Bangalore District Court
Muniyamma vs Ejaj Pasha on 19 May, 2026
KABC030380652018
Presented on : 25-05-2018
Registered on : 25-05-2018
Decided on : 19-05-2026
Duration : 7 years, 11 months, 25 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 20th day of May-2026
:Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G B.A., LL.B.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.14024/2018
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 12.07.2016
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Person Aejaz
S/o. Shaik Raseed,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at. No. 27, 2nd Cross,
Sarabandepalya,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.14024/2018
Banashankari,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,. 304-A of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 16.07.2022 and the
accused is Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On: 118.05.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 19.05.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th Addl.C.J.M., B'lore.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec,.
304-A of IPC.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.14024/2018
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.07.2016 within
the jurisdiction of Subramanyapura police station, Harinagar
Cross, in front of Sumaya Transport, where the Cw.1′ deceased
husband by name Babu lorry got punchered, at that time, the
accused No.1 sent the accused No.2 remove the said tyre who
was not having any experience and when the accused No.2 put
the jack the lift the lorry and the jack did not put properly and
the said lorry fell on the deceased Cw.1’s husband and the
Cw.1’s deceased by name Babu died at the spot and due to
negligent act of the accused persons the said incident has
been occurred and the deceased Babu died and thereby the
accused persons have committed the above said alleged offence
which are punishable U/sec,. 304-A of IPC.
3. During the pendency of the trial, the case against
the accused No.2 is split up vide order dated: 30.06.2022.
After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence
punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC against the accused No.1. The
accused No.1 was released on bail. Copy of the prosecution
papers furnished to the accused No.1 as required U/Sec.207
of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and
Judgment 4 C.C.No.14024/2018
read over to the accused No.1 language known to him, wherein
he has denied the same and claim to be tried. Hence, the
prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
4. In order to secure the Cw.1 to 10 and 12 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. Moreover, this case is 08
years old one. 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:
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 5 C.C.No.14024/2018in 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
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
Judgment 6 C.C.No.14024/2018production 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
once the accused is challaned there is no
privilege given to the police to remain absent”.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.14024/2018
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
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
Judgment 8 C.C.No.14024/2018
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).”
” 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.
Judgment 9 C.C.No.14024/2018
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
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.14024/2018made 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.
Hence, considering the present case on hand, theCw.1 to
10 and 12 are dropped, since they are not secured long time.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1, the prosecution
has examined 03 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 out of 14
witnesses and got marked 05 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5.
Judgment 11 C.C.No.14024/2018
5. Thereafter examination of the accused No.1
U/sec,.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused No.1 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.
6. Heard both the side and perused the material
evidence on record.
7. The following points would arise for my
consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, on
12.07.2016 within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyapura police station,
Harinagar Cross, in front of Sumaya
Transport, where the Cw.1′ deceased
husband by name Babu lorry got
punchered, at that time, the accused No.1
sent the accused No.2 remove the said
tyre who was not having any experience
and when the accused No.2 put the jack
the lift the lorry and the jack did not put
properly and the said lorry fell on the
deceased Cw.1’s husband and the Cw.1’s
deceased by name Babu died at the spot
and due to negligent act of the accused
persons the said incident has been
occurred and the deceased Babu died and
Judgment 12 C.C.No.14024/2018thereby committed an offence punishable
under 304-A of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
9. Points No.1: I am of the opinion that, I need not
repeat the entire case of the complaint here also, since I have
already narrated the same at the inception of this judgment.
10. The Cw.14 Vajramuni, who is examined as Pw.1 and
IO in this case, he deposed in his evidence before the court
stating that, On 12.07.2016, he received the case file from Cw-
11, on the same day he received the re-statement of Ce-1, on
the same day he received the photographs of the deceased
Babu from KIMS Hospital and attached them to the file. On
13.07.2016, he received the statements of Cw-2 and 3. On
04.08.2016, I received the statement of Cw-4. Then he received
the Xerox documents of Form No. 29 and 30 related to the
vehicle, the purchase deed of the vehicle, the contract of sale of
Judgment 13 C.C.No.14024/2018
the vehicle, the delivery note from Cw-4. Then he completed
the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 had
cross examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile
elicited from his mouth.
11. The Cw.11 Arjun, who is examined as Pw.2 and 1 st
IO in this case, he deposed in his evidence before the court
stating that, On 12.07.2016 at 10:00 PM, while he was in
charge of the police station, he received the computerized
complaint given by Cw1 and registered the case and submitted
the report to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Then on
13.07.2016, he conducted the panchanama in the presence of
the pancha’s at the place shown by Cw-1 from 10:00 AM to
11:00 AM. Then he handed over the case file to Cw-14 for
further investigation.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 had
cross examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile
elicited from his mouth.
12. The Cw.13 H.Parashuramappa, who is examined as
Pw.3 and 2nd IO in this case, On 10.08.2016, he received the
case from Cw-11, verified it and continued the investigation.
On the same day, the accused appeared at the police station
and was arrested and released on appropriate bail. Since he
Judgment 14 C.C.No.14024/2018
was transferred, he had handed over the case file to Cw-14 for
further investigation.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 had
cross examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile
elicited from his mouth.
13. 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.
14. In this case, in order to secure the Cw.1 to 10 and
12 witnesses respectively this court issued summons and
proclamation. In spite of the sufficient time given to the police,
they have failed to secure these witnesses and w.1 to 10 and
12 witnesses are dropped since, they are not secured since
long time. Moreover, the non examination of the material
witness is fatal to the prosecution case. As such the case
against the accused No.1 is certainly would be entitled to
benefit of the doubt. Regarding this I relied on the following
Judgment.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC
4581 in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
Judgment 15 C.C.No.14024/2018
”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.”
15. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and the accused No.1 is
Judgment 16 C.C.No.14024/2018
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.1 beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, I Answer to the Points No.1 in the Negative.
16. Point No.2: In view of the Negative findings on the
above points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
In the exercise of powers Confirmed
U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby
Acquitted for the alleged offence punishable
U/sec., 304(A) of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused 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 19th day of May-2026.
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
Judgment 17 C.C.No.14024/2018
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Vajramuni
P.W.2 : Sri. Arjun
P.W.3 : Sri. H.Parashuramappa
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Post Mortem Report
Ex.P2 : Post Mortem investigation Report
Ex.P3 : Computerized complaint
Ex.P4 : FIR
Ex.P5 : Spot Mahazar
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION: Digitally signed
by
THIMMAIAH G
NIL THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2026.05.21
16:55:51
+0530(Thimmaiah.G)
30th Addl.C.J.M., B’lore.
Judgment 18 C.C.No.14024/2018
