Bangalore District Court
Banaswadi Ps vs A2 Ravi Shankar @ Ravi on 2 April, 2026
1
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
KABC010025492022
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the day of 2nd day of April, 2026.
PRESENT:
SRI. SOMASHEKAR A., B.A.L, LL.M.,
XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
C/c LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-60, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.173/2022
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka.
Rep. by State by Banaswadi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
- V/s -
ACCUSED : A2. Ravishankar @ Ravi,
S/o. Kodandarama
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.34, 1st Cross,
Ramaiah layout,
Kammanahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. P.R.P., Advocate)
Judge Sign
2
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
1. Date of Commission of Offence : 01.09.2015
2. Date of Report of Offence : 01.09.2015
3. Status of the accused : Accused No.2 is on bail
4. Name of the complainant : Mr. S.Ramaswamy
5. Date of Commencement of evidence : 14.02.2023
6. Date of Closing of Evidence : 17.02.2026
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec. 120(B), 302, 506B
r/w. 34 of IPC.
: Accused No.2 is not
8. Opinion of the Judge
found guilty
JUDGMENT
This Sessions Case arises out of the split up charge sheet
laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Banasawadi Police Station,
Bengaluru, against accused No.2 and others for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.596/2015.
2. The brief case of the prosecution, as could be gathered
from the charge sheet and charge framed against accused No.2, is
that on 01.09.2015 at about 8.30 p.m. and prior thereto, near
Kammanahalli Main Road, near church, Bengaluru, accused No.2
Judge Sign
3
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
along with accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 entered into a criminal
conspiracy to commit the murder of one Dileep Kumar, allegedly
because the said Dileep Kumar was supporting the wife of accused
No.1 and her parents in their family dispute. It is further the
allegation of the prosecution that on the same day at about 9.00
p.m., in front of Mariyamma Vegetable Shop, near Mukunda Theatre
bus stop, Banasawadi, accused Nos.1 to 4 picked up quarrel with
Dileep Kumar; accused No.1 assaulted him with hands; accused
No.2 and accused No.4 stabbed him with knife on the stomach and
other parts of the body; accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked him, and when
CW-4 Jonathan attempted to rescue the deceased, the accused
threatened him with dire consequences. It is the further case of the
prosecution that the injured Dileep Kumar was shifted to Specialist
Hospital, Subbaiahna Palya, and on 03.09.2015 at about 4.00 a.m.
he succumbed to the injuries.
3. Accused No.2 was shown as absconding and a split up
case came to be registered against him. After securing his presence,
the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and, since
Judge Sign
4
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, committed the matter to the Sessions Court. After
committal, the case came to be registered as S.C. No.173/2022. On
securing the presence of accused No.2, charges were framed
against him for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302,
506 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused No.2, the
prosecution examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, got marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6, and identified M.Os.1 to 4. After conclusion of
prosecution evidence, the statement of accused No.2 under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all incriminating
circumstances appearing against him and did not choose to adduce
defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor
and the learned counsel for accused No.2. Perused the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record.
Judge Sign
5
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
6. The following points that would arise for my
determination.
1) Whether the prosecution proves that the death
of Dileep Kumar was homicidal in nature?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on 01.09.2015 at
about 8.30 p.m. and prior thereto, near
Kammanahalli Main Road, near church,
Bengaluru, accused No.2 along with accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4 entered into a criminal
conspiracy to commit the murder of Dileep
Kumar and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 120B read with
Section 34 IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on 01.09.2015 at
about 9.00 p.m., in front of Mariyamma
Vegetable Shop, near Mukunda Theatre bus
stop, Banasawadi, accused No.2, in
furtherance of common intention with accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4, assaulted Dileep Kumar with
knife and thereby caused injuries which
resulted in his death on 03.09.2015, andJudge Sign
6
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgmentthereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that at the time of the
incident accused No.2, in furtherance of
common intention with the other accused,
criminally intimidated CW-4 Jonathan and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC?
