Bangalore District Court
S J Park Ps vs A1 Rehaman Khan Alias Dawood on 2 April, 2026
KABC010052062019
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU.
PRESENT:
SRI. SOMASHEKAR A., B.A.L, LL.M.,
XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-60, BENGALURU CITY.
C/c LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-60, BENGALURU CITY.
S.C.No.256/2019
Dated this 02nd day of April, 2026.
COMPLAINANT : State of Karnataka by
S.J.Park Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED 1. Rehaman Khan @ Dawood
S/o Ansar Khan
Aged about 22 years
R/at No.1/1-1, 7th Cross
Lal Bhag, Fort Road,
Dodda Mavalli,
Bengaluru
2
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
2. Shahazad Pash
S/o Naveed Pash
Aged about 21 years
R/at 2nd Cross, Lal Bhag,
Fort Road, Dodda Mavalli,
Bengaluru
(By Sri.F.a. Advocate for A1
Sri.R.J.M. advocate for A2)
1. Date of Commission of : 16.09.2018
Offence
2. Date of Report of Offence : 16.09.2018
3. Status of the accused : Accused No.1 and 2 are
on bail
4. Name of the complainant : Sri.Akbar
5. Date of Commencement of :
25.02.2020
evidence
6. Date of Closing of Evidence : 30.12.2024
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.302, 504 r/w. 34
of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 and 2 are
not found guilty
Judge Sign
3
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of S.J.Park police station, Bengaluru
have filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the
offences punishable U/Sec. 302, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) in Cr.No.82/2018.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on
16.09.2018 at about 8:40 pm., C.W.1 along with deceased Akif
@ Balla @ Akif Pasha were talking in front of Vishaka
Marketing Shop, J.C.Road, Shanthi Nagar Junction, Bengaluru,
and when C.W.1 went towards his house, accused No.1 and 2
were came from Shivaji Junction towards J.C.Road, in Suzuki
Access two wheeler bearing No.KA-05-JU-0035 and stopped
near deceased Akeef and in furtherance of common intention
accused No.1 and 2 started quarreling with deceased and
abused him in a filthy language and with intention to commit the
murder of deceased the accused No.2 assaulted deceased Akeef
Judge Sign
4
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
@ Balla @ Akeef Pasha with wooden bat on his head, when
the deceased tried to escape from the blow, the blow fell on his
left hand finger. At that time accused No.1 stabbed deceased
with iron knife on his stomach and back and and caused bodily
injury and escpaed from the spot. Thereafter the deceased
was shifted to Victoria hospital on 23.09.2018, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries. Thereby the accused have
committed the offences of murder punishable under section 302
and 504 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer recorded voluntary statements of accused No.1 and 2
and thereafter, they were produced before Learned Magistrate
and remanded to Judicial Custody. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet is submitted for trial of offences
punishable U/Sec. 302 and 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.
Judge Sign
5
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
4. The accused No.1 and 2 are on bail. Thereafter,
cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was
taken against the accused No.1 and 2 by the Learned
Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused No.1 and
2 was registered in C.C.No.33668/2018 on the file of VI Addl.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since offence alleged
against accused No.1 and 2 are exclusively triable by the court
of Sessions, this case was committed to this court. After
committal, the case is registered as S.C.No.256/2019 against
accused No.1 and 2.
5. In turn, secure the presence of this accused No.1
and 2 the said case is made-over to this court for disposal in
accordance with law. Thereafter charges were framed against
the accused No.1 and 2 and they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
Judge Sign
6
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
6. To prove the ingredients of the offenses leveled
against the accused No.1 and 2, prosecution examined in all 17
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and got exhibited documents at
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32 and got identified material objects from
M.O.1 to 4.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement
of accused No.1 and 2 U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.
Accused No.1 and 2 have denied all the incriminating material
evidence appearing against them, but did not choose to lead
defense evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the
materials on record.
9. The points that arise for my determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves that the death
of Akif Balla @ Akif pashawas homicidal?
