Bangalore District Court
Byatarayanapura P.S vs A1 Kamal Singh on 9 June, 2025
KABC010024472017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2025
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Mala N.D.,
BAL., LL.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
S.C.No.125/2017
COMPLAINANT:- : State by Byatarayanapura
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By : Public prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED No.:- 1) Kamal Singh,
S/o Prathap Singh,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.258,
Gurusarvabhowma
Nagar, Byatarayanapura,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru.
2) Prathap Kumar,
S/o Raju,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at Shankarapura village,
Koppa Hobli,
2
S.C.No.125/2017
Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
3) Adarsh.G.P.
(Split up)
(A.1- By Sri BVK
A.2- By Sri. K.K. advocates)
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1) Occurence of the offence : 13/09/2016, 19.30 to
and time 19.35 hours
2) Report of the offence and : 14/09/2016 - 13.20
time hours
3) Name of the complainant : Sri Shivarajkumar
4) Date of commencement of : 21/06/2019
trial
5) Date of closure of trial : 15/04/2025
6) Offences complained of : Section 394, 397 r/w 34
of IPC
7) Opinion of the Judge : Found not guilty
3
S.C.No.125/2017
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Byatarayanapura
Police Station has submitted charge sheet against
accused Nos.1 to 3for the offences punishable u/s 394,
397 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.343/2016, before the XLV
ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
follows:
That on 13.09.2016, at about 7.30 p.m. on Mysuru
road, in Jnanabharathi Gate Bus stand, within the limits
of Byatarayanapura Police Station, when Cw-1-
Shivarajakumar was waiting for an auto, accused No.1 to
3 with an intention of committing the offence of robbery
attacked and assaulted him by their hands, during that
time accused No.3 put Cw-1 under threat by showing a
knife, accused No.2 took his Samsung mobile phone
4
S.C.No.125/2017
worth Rs.1,400/- which was kept in his pant pocket and
accused No.1 took his another mobile of HTC company
worth Rs.1,700/- from the pocket of his shirt, thereby
causing grievous hurt by imposing life threat, took away
his valuable mobiles as such, on 14.09.2019 Cw-1
lodged the complaint before the respondent police,
based on the said complaint this case came to be
registered against accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.343/2016
for the offences punishable under Sec.394 and 397 of
IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, IO visited
the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2
in the presence of Cw-2 and 3. On 13.10.2016 IO
deputed police officials i.e. Cw-6 to 8 to search and
cause production of accused persons, accordingly they
were produced before him, he conducted arrest
procedure, recorded voluntary statements of accused
5
S.C.No.125/2017
persons and based on the said voluntary statements
drawn seizure mahazar by recovering 2 mobile phones
and cloths of the accused as per Ex.P.3 in the presence
of Cw-4 and 5, subjected the seized articles under PF
No.184/2016 and thereafter Cw-10 Police Inspector of
respondent took up further investigation and after
completion of the same, having opined that there is
prima facie case to show the commission of offences
against the accused No.1 to 3 filed charge sheet for the
aforementioned offences.
4. Cognizance for the offence shown in the
charge sheet was taken against accused Nos.1 to 3 by
the learned Magistrate, thereafter a criminal case against
accused persons was registered in C.C. No.188/2017 on
the file of XLV ACMM, Bengaluru, since offence alleged
against accused persons are exclusively triable by the
court of sessions, the same was committed to the
6
S.C.No.125/2017
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
which is in turn made over to this court for trial.
5. After committal, the case is registered as S.C.
No.125/2017. Prosecution opened the case as required
u/s 226 of Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the accused
Nos.1 to 3, no grounds made out for their discharge,
hence, charge against accused No.1 to 3 for an offence
punishable u/s 394 and 397 of IPC was framed, the
contents of which read over and explained to accused
Nos.1 to 3, they denied the charges leveled against them
and claims to be tried. During the course of trial
accused No.3 remained absent before the court and was
not secured inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, at
once he was reported as dead, however, death
certificate was not placed before the court to confirm the
death of accused No.3, therefore, case against accused
No.3 was ordered to be split up hence, as per the order
7
S.C.No.125/2017
dated 22.12.2023, a separate split up case came to be
registered against accused No.3 in S.C.No.1939/2023.
6. To prove the ingredients of the offence leveled
against accused No.1 and 2, prosecution in all cited 10
witnesses and successful in examining 7 witnesses as
PW.1 to PW.7, got marked 9 documents at Exs.P.1 to
P.9 and also identified 9 materials objects as M.O-1 to 9.