5) What Order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: In the Negative
Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: The first and foremost aspect which falls for
determination is regarding the nature of death of Dileep Kumar. On
this aspect, the prosecution has relied mainly upon the evidence of
Judge Sign
7
S.C.No.173/2022
JudgmentPW.6 Dr. B.M. Nagaraj, who conducted the postmortem examination
on the dead body of Dileep Kumar on 03.09.2015.
9. PW.6 has deposed in clear terms that on receipt of
requisition from Banasawadi Police, he conducted postmortem
examination between 2.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. He has described in
detail the clothes found on the dead body and the numerous injuries
noticed externally and internally. The injuries include multiple
surgically stapled and sutured wounds over the face, chest,
abdomen, hands, thigh and back, and also distinct incised wounds,
particularly over the abdomen, chest and left arm. On internal
examination, he noticed serious damage to the peritoneum, left iliac
vessels, mesentery, sigmoid colon and jejunum, with 1.3 litres of
blood present in the peritoneal cavity. According to him, all injuries
were ante-mortem, homicidal in nature, and caused by a light cutting
weapon like knife. He has unequivocally opined that the death was
due to haemorrhagic shock consequent to multiple homicidal injuries
sustained. His postmortem report is marked at Ex.P.6 and his
signature at Ex.P.6(a).
Judge Sign
8
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
10. The cross-examination of PW.6 does not in any manner
shake his evidence. A suggestion was made that such injuries were
possible in an accident, but the doctor has firmly denied the same.
No medical contradiction of any substance has been elicited. There
is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence. His testimony is
natural, scientific, and fully supported by the postmortem report. The
nature, number, site and extent of injuries found on the body of the
deceased unmistakably establish that Dileep Kumar did not die a
natural death or an accidental death. The medical evidence clearly
proves that he died due to multiple homicidal knife injuries. Hence,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has
successfully proved that the death of Dileep Kumar was homicidal.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
11. Points No.2 to 4: Since all these Points arise out of the
same transaction and are interlinked, they are taken up together for
common discussion in order to avoid repetition.
Judge Sign
9
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
12. Though homicidal death is proved, it is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that proof of homicidal death by
itself is not sufficient to convict an accused for murder unless the
prosecution further establishes, beyond reasonable doubt, the
participation of the accused in the occurrence and the necessary
ingredients of the offences alleged. Suspicion, however strong,
cannot take the place of legal proof. The burden throughout rests on
the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every
reasonable doubt.
13. In the present case, the prosecution sought to connect
accused No.2 with the offences by relying upon the evidence of (i)
relatives of the deceased regarding motive and surrounding
circumstances, (ii) the alleged eye-witness Jonathan, (iii) arrest and
recovery related witnesses, and (iv) medical evidence. Each of these
requires careful judicial scrutiny.
14. PW.1/Jonathan was projected by the prosecution as the
star witness and as the person who was allegedly present at the
Judge Sign
10
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
scene and who, according to the charge, had attempted to rescue
Dileep Kumar and was then threatened by the accused persons.
Therefore, the entire prosecution case for the offences under
Sections 302 and 506 IPC substantially depended upon the
testimony of this witness.
15. However, when PW.1 entered the witness box, he
completely abandoned the prosecution story. In his chief-
examination, he stated that he did not know the accused persons in
the case, that he knew deceased Dileep Kumar only as his
childhood friend, that he did not know how Dileep Kumar died, and
most importantly, that he had not seen the accused persons
assaulting Dileep Kumar. He further stated that the accused had not
threatened him by showing knife and that he had not given any
statement to the police.