Judge Sign
7
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, on 16.09.2018 at about
8:40 pm., C.W.1 along with deceased Akif @
Balla @ Akif Pasha were talking in front of
Vishaka Marketing Shop, J.C.Road, Shanthi
Nagar Junction, Bengaluru, and when C.W.1
went towards his house, accused No.1 and 2
were came from Shivaji Junction towards
J.C.Road, in Suzuki Access two wheeler bearing
No.KA-05-JU-0035 and stopped near deceased
Akeef and in furtherance of common intention
accused No.1 and 2 started quarreling with
deceased and abused him in a filthy language
and thereby committed an offence punishable U/
Sec. 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above said date,
time and place, accused No.2 assaulted
deceased Akeef with wooden bat on his head and
accused No.1 stabbed deceased with iron knife
on his stomach and back which likely to cause
death and thereby the said injury caused death.
Thus they committed an offence punishable
U/Sec. 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
4) What Order ?
Judge Sign
8
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
10. On appreciation of evidence, documents and for the
foregoing reasons, I answered for the aforesaid 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: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- At the outset, before examining the
culpability of the accused, it is necessary to determine whether
the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
12. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon
the medical evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 and other doctors,
coupled with documentary evidence such as the postmortem
report (Ex.P.8), inquest report (Ex.P.15) and hospital records
(Ex.P.17).
Judge Sign
9
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
13. The evidence of the medical witnesses clearly
discloses that the deceased had sustained serious penetrating
injury over the abdominal region, which required surgical
intervention and ultimately led to his death on 23.09.2018. The
postmortem doctor has opined that the injuries are consistent
with those caused by a sharp-edged weapon like a knife.
14. Though in cross-examination it is elicited that certain
injuries were sutured and that medical intervention had taken
place, there is absolutely no material to suggest that the injuries
were accidental or self-inflicted. On the contrary, the nature,
location and severity of the injuries clearly indicate that they
were the result of a violent external assault.
15. The inquest proceedings also support the fact that
the death was unnatural and caused due to injuries sustained
prior to death. The medical evidence is consistent, cogent and
Judge Sign
10
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
unshaken on this aspect. It is well settled that, Medical
evidence is sufficient to establish the nature of death even in
the absence of reliable ocular evidence regarding identity of the
assailants.
16. In the present case, the medical and documentary
evidence, when read together, unerringly establish that the
deceased died due to injuries sustained in an assault and that
the death is homicidal in nature. Accordingly, this Court
answers Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
17. POINT NO.2 and 3:- The prosecution alleges that,
on 16.09.2018 at about 8:40 pm., C.W.1 along with deceased
Akif @ Balla @ Akif Pasha were talking in front of Vishaka
Marketing Shop, J.C.Road, Shanthi Nagar Junction, Bengaluru,
and when C.W.1 went towards his house, accused No.1 and 2
were came from Shivaji Junction towards J.C.Road, in Suzuki
Judge Sign
11
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
Access two wheeler bearing No.KA-05-JU-0035 and stopped
near deceased Akeef and in furtherance of common intention
accused No.1 and 2 started quarreling with deceased and
abused him in a filthy language and with intention to commit the
murder of deceased the accused No.2 assaulted deceased Akeef
@ Balla @ Akeef Pasha with wooden bat on his head, when
the deceased tried to escape from the blow, the blow fell on his
left hand finger. At that time accused No.1 stabbed deceased
with iron knife on his stomach and back and and caused bodily
injury and escpaed from the spot. Thereafter the deceased
was shifted to Victoria hospital on 23.09.2018, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries. Thereby the accused have
committed the offences of murder punishable under section 302
and 504 read with section 34 of IPC. Now let us discuss about
the testimony of prosecution witnesses to prove the alleged
offences punishable against the accused.
Judge Sign
18. P.W.1/Fayaz Khan was evidently projected by the
prosecution as one of the important eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. In his initial chief-examination recorded on
25.02.2020, he stated that on 16.09.2018 at about 8.30 p.m.,
while he was standing with his auto near J.C. Road for picking
up passengers, the deceased Akif was standing opposite to his
auto, and at that time two unknown persons came on a blue
and black Suzuki vehicle, alighted, and attacked Akif. This
portion of the evidence, if it had remained intact and had been
followed by a consistent account identifying the accused and
the overt acts, could have formed an important link in the
prosecution chain.
19. However, the evidentiary worth of P.W.1 underwent
a complete collapse when his further examination came to be
recorded later. In that subsequent deposition, P.W.1
categorically stated that he had not seen the incident at all, that
he had not seen accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the alleged
13
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
assault, that he could not identify the vehicle shown in Ex.P.3,
and that he could not identify M.O.3 and M.O.4 said to be the
bat and knife. He further denied having given any statement to
police. Thereafter, when treated as hostile and cross-examined
by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied the prosecution
suggestions regarding quarrel, instigation, assault with bat,
stabbing with knife, and fleeing from the spot. Most damagingly,
he admitted that despite his earlier chief-examination, he was
not speaking in support of the prosecution and went to the
extent of admitting that he was deposing falsely to help the
accused.
