Karnataka High Court
Sri. Prashantha @ Kencha vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8670 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRASHANTHA @ KENCHA,
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO.128, TOPPANAHALLI,
MADDUR, MANDYA,
KARNATAKA - 571 428.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RADHIKA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA - 562 119.
Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI B
K REPRESENTED BY
Location: High STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Court of HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. VARUN KUMAR,
S/O SRI.KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT NO.71,
HEMMIGEPURA,
KENGERI HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.,
BANGALORE - 560 056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.3394/2018 (CRIME NO.471/2016) FOR THE OFFENCES U/S
143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 324, 506, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC
WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CJM BENGALURU OF
KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before the court calling in question
continuance of C.C.No.3394/2018 on a split charge drawn
against him. The petitioner is drawn as accused No. 8.
2. The petitioner along with others get embroiled in a
crime in Crime No.471/2016 for offences punishable under
Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w Section
149 of IPC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. The police conducted investigation and filed a
charge sheet against all the accused in C.C.No.3363/2017. The
petitioner was not available for trial at the relevant point in
time on the score that, no summons were actually issued to the
petitioner. While all others who were available for trial were
tried by the concerned court and owing to the fact that the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt acquits the other accused.
4. The petitioner who is left in the fray for a while is
only the petitioner. The reason rendered by the concerned
court to acquit the other accused is as follows.
“Points 1 to 8:
12. Since the evidence relating to these points is
interlinked, to avoid repeated discussion of same set of
evidence, these points are taken up together for
discussion.
13. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution in all has examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to
P.W.9 and relied upon documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.15 and M.O.1 to M.0.9.
14. Ex.P.1 is the spot cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P.2 is
the seizure of weapons panchanama. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4
are the portions of statements said to have been given by
P.W.3 and P.W.4 before police. Ex.P.5 is the complaint.
Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are the portions of statements said to
have been given by P.W.5 and P.W.8 before police. Ex.P.7
is the seizure of iron rod and stick panchanama. Ex.P.9 is
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
the FIR. Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are relevant and admissible
portions in the voluntary statements given by accused
No.5 and 6. Ex.P.12 is the FSL report. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15
are three wound certificates.
15. P.W.1-Manoj Kumar is stated to be a panch witness to
Ex.P.1 – spot mahazar. He did not support the prosecution
case and therefore, he was treated hostile and cross-
examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
16. P.W.2-Manjunath is stated to be a panch witness to
Ex.P.2 – seizure of clothes panchanama. He too did not
support the prosecution case and hence, he was treated
hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public
Prosecutor.
17. P.W.3-Punith is one of the injured witnesses. It is his
evidence that on 27.11.2016 at about 4 p.m., when he
was near BMTC bus stand at Mariyappanapalya along with
P.W.4 and P.W.5, a mob of 15 persons came from
somewhere and picked up quarrel with them for flimsy
reasons and started assaulting them initially by hands and
later with sharp edged objects, Beer bottles and iron rods.
He has stated that he does not remember whether the
accused persons were also part of the mob or not. He
cannot say whether any one of the accused assaulted him
on the day of incident. Since he did not support the
prosecution case, he was treated hostile and cross-
examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and in such
cross-examination, he has denied to have given
statement before the investigating officer vide Ex.P.3 and
also denied that he has compromised the matter with the
accused party.
18. P.W.4 – Kiran is another injured witness. He has
stated in the same lines as that of P.W.3. Since he failed
to support the prosecution case, he was treated hostile
and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and
in such cross-examination he has denied of giving
statement before police vide Ex.P.4 and also denied that
he has compromised the matter with the accused party.
19. P.W.5-Varun Kumar is the injured complainant. It is
his evidence that the accused have not picked up quarrel
with him or P.W.3 or P.W.4 nor assaulted them. On the
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
date of the incident there was an altercation and
somebody pushed them and they fell down and sustained
bleeding injuries. He specifically stated that police had
taken his signature on a paper and he did not read its
contents and he does not know it contents. He has also
denied his participation in panchanama proceedings.
Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor treated him as a
hostile witness and cross-examined him. In such cross-
examination he has denied to have given statement
before the investigating officer vide Ex.P.6 and also
denied that he has compromised the matter with the
accused party.
20. P.W.6 Santhosh is a panch witness to Ex.P.7 seizure
panchanama whereunder stick and iron rods were said to
have been seized. But this witness did not support the
prosecution case and as such, he was treated hostile and
cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
21. P.W.7-Darshan is another panch witness to Ex.P.7
seizure panchanama. He too did not support the
prosecution case and therefore, he was treated hostile
and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.
22. P.W.8-Vachan Kumar is stated to be an independent
witness. He too did not support the prosecution case.
Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor treated him
hostile and cross-examined him.
23. P.W.9-Muralidhar N.K. the then Sub-Inspector of
Police of Kumbalagodu police station speaks about
registration of the case and issuance of FIR and
conducting spot mahazar vide Ex.P.1 and seizure of iron
rod, bloodstained stick, bloodstained knife, bloodstained
Beer bottle M.O.1 to M.O.4 thereunder and also about
seizure of bloodstained clothes M.0.5 to M.0.7 vide Ex.P.2
seizure panchanama. He also speaks about recovery of
M.O.8 -rod and M.0.9-stick under Ex.P.7 panchanama at
the instance of accused No.5 and 6 pursuant to their
voluntary statements and on other aspects of
investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet
against the accused.
24. During the course of cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the defence he has denied that the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
panchanamas vide Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.7 are
concocted in the police station as also M.O.1 to M.0.9. He
has denied that he has not conducted investigation in a
proper manner and his investigation is perfunctory in
nature and he has filed a false charge sheet against the
accused.
25. On the basis of the above evidence on record, the
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the material
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case as
they have compromised the matter with the accused
party. He further argued that registration of complaint
and investigation conducted by P.W.9 resulting in filing of
harge sheet before this court are all official acts and
therefore, there is a presumption available under Section
114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, their
testimony cannot be disbelieved and hence prayed for
passing suitable orders.
26. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defence
argued that the entire prosecution story is an ingenious
concoction and therefore, the material witnesses have
naturally not supported the prosecution case and thus
prayed for an order of acquittal.
27. On close scrutiny of the entire evidence placed on
record it is seen that the injured witnesses P.W.3 to P.W.5
and the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution in
toto. The panch witnesses to recovery panchanama and
spot mahazar have also not supported the prosecution
case.
28. Eschewing the above evidence on record what
remains before the court is the oral testimony of the
investigating agency in the form of P.W.9. But his
evidence does not implicate the accused in any manner
especially when the injured witnesses themselves do not
implicate the accused.
29. Thus based on the evidence of the investigating
agency alone, this court cannot hold that the prosecution
is successful in proving the charges levelled against the
accused.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
30. Under the above circumstances, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt and therefore, in the absence of any
sufficient substantive and corroborative evidence on
record, invariably, this court has to answer Point No.1 to
8 in the negative and accordingly, they are answered in
the negative.
Point No.9:
31. In view of the findings on Points No.1 to 8 in the
negative, this court is of the considered opinion that
accused No.1 to 7 are entitled to be acquitted of the
offences charged against them. Hence, the following order
is passed:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused
No.1 to 7 are acquitted of offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 and 307 (on three
counts) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.1 to 7 are on bail. Their bail bonds
stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.
The material objects M.O.1 to M.O.9 marked in this
case are ordered to be preserved for trial of absconding
accused No.8 to 10.”
5. In the light of the acquittal of accused No.1 to 7 on
the ground that there was no evidence for the offence under
Section 307 inter alia, permitting trial against this petitioner for
an eventual acquittal would become wastage of precious
judicial time.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:32948
CRL.P No. 8670 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to excise the
jurisdiction under Section 482/528 of the BNS and obliterate
the crime against this petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the Criminal petition is
allowed.
The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3394/2018,
(arising out of Crime No.471/2016) pending on the file of the
learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru of
Kumbalagudu Police Station, insofar it relates to the petitioner-
accused No. 8 herein, stands quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition,
I.A.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration and stands
disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
HR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