16. On the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, PW.1
was treated as hostile and was subjected to detailed cross-
examination. In that cross-examination, all material suggestions
Judge Sign
11
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
constituting the prosecution case were denied by him. He denied
that there was any prior quarrel between accused No.1 and his wife
which had been pacified by the deceased. He denied that he had
warned the deceased to be careful. He denied that on 01.09.2015 at
about 8.30 p.m. he and the deceased were taken by the accused to
the vegetable shop in front of Mukunda Theatre. He denied the
suggestion that accused No.1 abused the deceased, that accused
No.2 and accused No.4 stabbed the deceased with knife, that
accused No.3 and accused No.4 assaulted him with hands and legs,
and that accused No.2 threatened him with knife when he tried to
intervene. He also denied having given any previous statement
before the police as per Ex.P.1.
17. Thus, PW.1, who was expected to provide direct ocular
evidence, has not merely failed to support the prosecution; he has
positively destroyed the core of the prosecution case. No portion of
his testimony implicates accused No.2. His evidence does not prove
presence of accused No.2 at the spot, does not prove assault by
accused No.2, and does not prove criminal intimidation to him by
Judge Sign
12
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
accused No.2. Once the eye-witness himself disowns the
occurrence, the edifice of the prosecution case becomes
fundamentally weak.
18. It is true that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to
be rejected in toto and the Court can rely on such part of his
testimony as inspires confidence. But in the present case, there is
no incriminating portion whatsoever in the testimony of PW.1 against
accused No.2. The only admitted fact is that after three days he
came to know about the death of Dileep Kumar. That statement is of
no assistance to establish guilt of accused No.2. Therefore, the
evidence of PW.1 is wholly insufficient to sustain any of the charges
against accused No.2.
19. PW.2/Pramila is the sister of deceased Dileep Kumar.
Her evidence is in Kannada. She has stated that on 01.09.2015 at
about 8.30 p.m. the deceased telephoned her and informed that
some persons were coming to assault him near Seva Nagar bus
stand. She states that before she could tell him to return home, his
Judge Sign
13
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
mobile phone was switched off. Thereafter, she along with CW-1
and CW-3 went to the spot and found Dileep Kumar lying injured
under the bridge near Seva Nagar bus stand, asking for water and in
a semi-conscious condition, and they shifted him to Specialist
Hospital. She further states that later she came to know that when
her husband had gone to advise the accused persons in connection
with the family dispute of accused No.1 and his wife, all the accused
had assaulted Dileep Kumar with knife and committed his murder.
20. A careful reading of her evidence shows that PW.2 is
not an eye-witness to the incident. She admittedly reached the place
only after the occurrence. What she saw was the injured condition of
the deceased. Her evidence may, therefore, be relevant only to
show that the deceased was found injured and was taken to the
hospital. But her statement that “the accused persons assaulted
Dileep Kumar” is clearly based on what she allegedly came to know
later. It is not direct evidence. It is hearsay insofar as the actual
assault is concerned.
Judge Sign
14
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
21. More importantly, the alleged telephonic conversation
between the deceased and PW.2 is not supported by any call detail
records, mobile number particulars, phone extraction, electronic
evidence, or any contemporaneous complaint immediately naming
the assailants on that basis. In cross-examination, PW.2 admitted
that she does not know from which mobile number she received the
call. No independent material is produced to corroborate that such a
call was made by the deceased to her just before the incident. In a
case involving a serious charge of murder, such an uncorroborated
assertion, that too by a close relative, has to be approached with
caution.
22. Further, her evidence does not specifically attribute any
overt act to accused No.2 based on her personal knowledge. She
states that she would identify the accused, but identification in Court
without being an eye-witness to the occurrence does not advance
the prosecution case. Her evidence, therefore, does not provide
substantive proof of the participation of accused No.2 in the
commission of the offence.
Judge Sign
15
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
23. PW.3/Sathish is the husband of PW.2 and the brother-
in-law of deceased Dileep Kumar. His evidence is also of a
circumstantial and hearsay nature. He states that one Prathap had
married Sheethal and that Sheethal’s father requested the deceased
to advise Prathap because Prathap was giving trouble to Sheethal.