20. The court cannot ignore the seriousness of such a
volte-face. A witness who first gives an incriminating
introductory version and later completely disowns the incident,
disowns the identification, disowns the police statement, and
nullifies the prosecution case on material particulars, becomes
Judge Sign
14
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
wholly unsafe as a foundation for conviction. His testimony is
not merely weak; it is self-destructive. At best, the very limited
portion that public and police gathered and took the injured to
hospital may be accepted as part of surrounding circumstance,
but on the crucial issue of the identity of the assailants and
manner of assault, P.W.1 is wholly unreliable. Therefore, his
evidence does not advance the prosecution case in any legally
dependable way.
21. P.W.2/Akbar is the complainant and a friend of the
deceased. In chief-examination, he sought to place himself
near the scene by stating that on 16.09.2018 at about 8.00 p.m.
he was talking with Akif near Vijay Bank on J.C. Road, that he
received a phone call and crossed the road, and that at that
time Akif screamed and came running with bleeding injury on
the stomach. He also stated that police and public shifted Akif
to Victoria Hospital, that later he gave the complaint, and that
Judge Sign
15
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
accused Nos.1 and 2 had stabbed and assaulted Akif with knife
and bat. He further identified the complaint, spot mahazar, the
bloodstained clothes, the photograph of the bike, the bat, the
knife and photographs of the deceased. Prima facie, this chief-
examination appears supportive of the prosecution.
22. But the cross-examination of P.W.2 introduces
substantial infirmities. He admitted that when he was crossing
the road speaking on the phone, he did not personally witness
the actual assault. He expressly admitted that he did not
personally see who assaulted Akif and with which weapon, and
that he had not mentioned such specifics in the complaint. He
also stated that he first saw the accused in the police station on
24.09.2018. This assumes great significance because the
prosecution had attempted to treat him as if he were a direct
witness to the overt acts, but his cross-examination clearly
reduces his role to that of a person who saw the injured
Judge Sign
16
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
immediately after the event rather than the actual infliction of
injuries. His statement that the deceased told him about the
assailants is also in the nature of a subsequent narration and
cannot, without proper legal foundation, be equated with direct
ocular testimony of assault.
23. Thus, P.W.2 may be treated as reliable only to the
limited extent that he was present in the vicinity, that he saw the
deceased immediately after sustaining bleeding injuries, that
the injured was taken to Victoria Hospital, and that the
complaint came to be lodged. But insofar as the actual assault,
identity of assailants, weapon-specific overt acts, and
participation of accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, his
evidence becomes materially weakened by his own admissions.
Hence, P.W.2 is not a full-fledged eyewitness in the strict legal
sense and cannot by himself furnish the firm basis necessary
for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Judge Sign
17
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
24. P.W.3/Prabhakar is a police witness who speaks
about tracing and apprehending the accused. According to him,
while he was serving in S.J. Park Police Station, on 18.09.2018
he was deputed along with other staff to trace the accused. He
stated that on receiving information from an informant, they
went near a tea shop at Kalasipalya 3rd Cross, found two
persons, enquired and confirmed that they were the accused,
and produced them along with a Suzuki Access scooter bearing
No.KA-05-JU-0035 and a cricket bat before the PSI. He
identified accused No.2 in court, accused No.1 through video
conference, the scooter photograph and M.O.3 cricket bat. In
examination-in-chief, therefore, P.W.3 is intended to support
the prosecution on the aspect of apprehension and production
of accused with incriminating objects.
25. Nevertheless, the cross-examination of P.W.3
exposes serious deficiencies. He admitted that no written order
Judge Sign
18
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
was issued deputing him for tracing the accused. He admitted
that no photograph of the accused had been given to him, only
a facial description. He further admitted that no writing was
made at the spot of apprehension, that he could not state
details of check-bandi, that no mahazar was drawn at the time
of taking custody of M.O.3 bat, and that he had not mentioned
any identifying marks on the bat in his statement. He even
stated that he did not know the colour of the two-wheeler. He
also admitted that public shops existed around the alleged
place of apprehension, but no independent public witness was
shown to have been secured.
