Bangalore District Court
Seebaiah N.S., Hc-4859 vs Rathnamala on 20 May, 2026
KABC030163032021
Presented on : 05-03-2021
Registered on : 05-03-2021
Decided on : 20-05-2026
Duration : 5 years, 2 months, 15 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. LLB.
30th ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.5096/2021
Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.
Date of Offence 25.03.2019
Complainant State by Subramanyapura Police
Station,
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Persons A1. Smt. Rathnamala
W/o. Nandish,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at.No.114/84, 2nd Cross,
Krishnagar, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru-560061.
A2. Smt. Uma
W/o. Shivaram,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at.Abubahakar Building,
Munivenkatappa Layout,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.5096/2021
Uttarahalli, Bengaluru-560061.
A3. Smt. Lakshmi
W/o. Mahadev,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at.No.114/84, 2nd Cross,
Krishnagar, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru-560061.
A4. Smt. Soumya
W/o. Nataraj,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at.No.71, Manjunatha Nagar,
Gownapalya, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru-560061.
A5. Smt. Shilpa ( Split up)
W/o. Mahesh,
Offences U/sec,. 353, 504 of IPC
Plea Recorded on:06.07.2023 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., On 18.05.2026
313 of Cr.P.C recorded
on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 4 are Acquitted.
Date of Order 20.05.2026
Thimmaiah.G
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 3 C.C.No.5096/2021
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable
U/sec,.353, 504 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:-
It is alleged that, 25.03.2019, within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyaura police station, the Cw.1 was deputed to do
duty and at about 05.00 PM, the accused persons were
quarreling with each other and the Cw.1 went and asked the
accused persons not quarrel at that time, the accused persons
picked up the quarrel with Cw.1 and abused him in filthy
language and the accused persons obstructed Cw.1 public
duty and thereby the accused persons have has committed the
above said alleged offences which are punishable U/sec,.353,
504 of IPC.
3. During the pendency of the trial, the case against the
accused No.5 is split up as per vide order dated: 21.04.2026.
After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offences
punishable U/sec,.353, 504 of IPC against the accused No.1 to
4 and accused No.1 to 4 were released on bail. Copy of the
prosecution papers furnished to the accused No.1 to 4 as
required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has
Judgment 4 C.C.No.5096/2021
been framed and read over to the accused No.1 to 4 language
known to them, wherein they have denied the same and claim
to be tried.
4. In order to secure the Cw.2 and 8 witnesses, this
court issued Summons and Proclamation. But even though
the sufficient time give to the concerned police, the concerned
police failed to secure these witness. Moreover, this case is 05
years old. In this regard 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
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
Judgment 5 C.C.No.5096/2021of 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
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
Judgment 6 C.C.No.5096/2021
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”.
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.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.5096/2021
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
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
Judgment 8 C.C.No.5096/2021
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.
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
Judgment 9 C.C.No.5096/2021issued 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 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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.5096/2021under 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 above case on had, the Cw.2 and
8 witnesses are dropped after given sufficient time. Further,
the Cw.6 & 7 are given up as prayed by the Lr.Sr.APP. In order
to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution has
examined 03 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.3, out of 08 witnesses
and 02 documents marked as Ex.P1 & 2.
5. Thereafter examination of the accused No.1 to 4
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, then the accused No.1 to
4 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.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available
on record.
7. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides
and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points
arise for consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that,
25.03.2019, within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyaura police station, the Cw.1
was deputed to do duty and at about
Judgment 11 C.C.No.5096/202105.00 PM, the accused persons were
quarreling with each other and the Cw.1
went and asked the accused persons not
quarrel at that time, the accused persons
picked up the quarrel with Cw.1 and
abused him in filthy language and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,504 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that,
25.03.2019, within the jurisdiction of
Subramanyaura police station, the Cw.1
was deputed to do duty and at about
05.00 PM, the accused persons were
quarreling with each other and the Cw.1
went and asked the accused persons not
quarrel at that time, the accused persons
picked up the quarrel with Cw.1 and
obstructed his government duty and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,353 of IPC?