The prosecution failed to secure Cw.2 and C.W.3 in spite
of giving sufficient opportunities, hence they have been
dropped. Further prosecution gives up the evidence of
Cw-8 in order to avoid repetition and thereby closed its
side evidence.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence,
statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.
has been recorded and they have denied all the
incriminating material evidence appearing against them
and not chosen to lead their side defence evidence. The
8
S.C.No.125/2017
accused have complied the provision of Section 437(A)
of Cr.P.C.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the
materials on record.
9. The points do arise for my determination are
as follows:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, on 13.09.2016
at about 7.30 p.m. on Mysuru road in
Jnanabharathi Gate Bust stand within
the limits of Byatarayanapura Police
Station when Cw-1-Shivarajakumar
was waiting for an auto accused No.1
to 3 with an intention of committing the
offence of robbery attacked and
assaulted him by their hands and
thereby committed an offence of
dacoity with an attempt to cause
instant fear of death or grievous hurt
which is punishable u/s 394 of the
Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid
date, time and place, under the
aforesaid circumstances accused No.1
to 3 with an intention of committing the
offence of robbery assaulted Cw-1 by
9
S.C.No.125/2017their hands and by that time accused
No.3 created fear of instant death by
showing a knife to Cw-1, by that time
accused No.2 snatched his samsung
mobile phone worth Rs.1,400/- from his
pant packet and accused No.1
snatched Cw-1’s HTC mobile phone
worth Rs.1,700/- from his shirt packet
and thereby committed an offence of
robbery by causing instant fear of
death or grievous hurt which is
punishable u/s 397 of the Indian Penal
Code?
3) What Order ?
10. On appreciation of evidence, documents and
for the foregoing reasons, my findings on the above
points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative;
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: As per final order,
for the following:
10
S.C.No.125/2017
REASONS
11. POINT No.1 and 2:- Since these two points
are interrelated, hence taken up together for common
discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and
evidence.
12. It is the case of prosecution that, on
13/09/2016, when CW. 1 Shivarajakumar was waiting for
an auto near Jnanabharathi bust stop he was attacked
by accused No.1 to 3 wherein he was put to instant fear
of death by showing a knife on him, snatched his two
mobile phones worth of Rs.1,400/- and 1,700/-
respectively. During the course of investigation, IO
visited the place of incident and drawn spot mahazar in
the presence of witnesses and also recovered two
mobile phones allegedly snatched by the accused
persons and after completion of investigation having of
the opinion that there is a prima facie case against the
11
S.C.No.125/2017
accused persons filed the charge sheet for the offences
punishable under Section 394 and 397 of IPC.
13. The prosecution in order to establish its case
has cited as many as 10 witnesses and successful in
establishing 7 witnesses. Among them complainant
Shivarajakumar is examined as P.W. 7, CW. 9
Venkateshaiah who registered FIR, apprehended the
accused and partly conducted the investigation is
examined as P.W. 1, another police official Rajesh who
has deposed about apprehending of accused persons is
examined as P.W. 2, spot and seizure mahazar witness
one Mahesh is examined twice as P.W. 3 and P.W.6,
investigating officer Shivaswamy is examined as P.W. 4,
another spot mahazar witness Armugam is examined as
P.W. 5. The prosecution has also relied on the
documents such as complaint and FIR at Ex.P.1 and
P.2, spot and seizure mahazars at Ex.P.3 and P.4, P.F. is
12
S.C.No.125/2017
at Ex.P.5, voluntary statements at Ex.P.6 to P.8 and
statement of witnesses at Ex.P.9 and P.10 etc., Further
the prosecution also relied on the material objects viz.,
two mobile phones, clothes of accused persons along
with a button knife as M.O.1 to M.O.9.
14. This case is registered on the strength of a
complaint which is marked at Ex.P.1 said to have been
lodged by CW. 1 on 14/09/2016 and thereby the criminal
law set in to motion. During he course of investigation
these accused persons are secured and mobile phones
allegedly snatched by them were recovered from them,
thus the prosecution case is entirely based on direct
evidence along with circumstantial witnesses. In this
background it is necessary to go through the evidence of
available witnesses.