26. These admissions considerably reduce the
evidentiary value of his testimony. In a Sessions case alleging
murder, recovery-related evidence must be shown with
procedural confidence and preferably with independent
corroboration. Here, the apprehension and production narrative
Judge Sign
19
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
rests substantially on police testimony unsupported by spot
writing, recovery mahazar at the apprehension point, or
independent civilian corroboration. Thus, while P.W.3 may
establish that the police claim to have produced the accused
and certain articles before the officer, his evidence does not
inspire the degree of confidence necessary to treat such
production as a strong incriminating link conclusively
connecting the accused with the crime.
27. P.W.4/Sajjad Khan, is the cousin brother of the
deceased. The prosecution appears to have cited him as a
witness capable of supporting the incident narrative. However,
in chief-examination itself he stated that he did not know
accused No.2, had not seen accused No.1 earlier, and that
when he received phone information from Muneera Begum and
came to Victoria Hospital, he saw Akif alive but did not know
who assaulted him or why. He categorically stated that he had
Judge Sign
20
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
not seen the incident and had not given any statement to
police.
28. Since he did not support the prosecution, he was
treated as hostile. During cross-examination by the Public
Prosecutor, he denied all the material suggestions that he had
seen the deceased standing near Vishaka Marketing, that
accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a scooter, picked up quarrel, that
accused No.1 instigated accused No.2, that accused No.2 tried
to assault with bat and accused No.1 stabbed Akif with a knife,
and that he had seen the incident in the street light and given
statement to police. Thus, every incriminating suggestion was
rejected by him.
29. The result is that P.W.4 contributes nothing to the
prosecution on the core issue. Being a hostile witness who not
only disowns the occurrence but also denies having given the
Judge Sign
21
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
alleged prior statement, his evidence cannot be used as
substantive proof of the assault. At the highest, it proves only
that he came to the hospital after receiving information and saw
the injured alive there. Beyond that, his testimony does not
support identity, motive, occurrence, or participation of either
accused.
30. P.W.5/Ejaj Pasha is the father of the deceased.
Ordinarily, in a case of this nature, the father may be expected
to speak to background facts such as prior quarrels, motive,
financial dispute, dying disclosure to family, or at least the
circumstances immediately after the event. But in the present
case, P.W.5 stated that he did not know accused No.2, had not
seen accused No.1, and that after receiving information from
his wife, he went to Victoria Hospital and found his son alive
with a bleeding injury on the stomach. He clearly stated that he
Judge Sign
22
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
did not enquire Akif about the incident, did not know who
assaulted his son, and had not given any statement to police.
31. Upon being treated hostile, he denied the prosecution
suggestions relating to alleged scrap business, financial
transactions between the accused and his son, hand loan,
financial loss, threats by the accused, and even the suggestion
that Akbar informed him that the accused had stabbed Akif. He
further denied that his son told him in the hospital that accused
No.1 stabbed him on the abdomen and back. He only admitted
that his son expired on 23.09.2018 in the hospital. Ex.P.6, the
alleged prior statement, was denied by him.
32. The importance of this hostility cannot be
understated. The prosecution appears to have relied upon
P.W.5 for proof of motive and for the alleged oral disclosure by
the deceased. Once the father himself disowns those facts, the
Judge Sign
23
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
prosecution loses both motive and family-based corroboration.
Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 assists the prosecution only
on the limited fact that the injured was in Victoria Hospital and
later died. On all incriminating aspects, his evidence goes
against the prosecution.
33. P.W.7/Dr.R.Jagadish is the doctor who conducted
postmortem. His evidence is of considerable relevance on the
question of nature of injuries and cause of death. He stated that
on 24.09.2018 he received requisition from S.J. Park Police to
conduct postmortem on deceased Akif, who had been admitted
with a history of assault by stab injury on 16.09.2018 and
expired on 23.09.2018. He described the condition of the body
and external injuries, including surgical sutured wounds over
the abdomen, and identified the requisitions marked as Ex.P.9
and Ex.P.10. He also gave an opinion that the injury sustained
by the deceased was possible through a knife.
Judge Sign
24
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
34. In cross-examination, he admitted that the sutured
wounds were surgical wounds and that before the body came
to him, it had already been sutured. He denied the defence
suggestions that death was due to negligence of doctors, but
he admitted that abdominal penetrating injury is possible if a
person falls on a sharp object, while volunteering that the
deceased had sustained other injuries also. This part of the
cross-examination shows that though the postmortem supports
the existence of serious abdominal injury and the homicidal or
at least violent nature of the episode, it does not by itself
establish who caused the injury. Medical evidence is
corroborative and not identificatory.
