Bangalore District Court
Smt Jayavlalitha vs Narasimha Murthy K on 25 April, 2026
KABC030004062020
Presented on : 03-01-2020
Registered on : 03-01-2020
Decided on : 25-04-2026
Duration : 6 years, 3 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 25th day of April- 2026
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.123/2020
(Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 22.10.2008
Complainant State by Puttenahalli Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Persons A1. Narasimhamurthy.K
S/o. Kadarappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at.No.148, Kumume Street,
Savi Bar Road,
Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru City.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.123/2020
A2. Kempanna
S/o. Chikkeragowda,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at.C/o. Nagaraju, 1st Main,
Near BBMP Office,
Narayananagara,
Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru City.
A3. Santosh
S/o. R.M. Nagaraju,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. No. 152, 4th Cross,
Kulume Streets,
Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec.,323, 452, 504, 506 R/w
sec., 34 of IPC
Plea/Charge Recorded on 06.08.2022 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 25.04.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted
Date of Order 25.04.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.123/2020
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Subramanyapura Police
Station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable U/sec., 323, 452, 504, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as
follows:-
It is alleged that, the accused No.1, married to Cw.2 on
22.10.2008 and out of their wedlock two childrens have born.
Further regarding the land issue, the Cw-1, fed up with the
accused No.1 troubles and the Cw.1 started residing with her
children at her mother’s house siuated at, No. 56, J.P. Nagar
6th Phase, Jaraganahalli, Munisanjeevappa Layout, Lakshmi
Temple Road, within the jurisdiction of Puttenahalli Police
Station. Further on 2-9-2018 at 11:50 am, the accused No.1 to
3 with the intention of committing a crime, trespassed into the
Cw.1’s house and asked her to send the children with him.
When she refused to send the kids with him, for that the 1st
accused abused the Cw.1 in filthy language and assaulted the
Cw-2 on her face, shoulder with his hands and caused simple
Judgment 4 C.C.No.123/2020
injuries to Cw-2. Further, when the Cw.1 came to stop the
quarrel between the accused No.1 and the Cw.2 , the accused
No.1 assaulted her also with his hands and tried to press the
Cw.2 neck and caused simple injuries to Cw.2. Further, the
accused No.1 given life threat to Cw.1 and 2 and thereby the
accused persons have committed the above offences
punishable U/sec,.323, 452, 504, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the
offences punishable U/sec,.323, 452, 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 accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard
before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the
accused persons, wherein they have denied the same and
claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.1, 4 to 14 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 06
years old. Hence, dropped the said witness respectively. In this
Judgment 5 C.C.No.123/2020
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
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.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.123/2020
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
the conclusion that the police was not very
serious in prosecuting the offence which was a
Judgment 7 C.C.No.123/2020
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
Judgment 8 C.C.No.123/2020
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
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
Judgment 9 C.C.No.123/2020
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.
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
Judgment 10 C.C.No.123/2020whether 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
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
Judgment 11 C.C.No.123/2020duty 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, this court
also dropped the Cw.1, 4 to 14 witnesses, who are not secured
since long time. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as PW.1
to PW.4 out of 16 witnesses and 01 document is marked as
Ex.P1.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.123/2020
05. Thereafter examination of the 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.
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, the
accused No.1, married to Cw.2 on
22.10.2008 and out of their wedlock two
childrens have born. Further regarding
the land issue, the Cw-1, fed up with the
accused No.1 troubles and the Cw.1
started residing with her children at her
mother’s house siuated at, No. 56, J.P.
Nagar 6th Phase, Jaraganahalli,
Munisanjeevappa Layout, Lakshmi
Temple Road, within the jurisdiction of
Puttenahalli Police Station. Further on 2-
9-2018 at 11:50 am, the accused No.1 to
3 with the intention of committing a
crime, trespassed into the Cw.1’s house
Judgment 13 C.C.No.123/2020and asked her to send the children with
him. When she refused to send the kids
with him, for that the 1st accused abused
the Cw.1 in filthy language and thereby
the accused persons have committed a
offence punishable U/sec.504 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that,
Further, the accused No.1 assaulted the
Cw-2 on her face, shoulder with his
hands and caused simple injuries to Cw-
2. Further, when the Cw.1 came to stop
the quarrel between the accused No.1 and
the Cw.2 , the accused No.1 assaulted her
also with his hands and tried to press the
Cw.2 neck and caused simple injuries to
Cw.2. and thereby the accused No.1 has
committed an offences punishable
U/sec.323, 452 R/w sec., 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that,
Further, the accused No.1 given life threat
to Cw.1 and 2 and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/sec.506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC?
4. What order.?
Judgment 14 C.C.No.123/2020
08. My findings on the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative
Point No.2 : In The Negative
Point No.3 : In The Negative
Point No.4 : As per final orderREASONS
09. Point No.1 to 3 : 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.2 Smt. Meena, who is examined as Pw.1 and
incident/eye witness in this case, she has deposed in her
evidence before the court that, Her marriage with the 1st
accused took place on 22-10-2008. A baby boy was born in
Judgment 15 C.C.No.123/20202009. For five or six years, there was no disturbance in her
married life to the point of complaining. Her father and the 1st
accused both did real estate business together. Her father and
the 1st accused had bought land for investment purposes.