He further states that deceased Dileep Kumar had informed him
about such advice being given to Prathap. He then deposes that
thereafter Prathap, Ravishankar and Santhosh came in search of
Dileep Kumar at Kammanahalli Church on 01.09.2015 at about 8.30
p.m. and took him to Seva Nagar bus stand saying that Sheethal
and her father were waiting there. He further states that those
persons stabbed Dileep Kumar with knife on his hand, leg and
abdomen, but significantly adds that one White Jhony (Jonathan)
informed all these to him.
24. The very tenor of the evidence of PW.3 demonstrates
that he is not an eye-witness. His version of the actual assault is
admittedly based on what Jonathan allegedly told him. Therefore,
Judge Sign
16
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
that portion of his evidence is purely hearsay and not substantive
evidence. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit from such
second-hand narration, especially when Jonathan himself, who is
examined as PW.1, has denied witnessing the incident altogether.
25. In fact, the evidence of PW.3 gets seriously undermined
because the very source from whom he claims to have learnt the
incident, namely Jonathan, has turned hostile and denied the
prosecution case in material particulars. Thus, the hearsay
statement of PW.3 stands stripped of all value. Another important
aspect is that in his deposition dated 17.07.2025, PW.3 categorically
stated that he could not identify accused No.2 who was present
before the Court. This aspect goes to the root of the matter. If a
witness who claims prior acquaintance and who speaks about
Ravishankar being one among those who took the deceased away
is unable to identify accused No.2 in Court, the identity and
participation of accused No.2 becomes highly doubtful. Therefore,
the evidence of PW.3 at best indicates an alleged motive
Judge Sign
17
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
background, but does not legally establish conspiracy, assault, or
presence of accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt.
26. PW.4/Shiva Kumar is an ASI and his evidence relates
only to the arrest/tracing of accused persons. He has deposed that
on 02.09.2015 he was deputed to trace the accused, that on
receiving information from informants they went near Don Bosco
Church, Lingarajapuram side, where some accused persons
attempted to flee, and that three accused persons were
apprehended and produced before the Investigating Officer. He has
further deposed about efforts made later to trace another accused.
27. The evidence of PW.4 does not in any way speak about
the incident of assault. He is not a witness to the occurrence. His
evidence is relevant only to the extent of the procedural act of
apprehending certain accused persons. Even if his evidence is
accepted, arrest of an accused by itself is not proof of guilt. Unless
the arrest is connected with reliable recovery, discovery, or other
incriminating material, it has only a limited value. Significantly, the
Judge Sign
18
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer who could
have connected the arrest, subsequent investigation, recovery, and
overall chain of circumstances. In the absence of such evidence, the
testimony of PW.4 remains an isolated procedural piece of evidence
and is insufficient to establish the offences charged against accused
No.2.
28. PW.5/Suresh was examined as a mahazar witness in
relation to the alleged recovery/seizure. In chief-examination, he
identified his signature on the mahazar marked as Ex.P.2(a), but
immediately stated that he does not know what is written in Ex.P.2,
that the police had not called him for any mahazar, that no mahazar
was conducted in his presence, that no articles were seized in his
presence, that he had not given any statement to the police, and that
he could not identify the accused.
29. On being treated hostile, all suggestions put by the
prosecution regarding accused No.2 producing a knife from bushes
near R.S. Palya, 10th C Circle, Kammanahalli, and police seizing the
Judge Sign
19
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
same under mahazar in his presence, were denied by him. He
specifically denied that accused No.2 led the police and produced
the knife used in the offence. Therefore, the alleged recovery at the
instance of accused No.2 is not proved through independent panch
evidence. Once the mahazar witness himself denies the seizure and
denies the recovery, the prosecution is left without trustworthy
evidence to prove discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
There is also no forensic evidence placed before the Court to
connect any recovered weapon with the injuries found on the body
of the deceased. PW.6 doctor also states in cross-examination that
the Investigating Officer had not asked him to give opinion regarding
the knife. Thus, the alleged recovery remains wholly unproved and
unusable against the accused.
