Bangalore District Court
Jp Nagrar Police Station vs A No 2 Shridhar on 21 May, 2026
C.C.No.22526/2022
KABC030570752022
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 21st day of May 2026
PRESENT : SRI.SAHEEL AHMED S. KUNNIBHAVI, B.Com., LL.B.
(Spl.)
II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.
Sl. No. of the case C.C.No.22526/2022
Date of commission of the
2. 17.08.2016 and 18.08.2016
offence (As per F.I.R.)
J.P.Nagar Police Station,
3. Name of the complainant
Bengaluru City
4. Name of the accused 1. Karthik.
(Accused acquitted in
Main C.C.No.5334/2020)
2. Sridhar @ S.T.D.,
S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.247, Sarakki Main,
Gandhi Circle, Near Masjid,
J.P.Nagar 1st Stage,
Bengaluru.
3. Punith @ Punga,
S/o Ramachandra,
2 C.C.No.22526/2022
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.31, Kuvempu
Road, Jaraganahalli,
J.P.Nagar 6th Phase,
Bengaluru.
4. Muthu Raj.
(Accused acquitted in
Main C.C.No.30241/2018)
5. Karthik.
(Accused acquitted in
Main C.C.No.30241/2018)
Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,
The offences complained 365, 342, 323 and 324 R/w
5.
of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Accused No.2 and 3 are 7. Final order acquitted 8. Date of order 21.05.2026
The Sub-Inspector of Police of J.P.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru has filed Police Report against the above named
accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148, 365, 342, 323 and 324 R/w Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 is already acquitted
in main C.C.No.5334/2020 dated 11.01.2023. Accused No.4
and 5 are acquitted in main C.C.No.30241/2018 dated
3 C.C.No.22526/2022
07.01.2021. This is a split up case against accused No.2.
and 3.
2. It is the case of the Prosecution that one Mr.Puttappa,
S/o M.S.Bhupaiah had been to the Police Station and lodged
the information that on 17.08.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. these
accused No.1, 4 and 5 along with the split up accused No.2
and 3 came in their Access Bike and kidnapped the son of
the informant by name Nikhil. These accused in furtherance
of their act assaulted the son of the informant with an iron
rod and caused grievous injuries. On the very next day these
accused has released the said Nikhil and sent him in an Auto
Rickshaw on dire consequences. Soon after the incident, CW1
Puttappa had been to the Police Station and lodged the
information.
3. Based on the First Information of CW1, the crime was
registered. Accused No.1 is already acquitted in main
C.C.No.5334/2020 dated 11.01.2023. Accused No.4 and 5
are acquitted in main C.C.No.30241/2018 dated 07.01.2021.
This is a split up case against accused No.2 and 3. They were
4 C.C.No.22526/2022
absconding and NBW and Proclamation and Attachment
Warrant was issued against them.
4. To prove the charges framed against accused No.2 and
3, it is on record that accused No.1, accused No.4 and 5 are
acquitted of the same crime and accordingly as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
reported in many judgments that when the trail was held
against one of the accused in respect of the same offence and
in the second round of the trial against the remaining
accused, the evidence cannot be different from the one that
was produced by the Prosecution in the earlier case. The
examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Accordingly the matter was
posted for judgment.
5. Perused the materials available on record.
6. The points for determination are:-
1. Whether prosecution has proved the
offence charged against accused No.2
and 3 for the offences punishable
5 C.C.No.22526/2022under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,
365, 342, 323 and 324 R/w Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code beyond
reasonable doubt?
2. What order or sentence?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 :- It is the case of the Prosecution that on
17.08.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. these accused No.1, 4 and 5
along with the split up accused No.2 and 3 came in their
Access Bike and kidnapped the son of the informant by name
Nikhil. These accused have assaulted this Nikhil with an iron
rod and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.1 is already
acquitted in main C.C.No.5334/2020 dated 11.01.2023.
Accused No.4 and 5 are acquitted in another
C.C.No.30241/2018 dated 07.01.2021. This is a split up case
against accused No.2 and 3. Accused No.2 and 3 were
6 C.C.No.22526/2022
reported absconded and NBW and Proclamation and
Attachment Warrant was issued against them.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled in many reports
including reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1155 in Javed
Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State Of Gujarat and was decided on
September 13, 2023 that when the trail was held against one
of the accused in respect of the same offence and in the
second round of the trial against the remaining accused, the
evidence cannot be different from the one that was produced
by the Prosecution in the earlier case. This Split up accused
No.2 and 3 are also entitled for the said benefit of doubt as it
was extended to his co-accused. Accused No.2 and 3 can be
acquitted on benefit of doubt. In this case, in respect of the
same crime accused No.1 was acquitted by my Predecessor in
original C.C.No.5334/2020 dated 11.01.2023 and accused
No.4 and 5 were acquitted in main C.C.No.30241/2018 dated
07.01.2021. In the said original main case judgments, my
Predecessor has held that CW1 has not supported the case of
the Prosecution and even has denied that he has lodged any
7 C.C.No.22526/2022
information against these accused. The matter is pending
since 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
144, 147, 148, 365, 342, 323 and 324 R/w Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. In this case also this Court finds that
when the informant and rest of the witnesses have not
supported the case of the Prosecution, the examination of
CW1 futile in the present case also. Further, it is the settled
principle of law that when the Court comes to the conclusion
that when there is no merits on the case, the presence of the
accused is not necessary to pronounce the judgment. Section
353(6) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that if an accused is not in
custody, they must attend Court to hear the judgment,
unless personal attendance was dispensed with and the
sentence is only a fine or acquittal. If one of multiple accused
is absent, the Court can proceed with pronouncing the
judgment to avoid delay. That if the Court concludes there is
no merit in the case and intends to acquit the accused, or if
the sentence is only a fine, the presence of the accused is not
necessary for the pronouncement of the judgment.
Accordingly, the argument of the learned Senior APP holds no
8 C.C.No.22526/2022
grounds. As per the Reports of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India this Court finds that when the trail was held against
one of the accused in respect of the same offence and in the
second round of the trial against the remaining accused, the
evidence cannot be different from the one that was produced
by the Prosecution in the earlier case. This Split up accused
No.2 and 3 are also entitled for the said benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
10. POINT No.2 :- For the reasons stated in Point No.1, the
prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused No.2 and 3
for the offences charged against them beyond all reasonable
doubts. Therefore, accused No.2 and 3 are not found guilty
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 365, 342, 323 and 324 R/w Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDERS
Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,
accused No.2 and 3 are hereby acquitted
for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 365, 342,
9 C.C.No.22526/2022323 and 324 R/w Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Office is hereby directed to keep the
entire file along with Split up
Criminal Case of accused No.1 in main
C.C.No.5334/2020 and Split up
Criminal Case of accused No.4 and 5 in
main C.C.No.30241/2018.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court Computer on my
direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the Open Court on 21 st day of May
2026.)
(SAHEEL AHMED.S.KUNNIBHAVI)
II ACJM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL
Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution :-
NIL
10 C.C.No.22526/2022Witnesses Examined on behalf of the accused :-
NIL
Documents marked on behalf of the accused :-
NIL
II ACJM, Bengaluru City.
[ad_1]
Source link
