.21970/2026before the court that, Cw.2 is her son, she knows the accused
persons and the accused persons not cheated her not made
any fabricated documents of her property. Further she had
identified her signature on Ex.P1, where in she put her
signature on the said document about 1 year ago but, she do
not know the contents of the said documents. Further the
Cw.2, Nandakumar, who is examined as Pw.2 and he is the
son of Pw.1 incident/eye witness in this case, he has deposed
that, he knows the accused persons and the said accused
persons have not cheated his mother and further, he had not
given any statement before the police.
15. I have carefully perused the oral evidence of the
material witness, ie., Pw.1 who is complainant in this case,
and Pw.2 who is the incident witness, they both denied the
alleged offences against the accused No7. Hence, in this regard
they have turned hostile to the prosecution case and their
evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused No.7 beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to
Ex.P1.
16. The Cw.24 Sarthik, who is examined as Pw.3 and IO
in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court
Judgment 20 C.C.No.21970/2026that, On 23.05.2024 at 01:35 PM, while he was in charge of
the police station, he received the confirmed complaint given
by Cw-1 and registered a case in and submitted the final
report to the Honorable Court and to his superior officers.
Later on the same day, he recorded the statements of Cw-2, 3
and 5, Later on 24.05.2024, he served a notice on the 1st
accused, and upon his personal appearance at the police
station, he took action against him, recorded his voluntary
statement and released him on appropriate bail. Later, he
verbally ordered Cw-7 to 9 to find the 2nd and 5th accused,
and accordingly Cw-7 to 9 located the 2nd and 5th accused
and produced them before him at the police station on the
same day at 10:00 PM, and he gave a report before Cw-7 and
obtained the statements of Cw-8 and 9. On 25.05.2024, the
2nd accused was arrested in the presence of Cw12 and 13
from 01-00 to 02-30 in the afternoon, the items were seized,
and the items were Register in P.F.No.92/2024. Then on
25.05.2024, the 2nd accused was questioned, his statement
was recorded, appropriate arrest was taken and he was
produced before the Honorable Court. He had filed a petition
with the Honorable Court and have taken the 5th accused into
police custody as per the order of the Court, Later, on
Judgment 21 C.C.No.21970/2026
19.02.2025, the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Basavanagudi,
Chamarajpet, requested the Registrar to send the original
registered purchase deed for plot No. 706 KS Layout to Cw-1,
bearing his thumb impression and signature, as there were no
documents available regarding the previous consent of Cw-1,
i.e., his thumb impression, which was not in dispute, to the
Forensic Science Examination Laboratory, and accordingly, he
submitted the said documents on 03.03.2025. Later, on
28.04.2025, he had received the FSL report from Cw-23. Later,
he had sent back the original signatures obtained from the
Chamarajpet Basanavgudi Sub-Registrar, incorporated in the
Police Station Register No. 28/2025, to the Registrar and have
obtained his acknowledgment. Later, the investigation was
completed, and since no prima facie evidence was found
against the 1st accused, the said 1st accused was dropped
from the final report, and since prima facie evidence was found
against the remaining 2nd to 7th accused, he had submitted
the final report to the Honorable Court on 25.06.2025.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.7 had
cross examined the said witnesses, where in nothing
worthwhile elicited from his mouth.
Judgment 22 C.C.No.21970/2026
17. In the present case, it is important to note that the
material witness ie., Pw.1 & 2 have admittedly denied the
alleged offenses committed by the accused No.7. Further, the
Pw.3 who is the police official IO, he has deposed only about
the finding of the accused No.2 and produced the accused
No.2 before the court and after the investigation and submitted
the charge sheet before the court.
18. Further, the alleged recovery of stolen articles from
the possession of the accused No.7 have been satisfactorily
proved, no independent witnesses were joint at the time of
recovery of the stolen articles. Hence, the prosecution has not
proved their case with cogent and believable evidence as
alleged by the Pw.1 in Ex.P1 and the material witness has
been turned hostile to the prosecution case as discussed
supra. As such against the accused No.7 at the initial stage
itself the accused No.7 is certainly would be entitled to benefit
of the doubt, since material witness has turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC
4581 in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
Judgment 23 C.C.No.21970/2026
”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
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
Judgment 24 C.C.No.21970/2026
19. In the present case, it is important to note that the
material witness and the IO witnesses have not proved the
alleged commission of the offence by the accused No.7 with
corroborative evidence. As such the accused No.7 is certainly
would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no
corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused
No.7 to prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused No.7 is
entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. By considering
all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to prove the
guilt of the accused No.7 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
20. POINT NO.6: In view of the above findings on Points
No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
In the exercise of powers Confirmed
U/sec,.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.7
is hereby Acquitted for the alleged offence
punishable U/sec,.120B, 420, 467, 468,
471, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.21970/2026
The bail bond of the Accused No.7 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 this the 27th day of April-2026)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Aruna.E
P.W.2 : Sri. Nandakumar
P.W.3 : Sri. Sarthik
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Computerized Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Statement of Pw.2
Judgment 26 C.C.No.21970/2026
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of Pw.3
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Digitally
NIL signed by
THIMMAIAH G
THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2026.05.21
16:40:52
+0530(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 27 C.C.No.21970/2026