30. As already discussed while answering Point No.1, the
evidence of PW.6 conclusively proves the homicidal death of Dileep
Kumar. However, the legal question is whether that medical
evidence, by itself, can be used to convict accused No.2. The
answer must be in the negative. Medical evidence can corroborate
Judge Sign
20
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
ocular or circumstantial evidence; it cannot ordinarily, by itself,
identify the assailant. PW.6 has not stated anything connecting
accused No.2 with the injuries. He has merely opined about the
cause and nature of death. Though his evidence is valuable to prove
the nature of assault and the factum of homicidal death, it does not
advance the prosecution case on the crucial issue of identity and
participation of accused No.2. The prosecution was therefore
required to furnish dependable direct or circumstantial evidence
connecting accused No.2 with the homicidal injuries. That link is
conspicuously absent.
31. So far as the offence of criminal conspiracy under
Section 120B IPC is concerned, the law is well settled that
conspiracy is generally proved either by direct evidence of
agreement or by circumstances unmistakably showing meeting of
minds to commit the illegal act. Mere suspicion, previous enmity, or
presence together is not sufficient. In the case on hand, the
prosecution has produced no independent material to establish any
prior meeting of minds among accused No.2 and the co-accused.
Judge Sign
21
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
There is no conversation proved, no conduct proved, no preparatory
act proved, and no circumstance on record from which criminal
conspiracy can be safely inferred. The only material placed is the
alleged motive background that the deceased was supporting the
wife of accused No.1 and her parents. Even that motive aspect is
spoken to only by hearsay witnesses and not by any independent
direct witness. There is absolutely no legal evidence showing that
accused No.2 entered into any agreement with the co-accused to
commit the murder of Dileep Kumar. Hence, the charge under
Section 120B read with Section 34 IPC necessarily fails.
32. Coming to the principal charge under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove not only
homicidal death but also that accused No.2 participated in the
assault in furtherance of common intention. In the present case, the
prosecution has failed to examine any reliable eye-witness
supporting the occurrence against accused No.2. PW.1 Jonathan,
the supposed eye-witness, has completely turned hostile. PW.2 and
PW.3 are not eye-witnesses. Their evidence regarding assault is
Judge Sign
22
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
hearsay. PW.3 even failed to identify accused No.2 before Court.
The alleged recovery of weapon at the instance of accused No.2 is
not proved, because PW.5 mahazar witness has not supported the
prosecution. There is no scientific or forensic link connecting
accused No.2 with the offence weapon or the blood stains or the
clothes. No FSL report is placed before Court to connect the alleged
weapon or material objects with the deceased. The Investigating
Officer, who could have explained the steps of investigation, seizure,
recovery, and collection of material evidence, has not been
examined.
33. Further, the prosecution case itself suffers from
evidentiary gaps. The incident is said to have occurred in a public
place near Mukunda Theatre bus stop and vegetable shop, yet no
independent local witness has been examined to support the
prosecution. The persons cited as material witnesses appear to
have been either dropped or given up. As noted in the record,
CWs.1, 2, 5, 6 to 13 and 21 were dropped, while CWs.17, 19 and 20
were given up. Non-examination of material witnesses, by itself, may
Judge Sign
23
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
not always be fatal, but where the witnesses actually examined do
not prove the prosecution case, such omission assumes significance
and deepens the doubt.
34. The law is equally well settled that where the evidence
suffers from serious infirmities, hostility of the material eye-witness,
lack of credible recovery, absence of corroborative forensic
evidence, and failure of the prosecution to establish the chain linking
the accused with the crime, the Court cannot convict on surmises. In
a Sessions case involving the grave charge of murder, the standard
is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not moral suspicion.