3. What order.?
8. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following
Judgment 12 C.C.No.5096/2021
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 & 2: These points are inter connected
to each other and have taken for discussion in common to
avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. Further, 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.1 Seebaiah, who is examined as Pw.1 and
complainant/material witness in this case, he has deposed in
his evidence before the court that, On 25-03-2019, he was
appointed to BBMP South Zone for the Lok Sabha elections,
and accordingly, he reported for duty at 08-00 AM. Then, as
per the verbal instructions of Cw-8, he went to the station as
there was a shortage of staff in the station. Later, on the same
day, as per the instructions of ASI Krishnappa, he went for
patrol duty in 1st to 7th blocks. While he was on patrol duty
near JHP Park between 04-00 and 05-00 PM, 4-5 five women
were fighting in a group at the said spot. Then, he entered the
middle of the quarrel and went to resolve the fight, they
pushed the with their hands and obstructed his public duty
and abused him in filthy language. Later, also the accused
persons were shouting at him and then he called the Hoysala
vehicle and the above-mentioned accused persons were taken
to the police station in the said Hoysala vehicle, produced
Judgment 13 C.C.No.5096/2021before the police station officer and the complaint was given to
Cw.8 regarding the alleged incident.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4,
had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that,
on the verbal saying of his higher officer he went to the
petrolling duty on the date of incident, further he did not
mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint, on what time the incident took
place, further there was huge ladies crowed and he do not
know the all the ladies name when the incident took place,
further the incident place is public place and there was lot of
public gathered at the time of the incident and he do not know
with whom the accused persons quarreling and regarding what
they were quarreling and further denied the rest of the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.1
to.4.
11. The Cw.3 Ravikumar, who is examined as Pw.2 and
mahazar witness in this case, he has deposed in his evidence
before the court that, about 2-3 years ago in Subramanyapura
police station he had put his significant on one document, but
he do not know the contents of the said document. Hence, he
turned hostile to the prosecution case.
Judgment 14 C.C.No.5096/2021
12. The Cw.4 Govind, who is examined as Pw.3 and IO
witness in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, On 25-03-2019, when he was on duty at the police
station, Cw-8 called him and Cw-5 to 7 to find the accused
persons. Accordingly, we went to BHCS Layout and got
information about the accused persons from the informers.
The accused persons were standing near the park of the
layout. When asked about their names and addresses, they
said Ratnamala Uma Soumya and Shilpa respectively. Later,
after confirming we took them to the police station and
produced them before Cw-8. The investigating officers have
recorded his statement regarding the same.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4,
had cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that,
the Cw.8 had not given any identification of the accused
persons to find them and further denied the rest of the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 to
4.
13. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all
reasonable doubt, the accused No.1 to 4 can not be held
guilty of the alleged offenses.
Judgment 15 C.C.No.5096/2021
14. On the other hand, the Pw.1 the
complainant/materiel witness, has failed to prove his
complaint as per Ex.P1 where in he do not know why the
accused persons were quarreling with who and for what
reasons they were quarreling and further the incident took
place in the public and there was huge crowd and he do not
know all the women’s names who were present their and
further more importantly, he did not mentioned the time when
the incident took place and whom had obstructed his public
duty. Further the Pw.2 who is the mahazar witness he has
turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further, the IO
witnesses ie.,Pw.3 deposed as per his investigation and
submitted the final report to the court. Further, the Pw.4 who
is police official he has deposed that, Cw.8 has not given any
identification of the accused persons to find them but, the
Pw.1 who is the material witness, has deposed that, the
accused persons were their in the public crowed. Hence, there
is a lot of contradiction in the evidences of Pw.1 & 4. Under
such circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the
the Pw.1 to 4 regarding the offences committed by the accused
No.1 to 4 as alleged by the Pw.1 in Ex.P1. As such the case
against the accused No.4 are certainly would be entitled to
benefit of the doubt. Regarding this, this court relied on the
following Judgment.
Judgment 16 C.C.No.5096/2021
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.”
15. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and on careful appreciation of
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in the
present case, the complainant is the material witness and
admittedly a Government Official. His evidence discloses that,
on the alleged date of incident, he proceeded for patrolling duty
Judgment 17 C.C.No.5096/2021only on the basis of oral instructions said to have been issued
by his higher officer. However, no documentary material is
produced before the Court to substantiate such instructions or
deployment for patrolling duty. Further, on careful perusal of
the complaint marked at Ex.P1, it is evident that, the
complainant has not mentioned the exact time of the alleged
incident. The omission to mention such a material fact creates
serious doubt regarding the genesis and authenticity of the
prosecution case.
