Bangalore District Court
Mahadeveshwara vs Palani on 18 May, 2026
KABC030411782013
Presented on : 29-06-2013
Registered on : 29-06-2013
Decided on : 18-05-2026
Duration : 12 years, 10 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 18th day of May-2026
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.9720/2013
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 05.06.2013
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Persons A1. Palani
S/o. Sanjev Reddy,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at.Muniswamy Layout,
Uttarahalli, Terahalli Main Road,
Subramanyapura,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.9720/2013
Bengaluru-560061.
A2. Venkatesh.M
S/o. Muniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
A3. Smt. Varalakshmi,
W/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at. No.56, 14/2 Cross,
Canara Bank Colony,
Near Shanthi Sagar Hotel,
Uttarahalli Main Road,
Subramanyapura,
Bengaluru-560061.
Offences U/sec,.323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 15.12.2017 and
Accused persons are Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 14.05.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order 18.05.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.9720/2013
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the
offences punishable U/sec,.323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, on 05.06.2013 at about 04.30 PM,
within the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station,
House No.56, 3rd Main Road, Canara Bank Colony,
Chikklasandra, the accused persons picked up the quarrel
with the Cw.2 regarding the property matter and assaulted the
Cw.2 with their hands and legs and caused simple injuries to
Cw.2. Further the accused persons pulled the Cw.2 hair and
dragged the Cw.2 and insulted her modesty in the public and
further when the Cw.1 came between to stop the quarrel, at
that time, the accused No.1 abused the Cw.1 in filthy language
and assaulted the Cw.1 with a stone on Cw.1’s head, right
hand and bitten the Cw.1’s finger and caused bleeding injuries
to Cw.1. Further the accused persons given the life threat to
Judgment 4 C.C.No.9720/2013Cw.1 and 2 and thereby the accused persons have committed
the above offences punishable U/sec,.323, 324, 354, 504,
506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
offence punishable U/sec,.323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC against the accused persons. The accused
persons were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers
furnished to the The accused persons as required U/Sec.207
of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and
read over to the The accused persons, wherein they have
denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.3 to 8 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. 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:
Judgment 5 C.C.No.9720/2013
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
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
Judgment 6 C.C.No.9720/2013
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
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
Judgment 7 C.C.No.9720/2013
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
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.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.9720/2013
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
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
Judgment 9 C.C.No.9720/2013
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
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.9720/2013facts 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
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
Judgment 11 C.C.No.9720/2013recalcitrance 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
8 witnesses are dropped, since they are not secured long time.
Moreover, it is 13 years old case. In order to prove the guilt of
the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 03
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 out of 09 witnesses and got marked
05 documents as Ex.P1 & 5.
05. Thereafter examination of accused persons under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused persons have
denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and
not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got
marked on their behalf.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.9720/2013
06. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
07. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, on
05.06.2013 at about 04.30 PM, within the
jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police
station, House No.56, 3rd Main Road,
Canara Bank Colony, Chikklasandra, the
accused persons picked up the quarrel
with the Cw.2 regarding the property
matter and assaulted the Cw.2 with their
hands and legs and caused simple
injuries to Cw.2 and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/sec.,323 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that,
further the accused persons pulled the
Cw.2 hair and dragged the Cw.2 and
insulted her modesty in the public and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,354 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
Judgment 13 C.C.No.9720/2013
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
when the Cw.1 came between to stop the
quarrel, at that time, the accused No.1
abused the Cw.1 in filthy language and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec., 504 R/w sec., 34 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
when the Cw.1 came between to stop the
quarrel, at that time, the accused No.1
abused the Cw.1 in filthy language and
assaulted the Cw.1 with a stone on Cw.1’s
head, right hand and bitten the Cw.1’s
finger and caused bleeding injuries to
Cw.1 and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec., 324 R/w sec., 34 of
IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, further
the accused persons given life threat to
Cw.1 and 2 and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec.,506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC ?
6. What order.?
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Judgment 14 C.C.No.9720/2013
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
09. 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.
10. The Cw.9 Arjun, who is examined as Pw.1 and IO in
this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that,
On 06.06.2013 at 05-30 PM, while he was in charge of the
police station and received the written complaint given by Cw-
1 and registered a case and submitted the report to the
Honorable Court and the superiors. Later on the same day, he
Judgment 15 C.C.No.9720/2013conducted a panchanama in the presence of Cw-4 and 5 from
04-30 PM to 05-30 PM at the place shown by Cw-1. Later, he
had verbally appointed Cw-7 and 8 to find the accused. Later,
on the same day, he had recorded the statement of Cw-5 and
6. On 10.06.2013, he had recorded the statement of Cw-7 and
8 as they have not found the accused and they have not been
caught. On 21.06.2013, he had obtained the wound certificate
of Cw-1 and further, submitted the final report to the Hon’ble
Court as the charges against the accused persons have been
prima facie proven.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witnesses, where in nothing
worthwhile elicited from his mouth.
11. The Cw.9 Mahadeshwar, who is examined as Pw.2
complainant/injured witness in this case, he has deposed in
his evidence before the court that, the accused persons are his
relatives and and there was no quarrel happened between
themselves, further the Pw.2 has identified the signatures on
the Ex.P1 & Ex.P2, where in she had put his signature on the
said documents in the police station about 13 years ago, but,
he do not know the contents of the same, further he did not
Judgment 16 C.C.No.9720/2013take any treatment in the hospital regarding the alleged
incident. Further the Cw.2 Smt. Bharathi, who is examined as
Pw.3 and injured/incident witness in this case and she has
deposed in her evidence before the court that, the accused
persons are his relatives and and there was no quarrel
happened between themselves and she did not take any
treatment in the hospital regarding the alleged incident.
Hence, they both turned hostile to the prosecution case.
12. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused persons can not be held guilty
of the alleged offenses.
13. In the present case, it is important to note that the
material witness ie., Pw.2 & 3 have admittedly denied the
alleged offenses committed by the accused persons in their
evidence and turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further,
the Pw.1 who is the police official IO, he has deposed about his
investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the court
Hence, the prosecution has not proved their case with cogent
and believable evidence as alleged by the Pw.1 in Ex.P1 and
Judgment 17 C.C.No.9720/2013the material witness has been turned hostile to the
prosecution case as discussed supra. As such against the
accused persons at the initial stage itself he 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:
”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 18 C.C.No.9720/2013
14. In the present case, it is important to note that the
material witness and the IO witness have not proved the
alleged commission of the offences by the accused persons
with corroborative evidence. As such the accused persons are
certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no
corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused
persons to prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused
persons are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. By
considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 5 in the
Negative.
15. 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.1
to 3 are hereby Acquitted for the alleged
offences punishable U/sec,.324, 323, 354,
504 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
Judgment 19 C.C.No.9720/2013
The bail bond of the Accused No.1 to 3
and surety extended for further 6 months
in order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, this bail bond automatically
stands cancelled.
The properties seized by the IO in
P.F.No.67/2013, Item No.1 and 2 are being
worthless is hereby directed to destroy the
same, after the appeal period over, in
accordance with law.
(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 18th day of April-2026)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B’lore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Arjun
P.W.2 : Sri. Mahadeshwar
P.W.3 : Smt. Bharathi
Judgment 20 C.C.No.9720/2013
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.5 : Statement 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:
Mo.1 : One Stone
Mo.2 : One Bloodstained shirt Digitally
signed by
THIMMAIAH G
THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2026.05.21
16:56:27
+0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.9720/2013