Some sellers were delaying in registering the purchase deed of
the land. Disputes arose in this regard. Due to this, her
mother-in-law, father-in-law and the 1st accused started
arguing with her and started hitting and scolding her and they
were abusing her continuously. Unable to stop it, she took the
sleeping pills and got admitted to Rajashekar Hospital. The 1st
accused said that, he would not take her bak to his house,
until the disputes were settled. For 2 years, she tried to settle
the disputes. In the meantime, the 1st accused had filed a
case seeking divorce. Both the children were with her. When
the accused No.1 asked to send the children, she contacted the
lawyer for the 1st accused and inquired, and he told her to
send the children. When she agreed to that, the lawyer said
that the 1st accused would come the next day at 11:00 am and
take the children. The 1st accused did not come to our house,
but the 2nd and 3rd accused came to our father’s house and
asked them to send the children. While the children were
getting ready to sent, the 1st accused came to our father’s
Judgment 16 C.C.No.123/2020
house and scolded them in filthy language, just like he used to
scold her before. This incident happened in 2016. When she
told the 1st accused not to do this, he hit assaulte her. When
our mother and children came to rescue her, he assaulted her
mother. He stood in the middle of the road and spoke badly
about her behavior. The 1st accused hit her left ear, which
broke the earlobe. When he hit our mother’s eye, it got hurt.
He threatened her while going and her mother and she were
admitted to Supra Hospital for treatment.
11. The Cw.3 Mahesh, who is examined as Pw.2 and
incident/eye witness in this case, he has deposed in his
evidence before the court that, There was a problem between
Cw-2 and the 1st accused regarding property. About five years
ago, the lawyers for the 1st accused and Cw-2 had discussed
and decided that Cw-2 should send the children. The car
driver had come inside our house in a car with a mobile
phone. At that time, the 1st accused was calling the car
driver’s mobile phone. He did not pick up the mobile phone as
it was in the car. Angry at this, the 1st accused came to our
house and shouted. Cw-2 said, that the children were getting
ready and that she would send them, but the 1st accused
assaulted the Cw-2. When our mother went to get stop them,
Judgment 17 C.C.No.123/2020
he assaulted his mother also. The neighbors came and stop
the quarrel and the accused No.1 abused the Cw.2 in filthy
language.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that,
regarding the alleged incident he did not go to police station at
any point of time and further denied the rest of the
suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
persons.
12. The Cw.16 Raghu Naik, who is examined as Pw.3 and
IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, On 13.06.2019, after receiving and examining the
case file from Cw-15, he had submitted the final report to the
Honorable Court as the investigation has already been
completed and prima facie evidence has been found against
the accused persons.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in nothing worthwhile
eliciated from his mouth.
13. The Cw.15 Somaraju, who is examined as Pw.4 and
1st IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, On 04.09.2018 at 10:00 AM, when he was in
Judgment 18 C.C.No.123/2020
charge of the police station, as per the complaint already
received from Cw-14, he received the case file from Cw-14 and
continued the investigation. On the same day, he conducted a
panchanama in the presence of the pancha’s, Cw-10 and 11,
at the place shown by Cw-1, from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM. Then
he recorded the statements of Cw-10 and 11. On 05.09.2018, I
he recorded the statements of Cw2 to 9. Then he handed over
the case file to Cw-16 for further investigation.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused persons had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he
did not give any written notice to the pancha’s and further
denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel
for the accused persons.
14. 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 cannot be held guilty
of the alleged offences.
15. In this case, the Cw.1, 4 to 14 witnesses are
dropped, since they are not secured long time. Hence, the said
witnesses are dropped after given sufficient opportunities to
prosecution. The Pw.1 & 2 are who are the eye/incident
Judgment 19 C.C.No.123/2020
witnesses in this case, they both have deposed as per Ex.P1
alleged incident. Further the Investigating officer’s ie., Pw.3 &
4, have only deposed about their investigation and submitted
the charge sheet before the court. Further, the material
witness is not secured by the concerend police. However, the
non examination of the material witness is fatal to the
prosecution case. As such the case against the accused
persons are certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt.
Regarding this relied on the following Judgment.
16. 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
Judgment 20 C.C.No.123/2020of 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.”
17. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and in the present case, the
eye/incident witnesses and the Investigating officer’s evidences
have not been proved by the prosecution as alleged in the
Ex.P.1. It is a settled principal of law that, the sole testimony of
the Investigating officer’s and eye/incident witness and in the
absence of independent and material witness, is insufficient to
prove the prosecution case and the accused persons are
entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. Moreover, non
examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution
case. Further the prosecution has not able to prove the alleged
offences against the accused persons beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 to 3 in the
Negative.
18. Point No.4: In view of the Negative findings on the
above Points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.123/2020
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,. 452,
323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of 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.
(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 25th day of April-2026)
(Thimmaiah.G)
30 A.C.J.M., B’lore.
th
Judgment 22 C.C.No.123/2020
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Meena
P.W.2 : Sri. Mahesh
P.W.3 : Sri. Raghu Naik
P.W.4 : Sri. Somaraju
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.4
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
NIL Digitally signed
by THIMMAIAH
THIMMAIAH G
G Date: 2026.05.21
16:39:06 +0530
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 23 C.C.No.123/2020
Judgment 24 C.C.No.123/2020