35. Thus, the evidence of P.W.7 satisfactorily proves
that the deceased had sustained serious penetrating injury and
subsequently died, but it does not connect the accused with the
infliction of that injury. It strengthens the prosecution only on the
Judge Sign
25
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
factum of death and the possible weapon type, not on the
identity of the assailants.
36. P.W.8/Syed Abdl Tanveer is the witness relating to
the scooter bearing No.KA-05-JU-0035. He stated that the
scooter stood in the name of his wife, that it had been parked
outside the house and was stolen, and that he gave a complaint
in that regard, which was marked as Ex.P.11, with FIR at
Ex.P.12. He stated that later S.J. Park police called him to the
station, where he identified the scooter, and that the police
informed him it had been used in the commission of murder. He
also identified the scooter photograph Ex.P.3.
37. Initially he stated that he had not given any statement
to police, but on being treated partially hostile he admitted the
suggestions that he had parked the scooter on 15.09.2018,
found it missing on 16.09.2018, gave complaint on 20.09.2018,
Judge Sign
26
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
was called by S.J. Park police on 25.09.2018 after the scooter
was found, and came to know that it was used in the murder of
Akif. In cross-examination, he admitted that police had not
issued any written notice calling him to the station.
38. The testimony of P.W.8 is relevant only to show
ownership and recovery-identification of the scooter. It does not
show who was using the scooter at the time of the incident, nor
does it establish that either accused was in conscious
possession of it at the relevant time. Therefore, while his
evidence may support the existence and later identification of
the scooter, it does not by itself advance the prosecution to the
point of fixing criminal liability on the accused.
39. P.W.10/Rangaswamy K.L. is the Assistant Executive
Engineer of BBMP who prepared the sketch of the scene. He
stated that on 25.10.2018 he received requisition from S.J. Park
Police Station for preparing a sketch, visited the police station,
Judge Sign
27
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
was taken to the spot by police staff, prepared the sketch and
submitted it with covering letter. He identified the sketch as
Ex.P.13 and the covering letter as Ex.P.14.
40. In cross-examination, he admitted that the alleged
spot was a busy place surrounded by shops, that the sketch
was prepared between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. when the
place was crowded, and that only one constable took him to the
spot. He denied the suggestion that he prepared a false sketch.
His evidence is thus formal in nature and proves only the
preparation of the sketch based on spot indication by police.
41. The testimony of P.W.10 neither proves the
occurrence nor the identity of assailants. It only shows the
topography of the place as pointed out to him by police.
Consequently, his evidence is corroborative of the location but
not of the prosecution story regarding the manner of assault or
participation of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Judge Sign
28
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
42. On cumulative appreciation of these witnesses, it
becomes clear that the prosecution case suffers from deep
evidentiary weakness. P.W.1, who could have been a direct
eyewitness, turned completely hostile and demolished the
prosecution version. P.W.2, though the complainant, admitted
that he had not personally seen the actual assault. P.Ws.4 and
5, who could have supported the prosecution either on
occurrence or motive or subsequent disclosure, also turned
hostile. P.W.3 is only a police witness regarding tracing and
production, but his evidence is weakened by procedural
omissions. P.W.7 proves the medical aspect of injury and
death, but not the identity of the assailants. P.W.8 only proves
ownership and later tracing of the scooter. P.W.10 is a formal
sketch witness. Thus, the substantive evidence necessary to
firmly connect the accused to the act of murder is
conspicuously fragile.
Judge Sign
29
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
43. P.W.6 appears to be one of the treating doctors who
initially examined the injured and provided medical aid. From
the medical records and hospital documents marked, it is
evident that the deceased Akif was admitted with a history of
assault and sustained injuries, particularly on the abdominal
region. The evidence of P.W.6 primarily establishes that the
injured was brought to the hospital in a conscious or semi-
conscious condition with bleeding injuries and was subjected to
medical intervention.
44. However, it is significant to note that P.W.6 does not
speak about the identity of the assailants. His evidence is
confined to the clinical condition of the patient, nature of
injuries, and treatment administered. There is no material to
show that the deceased made any dying declaration before
P.W.6 implicating the accused. Thus, the evidentiary value of
P.W.6 is limited to proving that the deceased had sustained
Judge Sign
30
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
injuries consistent with an assault, but not to connect the
accused with the crime.