16. It is also elicited in the evidence that, the alleged
incident had taken place in a public place where a huge crowd
had gathered. Despite the same, the Investigating Agency has
not examined any independent public witness to corroborate
the version of the complainant/Pw.1. The complainant/Pw.1
himself admits that, he did not know the names of the persons
present at the spot and further admits that, he did not know
with whom and for what reason the alleged quarrel was taking
place. Such admissions materially weaken the prosecution
case and create doubt regarding the actual involvement of the
accused No.1 to 4. Further, there are material contradictions
between the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of
Pw.4, in his cross-examination, categorically admits that,
Cw.8, who is stated to be the superior officer, had not
furnished any specific identification or description of the
Judgment 18 C.C.No.5096/2021accused persons for the purpose of tracing or apprehending
them. This aspect assumes significance because, in the
absence of prior identification particulars, the subsequent
implication of the accused becomes doubtful.
17. The evidence placed before the Court suffers from
inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions touching the
very root of the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to
establish a consistent and trustworthy chain of circumstances
connecting the accused No.1 to 4 with the alleged offences. It
is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, when two
views are possible, the one favourable to the accused No.1 to 4
must be adopted.
18. Further, in the present case, Pw.2, who is cited as a
mahazar witness to the alleged incident, has completely
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. His evidence
does not corroborate either the complaint allegations or the
version of the other prosecution witnesses.
19. It is well settled principle of law that, though the
evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in to, the
portion of evidence which supports the prosecution must
inspire confidence and must be corroborated by other
independent evidence. However, in the present case, the
evidence of Pw.2 does not support the prosecution on any
material particulars. On the contrary, his testimony creates
Judgment 19 C.C.No.5096/2021serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution
story. Further, the evidence of the Investigating Officer is also
carefully considered. The Investigating Officer has deposed
only with regard to the procedural aspects of investigation,
namely, how the complainant/Pw.1 brought the accused
persons to the police station, how he recorded the statements
of witnesses, and how he conducted the investigation. His
evidence is purely formal in nature and does not constitute
substantive evidence with regard to the occurrence of the
alleged incident.
20. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer is
not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. His testimony cannot
by itself prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 unless the
substantive evidence of the material witnesses inspires
confidence. In the present case, when the complainant’s
evidence itself suffers from material contradictions and
omissions, and when Pw.2 has completely turned hostile, the
formal evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot improve or
cure the serious defects in the prosecution case. Further, the
prosecution has failed to secure any independent
corroboration to support the investigation conducted by the
Investigating Officer. No independent eye witnesses from the
public place have been examined, though admittedly the
alleged incident had taken place in a crowded locality. Such
Judgment 20 C.C.No.5096/2021non-examination of independent witnesses creates an adverse
inference against the prosecution.
21. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.2 and the Investigating
Officer Pw.3 is not helpful to the prosecution in establishing
the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt.
Their evidence, taken either individually or collectively, does
not advance the prosecution case and fails to establish the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must
prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable
doubt. In the present case, in the absence of supporting
independent witnesses and contradiction evidence of the
witnesses create serious doubts in the prosecution story. The
benefit of such doubt must necessarily go in favour of the
accused No.1 to 4. Therefore, the accused No.1 to 4 are
entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, with the above
observations, I Answer to the Points No.1 & 2 in the
Negative.
22. POINT NO.3: In view of the above findings on Point
No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
Judgment 21 C.C.No.5096/2021
: ORDER :
In the exercise of powers Confirmed U/Sec,.
248(1) of Cr.P.C., The Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby
Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable
U/sec.,353, 504 of IPC.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 4 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 20 th day of
May-2026).
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Sri. Seebhaiah
P.W. 2 : Sri. Ravi Kumar
P.W. 3 : Sri. Govind
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Judgment 22 C.C.No.5096/2021
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
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
THIMMAIAH G
NIL G Date:
2026.05.21
16:56:08 +0530(Thimmaiah G)
30 ACJM, Bengaluru.
th
Judgment 23 C.C.No.5096/2021