35. This Court is conscious that a brutal homicidal death
has indeed occurred. However, the criminal Court is not concerned
merely with the fact that an offence has been committed; it is
required to determine whether the prosecution has proved that the
particular accused before the Court committed that offence. In the
present case, the prosecution has failed to cross that legal threshold
Judge Sign
24
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
in relation to accused No.2. Consequently, the charge under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC is not proved against accused No.2.
36. The charge of criminal intimidation in the present case
is specifically linked to the allegation that when Jonathan tried to
rescue the deceased, the accused threatened him with knife.
Therefore, proof of this charge depended almost entirely upon the
testimony of Jonathan. As already discussed, PW.1 Jonathan has
categorically denied that the accused threatened him by showing
knife. He denied the entire occurrence of intimidation. No other
witness claims to have personally seen such threat. Therefore, there
is absolutely no legal evidence to sustain the charge under Section
506 read with Section 34 IPC against accused No.2.
37. On an overall judicial re-appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has
succeeded only in proving the homicidal death of Dileep Kumar.
Beyond that, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential links
required to connect accused No.2 with the offences charged. The
Judge Sign
25
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
eye-witness has turned hostile. The alleged supporting witnesses
are hearsay witnesses. One material witness failed to identify
accused No.2. The recovery witness has not supported the
prosecution. The medical evidence, though clear on the nature of
death, does not identify the assailant. There is no legally acceptable
evidence of conspiracy. There is no trustworthy evidence of common
intention. There is no reliable proof of intimidation. There is no
complete and cogent chain of circumstances pointing only to the
guilt of accused No.2.
38. Criminal law requires that if two views are possible on
the evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.
Benefit of doubt is not a matter of generosity; it is a rule of prudence
flowing from the presumption of innocence. The accused cannot be
convicted because the Court feels that he may be involved.
Conviction can follow only when the evidence is of such quality that
it excludes reasonable doubt. That standard is not met in the present
case. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.2 committed the
Judge Sign
26
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 506 read with
Section 34 IPC. Hence, Points No.2 to 4 are answered in the
Negative.
39. Point No.5: Before parting, this Court deems it
necessary to record that the present case is one where the factum of
homicidal death stands firmly established through unimpeachable
medical evidence, yet the authorship of the crime, insofar as
accused No.2 is concerned, has not been proved in the manner
known to law. The Court cannot bridge evidentiary gaps by
conjecture, nor can it convert suspicion arising from antecedent
circumstances into legal proof. The prosecution, having failed to
present reliable ocular testimony, legally admissible corroborative
recovery evidence, and a coherent chain of incriminating
circumstances against accused No.2, cannot seek conviction on the
mere gravity of the allegation. Thus, the only legally sustainable
conclusion is one of acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt to
accused No.2. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following;
Judge Sign
27
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, accused No.2 Ravishankar
@ Ravi is hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused
No.2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal
period.
M.O.1 to 4 being case properties shall be
preserved till disposal of the split up case, if any,
against the other accused, and thereafter dealt
with in accordance with law under Section 452
Cr.P.C.
\
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II on computer, revised, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd Day of April 2026.)
(SOMASHEKAR A.)
XV CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-60), BENGALURU.
C/c LXI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-60), BENGALURU.
Judge Sign
28
S.C.No.173/2022
Judgment
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW-1 : Jonathan PW-2 : Pramila PW-3 : Sathish PW-4 : Shivakumar PW-5 : Dr.Imyanual Suresh PW-6 : B.M.Nagaraj
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Statement of PW1 Ex.P.2 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4 Form no.146(i) Ex.P.5 Form No.146(ii) Ex.P.6 Pm report Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW6
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 : Blood stained full sleeved blue shirt
M.O.2 : Blood stained blue jeans pant
M.O.3 : Blood stained black colour underwear
M.O.4 : One pair of black shoesJudge Sign
29
S.C.No.173/2022
JudgmentList of witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the
accused:
– NIL –
(SOMASHEKAR A.)
XV CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-60), BENGALURU.
C/c LXI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-60), BENGALURU.
Judge Sign