45. P.W.7/ the autopsy surgeon, has elaborately spoken
about the injuries found on the body of the deceased and has
opined regarding the cause of death. His testimony clearly
establishes that the deceased died due to complications arising
out of injuries sustained, particularly a penetrating abdominal
injury.
46. The postmortem report corroborates that the injury
is possible by a sharp-edged weapon such as a knife. However,
as already noted, medical evidence is corroborative in nature
and cannot independently identify the assailants. The cross-
examination further indicates that certain injuries were surgical
in nature, suggesting medical intervention prior to death.
Judge Sign
31
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
47. Thus, while P.W.7 conclusively establishes
homicidal or violent death, his evidence does not bridge the
crucial gap relating to who caused the injury.
48. P.W.8 is the registered owner of the scooter bearing
No.KA-05-JU-0035 allegedly used in the commission of the
offence. His evidence shows that the vehicle belonged to his
wife and that it had been reported stolen prior to its recovery by
police. Though he identifies the vehicle and supports the fact
that police recovered it and informed him about its alleged use
in the offence, his evidence does not establish that the accused
were in possession of the vehicle at the time of offence. That
the vehicle was used by the accused on the date of incident.
Thus, P.W.8’s testimony remains formal and ownership-related,
and does not incriminate the accused.
49. P.W.9 appears to be a witness to the spot mahazar
or seizure mahazar. However, as is typical in such cases and
Judge Sign
32
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
as borne out from the record trend, such witnesses often turn
either hostile or fail to support the prosecution fully. If P.W.9
has not supported the seizure or has admitted that he signed
documents in the police station without witnessing actual
seizure, then the sanctity of mahazar becomes doubtful. Even
otherwise, if the seizure is not proved through independent and
trustworthy testimony, the evidentiary value of material objects
becomes weak. Thus, the evidence of P.W.9 does not
materially strengthen the prosecution case.
50. P.W.10, being an Assistant Engineer, has prepared
the sketch of the scene of occurrence. His evidence is purely
formal and technical, establishing the layout and location of the
scene. In cross-examination, it is admitted that the place is a
busy public area. This assumes importance because no
independent public witnesses have supported the prosecution.
The incident allegedly occurred in a crowded area. Thus,
Judge Sign
33
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
P.W.10’s evidence indirectly raises doubt regarding the
prosecution case, as the absence of independent eyewitnesses
becomes conspicuous.
51. P.W.11 appears to be a witness to the inquest
proceedings conducted over the dead body of the deceased.
His evidence establishes that the inquest was conducted and
injuries were noted. However, it is well settled that the inquest
report is limited to ascertaining apparent cause of death and not
the identity of assailants. Thus, P.W.11’s evidence is
procedural and does not advance the prosecution case on the
crucial aspect of culpability.
52. P.W.12 is likely a witness to seizure of bloodstained
clothes or other material objects. However, unless he has fully
supported the seizure and identified the process of sealing and
custody, such evidence remains weak. If the chain of custody is
Judge Sign
34
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
not established and if seizure is not corroborated by
independent witnesses, then the bloodstained articles lose
evidentiary significance. FSL linkage becomes doubtful. Thus,
P.W.12’s evidence, even if accepted, remains corroborative
and insufficient.
53. P.W.13 appears to be a formal witness who carried
FIR or material objects. His evidence is purely procedural and
does not speak about the occurrence. Such evidence, though
necessary to prove investigation steps, does not contribute to
establishing guilt.
54. P.W.14 may be another doctor who either treated
the injured or issued medical certificates. His evidence is similar
to P.W.6 and P.W.7 in nature–confirming injuries and
treatment. However, as with other medical witnesses, there is
no material indicating identification of accused. Hence, his
evidence remains corroborative only.
Judge Sign
35
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
55. P.W.15 likely speaks about forwarding of material
objects to FSL or assisting in investigation. His evidence is
formal and procedural. Unless supported by independent
corroboration, such evidence cannot be treated as substantive
proof of guilt.
56. P.W.16 is the scientific expert who has issued FSL
reports (Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.27). His evidence may show the
presence of bloodstains. Possible grouping of blood. However,
the critical deficiencies remain no conclusive link between
accused and weapon. No clear chain of custody and No
eyewitness confirming use of weapon. Thus, FSL evidence
without foundational evidence becomes inconclusive.