15. P.W. 7 in his evidence has deposed that, on
13/09/2016 at about 7.30 p.m. he was standing in front of
13
S.C.No.125/2017
Jnanabharathi gate in order to go to Gopalan Mall and
was waiting for an auto, by that time three unknown
persons attacked him, assaulted him on his face, kept
knife on his neck, snatched his two mobile phones viz.,
HTC desire and Samsung basic sets, due to the assault
he sustained injuries. Hence, he took treatment in
Chiguru hospital of Byatarayanapura, later he lodged a
complaint on the next day before the jurisdictional police
station, he identified his complaint and has further
deposed that based on his complaint police came to the
spot, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of CW. 2
Hanumaiah and CW. 3 Ravindra as per Ex.P.3 and on
14/10/2016 he went to the police station where the police
had shown him accused persons saying that they were
the one who assaulted him on the said day and also
shown him the mobile phones.
14
S.C.No.125/2017
16. In his cross-examination he has stated that,
during the time of incident he was appointed as police
sub inspector, he was in training period, as such he
stayed in his friend’s room. He further admits that he
has not mentioned this fact either in his complaint or his
statement, he submitted that at the time of incident,
there was a dispute regarding sharing of Cauvery river
water between the stats of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu,
as such some disturbances had taken place on Mysore
road, the said road was completely blocked on
13/09/2016 and there were only few vehicles on the
road, he denied the suggestion of defense counsel that,
road was completely blocked by saying that the vehicles
here and there were plying on the road, he pleaded his
ignorance as to say where is the Gopalan Mall on
Mysore road from Jnanabharathi gate.
15
S.C.No.125/2017
17. This witness further admits that he has not
given any medical certificate to the investigating officer to
show that he obtained treatment in Chiguru hospital. It is
also stated by this witness that the jurisdictional police
station was just 2 to 2.5 k.m. from the place of incident
and at the same time, he has stated since he was new
to the said place he was not aware of the distance of the
police station, he also admits that he has not assigned
any reasons in his complaint for delay in lodging the
complaint, thereafter he denies the suggestion of
defense counsel that he was not attacked and assaulted
by accused persons, as such he has not taken any
treatment in the Chiguru hospital and there was no spot
panchanama in his presence.
18. Further in his cross-examination this witness
states that he has not given details of identification of
accused persons to the investigating officer and also not
16
S.C.No.125/2017
stated anything in the statement about the identification
of the accused. This witness further admits that he has
not furnished any documents to I.O. to show his
ownership over the mobile phones. This witness
deposed that he has seen the accused persons in the
police station thereby he denies the suggestion of the
accused side that since himself and the investigating
officer belong to the same department both have falsely
implicated the accused persons in this case.
19. One Venkateshaiah the then ASI of
Byatarayanapura police station is examined as P.W. 1
and has deposed regarding receiving of the complaint
by CW. 1 Shivarajakumar on 14/09/2016 at about 1.20
p.m. and registering the FIR in Cr.No.343/2016 as per
Ex.P.1 and P.2, he has deposed regarding drawing up of
spot mahazar in the presence of CW. 2 and CW. 3 as per
Ex.P.3, also deposed about deputing the police officials
17
S.C.No.125/2017
to apprehend the accused persons and upon their
production before him, conducting arrest procedure,
recording their voluntary statement and based on such
voluntary statement drawn up the seizure mahazar in the
presence of CW. 4 and 5 by recovering mobile phones
as per Ex.P.4. This witness identified accused No.1 to 3
along with the material objects viz., mobile phones,
clothes of the accused persons and a knife allegedly
involved in the commission of the offence.
20. In his cross-examination this witness says that
the alleged incident was not on 13/09/2016 and there
were no description of accused for the purpose of
identification in the complaint. Further it is stated by this
witness that he has not given any order in writing
deputing the officials to apprehend the accused persons,
he denies the suggestion of the defense that accused
were not produced before him, he has not recorded their
18
S.C.No.125/2017
voluntary statement, there was no notice to the panch
witnesses and since real accused persons were not
traced in this case these accused are falsely implicated
by the investigating officer.
21. P.W. 2 Rajesh is the police official, he has
deposed about apprehending of accused persons on
13/10/2016 along with CW. 7 and 8, his cross-
examination is nothing but denial of his examination-in-
chief.
22. P.W. 3 and 6 Mahesh is a seizure mahazar
witness. However this witness has completely turned
hostile by saying that police have not recovered any
articles in his presence as per Ex.P.9, he even denied his
statement before the police and nothing substantial has
been elicited in his cross-examination. This witness is
examined twice in 2019 and 2 nd time in 2022, at that
time also he deposed similar version. As such the
19
S.C.No.125/2017
prosecution subjected him for cross-examination by
treating him as hostile. However, nothing substantial has
been elicited from his mouth in support of the
prosecution case.