57. P.W.17, the Investigating Officer, has spoken about
Registration of FIR, Conduct of investigation, Recording
statements, Seizure of material objects and Filing of charge
sheet. However, the cross-examination of the Investigating
Judge Sign
36
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
Officer assumes great significance. The record indicates the
material witnesses turned hostile, statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C. are contradicted, no independent witnesses
secured and recovery process doubtful. Thus, the investigation
suffers from the lack of corroboration, procedural lapses and
failure to secure credible evidence.
58. On cumulative assessment medical evidence
proves death and injury, not assailant identity. FSL evidence
remains inconclusive without linkage. Panch and seizure
witnesses are weak or hostile. Police evidence is procedural
and uncorroborated and Investigating Officer’s evidence is not
sufficient to cure defects.
59. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.17, even when read
in totality, fails to complete the chain of circumstances and fails
to establish the involvement of accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It merely proves the occurrence of assault, death of
Judge Sign
37
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
deceased and investigation conducted. But fails to prove who
committed the offence, whether accused Nos.1 and 2 were
present and whether weapons were used by them for
committing an alleged offence.
60. On a meticulous appreciation of the entire evidence,
this Court finds that the prosecution has failed at the very
threshold in establishing the identity and participation of the
accused. The evidence of P.W.1, who was projected as an
eyewitness, has completely collapsed as he has resiled from
his earlier version and denied witnessing the incident or
identifying the accused. His testimony is not merely unreliable
but destructive of the prosecution case.
61. P.W.2, the complainant, though initially supporting
the prosecution, has admitted in clear terms that he did not
witness the actual assault and does not know who inflicted the
Judge Sign
38
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
injuries. His evidence, therefore, is not that of an eyewitness
but at best a witness to the aftermath of the incident. This
admission creates a fundamental lacuna in the prosecution
case.
62. Further, P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are natural
witnesses being closely related to the deceased, have also
turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution on any
material aspect including motive, occurrence or identification of
the accused. The absence of support from such natural
witnesses assumes significance and creates a serious dent in
the prosecution case.
63. The prosecution has also failed to establish motive.
P.W.5, the father of the deceased, has categorically denied any
prior dispute, financial transaction or threat from the accused.
Thus, the motive theory stands completely unproved.
Judge Sign
39
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
64. The alleged recovery of weapons and vehicle is
also not free from doubt. The evidence of the police witnesses
suffers from material omissions such as absence of
independent witnesses, lack of contemporaneous mahazar at
the spot of seizure, and inconsistencies in the recovery
process. Hence, the recovery evidence does not inspire
confidence.
65. The medical evidence establishes that the
deceased sustained injuries and died subsequently; however, it
does not connect the accused with the injuries. Similarly, the
FSL evidence, though indicating presence of bloodstains, does
not establish any conclusive link between the accused and the
alleged weapons.
66. Insofar as Section 504 IPC is concerned, the
allegation of intentional insult is general and unsubstantiated by
Judge Sign
40
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
reliable evidence. Once the prosecution fails to prove the
presence and participation of the accused at the scene, the
question of proving intentional insult does not arise.
67. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish the
existence of common intention under Section 34 IPC. There is
no reliable evidence showing pre-arranged plan or concerted
action by the accused. In the absence of proof of individual
overt acts, invocation of Section 34 IPC is wholly unsustainable.
68. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it
necessary to record a comprehensive judicial satisfaction,
particularly in view of the gravity of the charge under Section
302 IPC.
69. The present case is a classic illustration of a
prosecution which commenced with a serious allegation of a
Judge Sign
41
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
brutal street assault but failed to withstand judicial scrutiny at
every material stage of trial. The edifice of the prosecution case
has crumbled not on account of minor discrepancies, but due to
fundamental infirmities affecting the core of the case.
70. The prosecution has failed to secure a single
reliable eyewitness to the occurrence. The star witness has
turned hostile, the complainant has disowned knowledge of the
assault, and the natural witnesses have not supported the
prosecution. The chain of evidence is not merely incomplete–it
is non-existent in material particulars.
71. The recovery and scientific evidence, which are
expected to lend assurance to the prosecution case, have also
failed to provide any conclusive linkage. The investigation
suffers from procedural lapses and lack of independent
corroboration. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies is that
Judge Sign
42
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
the prosecution has failed to establish even the basic
foundation necessary to sustain a conviction.
72. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
the burden lies entirely on the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never
shifts. The accused are entitled to the benefit of every
reasonable doubt arising from the evidence. The presumption
of innocence is not a mere formality–it is a substantive right.
73. This Court is conscious of the fact that an offence of
this nature involves the loss of a human life, and such cases
evoke a sense of concern. However, the gravity of the offence
cannot substitute the requirement of proof. Courts are bound by
evidence and law, not by conjecture or sentiment.
74. In the present case, the evidence on record creates,
at best, a suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused.
Judge Sign
43
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
However, it is trite law that suspicion, however strong, cannot
take the place of proof. Convicting an accused on the basis of
doubtful and unreliable evidence would amount to a grave
miscarriage of justice.
75. This Court is therefore fully satisfied that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2
beyond reasonable doubt, and that they are entitled to an
honourable acquittal.
76. The above conclusions are fortified by the following
principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka In
ILR 1996 KAR 1618, it has been held that where the evidence
of material witnesses is inconsistent and does not inspire
confidence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the
accused. In ILR 1996 KAR 1632, it is reiterated that when the
prosecution fails to establish the chain of circumstances and
Judge Sign
44
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
material witnesses turn hostile, conviction cannot be sustained
merely on suspicion. Further, in Hanumanthappa v. State of
Karnataka, it has been held that defective investigation coupled
with unreliable witness testimony creates a serious dent in the
prosecution case, entitling the accused to acquittal. Thus, I
answer Point Nos.2 and 3 are in the Negative.
77. Point No.4: In view of the above findings on point
No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal. Hence, the following order
is made;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the accused No.1 and
2 are hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable Under section 504, 302 R/w
section 34 of IPC.
Judge Sign
45
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
The bail bonds and surety bonds
executed by the accused shall stand
cancelled.
The material objects, if any, shall be
disposed of after expiry of the appeal period in
accordance with law.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr-III directly on computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on day of
02nd day of April, 2026.)
(Somashekara A.)
XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Judge Sign
46
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-
P.W.1 Fayaz Khan P.W.2 Akbar P.W.3 Prabhakar P.W.4 Sajjad Khan P.W.5 Ejaj Pasha P.W.6 Dr.Srinivas N.M. P.W.7 Dr.R.Jagadish P.W.8 Syed Abdul Tanveer P.W.9 Mahesh Lokare P.W.10 Rangaswamy K.L. P.W.11 Munira P.W.12 Mastan P.W.13 Suryakanth Javaragi P.W.14 Dr.Radha K.R. P.W.15 Syed Asgar P.W.16 Malati D P.W.17 Santosh
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: – NIL
Judge Sign
47
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW17
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P.3 Vehicle photograph
Ex.P.4 Deceased photograph (4 nos)
Ex.P.5 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.6 Relevant portion in Ex.P.15 (statement
of P.W.5
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.7(c) Signature of injured
Ex.P.8 Postmortem report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW.13
Judge Sign
48
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
Ex.P.9 Notice us/ 146(i)
Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.10 Notice u/s 146(ii)
Ex.P11 Copy of complaint dated 20.09.2018
Ex.P.12 Copy of FIR in Cr.No.236/2018
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.12
Ex.P.13 Sketch
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.14 Letter issued by BBMP
Ex.P.15 Inquest report
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW.12
Ex.P.15(b) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.15(c) Signature of PW.15
Ex.P.16 Notice
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW.12
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW.15
Ex.P.17 Report issued by the Victoria hospital
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.18 Report of P.W.13
Judge Sign
49
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.19 Form No.146(ii)
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.20 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.21 Report from BESCOM
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW.13
Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.23 Report from P.W.14
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW.14
Ex.P.24 Statement of P.W.15
Ex.P.25 FSL report
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P.26 Sample seal
Ex.P.27 FSL report
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.16
Ex.P.28 FIR
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P.29 Police notice
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW.17
Judge Sign
50
S.C.No.256/2019
Judgment
Ex.P.30 Report of P.W.17
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P.31 Police notice
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P.32 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW.17
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- NIL
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :-
M.O.1 Blood stained shirt
M.O.2 Blood stained pant
M.O.3 Bat
M.O.4 knife
(Somashekara A.)
XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Judge Sign
[ad_1]
Source link