23. P.W. 5 Armugam is also a seizure mahazar
witness. He has also turned hostile by saying that he had
been to Byatarayanapura police station to some other
work, at that time he was made to sign on Ex.P.4 seizure
mahazar, he pleaded his ignorance about the contents of
mahazar by specifically saying that there were no
seizure of any articles in his presence and at the same
time he denied his statement before the police. Hence,
the prosecution treated him as hostile and nothing
substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination in
support of the prosecution case.
24. P.W. 4 is the I.O. He has deposed only about
filing of charge sheet and in his cross-examination he
20
S.C.No.125/2017
denied the suggestion of the defense that he has not
recorded anybodies statement and without there being
any prima facie case against accused persons he filed
false charge sheet.
25. From over all consideration of the evidence on
record, it can be seen that the complainant herein
Shivarajakumar as on the date of alleged incident was
selected as police sub inspector and was in training, as
such he was staying in his friend’s house. Admittedly
alleged incident was taken place on 13/09/2016 in the
night at 7.30 p.m. However, on the next day at 1.20 p.m.
the complaint came to be lodged, the dealy in lodging the
complaint was no where mentioned in the complaint.
26. Another point to be noted herein this case is,
injuries stated to have been sustained by the
complainant. The complainant in his evidence has
categorically stated that after attack and assault by the
21
S.C.No.125/2017
accused persons, he had been to Chiguru hospital of
Byatarayanapura and obtained tratement. However, the
investigation materials no where discloses about
treatement said to have been obtained by this
complainant, no wound certificate is forthcoming. Further
from the evidence of this complainant it can be noticed
that he has not mentioned the description of the accused
persons in his complaint which would help the police
officials to trace the accused persons. More importantly,
the seizure mahzar i.e. recovery said to have been
conducted in the presence of independent witnesses
have shown complete hostile attitude towards the
prosecution. In addition, the spot mahazar witnesses
have not at all secured before this court, as such the
seizure as well as spot mahazar said to have been
drawn by the investigating officer suffers from
22
S.C.No.125/2017
corroboration for want of evidence of independent
material witnesses.
27. Further the contents of complaint is contrary to
the evidence of complainant, as the complaint no where
reveals about the treatment obtained by the complainant
in Chiguru hospital. According to the complainant, he
saw the accused persons only in the police station and
therefore the evidence of complainant itself is not
corroborating with the contents of complaint. Moreover
the recovery said to have been made by the investigating
officer has not been established with the supportive
evidence of independent witnesses. Under the
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to bring home
the guilt of the accused persons. As such ingredients of
the alleged offences are not forthcoming in the evidence
of complainant. Except formal evidence of investigating
officer and other police officials, there is nothing on
23
S.C.No.125/2017
record to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Section 394 and 397 of IPC.
Therefore due to the hostile attitude of mahazar
witnesses and contradictory evidence of complainant,
the prosecution became unsuccessful in establishing its
case with cogent, convincing and corroborative
evidence. Under such circumstances, a serious doubt
arises in the mind of the court regarding genuiness of
prosecution story, therefore benefit of doubt can be
extended in favour of accused persons. Hence, point
No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
28. POINT No.3: In view of the above findings on
point No.1 and 2, this court is of the opinion that, the
evidence on record is grossly insufficient to prove the
guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the aforementioned
offence, hence, they are entitled for acquittal.
Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following :
24
S.C.No.125/2017
ORDER
Invoking provision u/s 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are
hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable u/s 394 and 397 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused No.1
and 2 and their sureties bonds stand
cancelled.
Bail bonds ans sureties bonds
executed by accused No.1 and 2 u/s
437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a
period of six months from this day.
M.O.1 to 9 seized under
P.F. No.184/2016 in Cr.No.343/2016
are ordered to be kept intact till
disposal of split up case against
accused No.3 in S.C. No.1939/2023.
25
S.C.No.125/2017
Further, office is directed to
send the certified copy of this
judgment to the District Magistrate of
Bengaluru city, as required u/s 365 of
Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected by
me and then pronounced in open court on this 9th day of June, 2025)(MALA N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 : Venkateshaiah
PW.2 : Rajesha
PW.3 : Mahesha
PW.4 : Shivaswamy
PW.5 : Armugam
PW.6 : Mahesha
PW.7 : Shivarajkumara
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
26
S.C.No.125/2017
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the
Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of P.W. 7
Ex.P.4 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.4(b) : Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.4(c) : Signature of P.W. 5
Ex.P.4(d) : Signature of P.W. 6
Ex.P.5 : Property Form No.184/2016
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.6 : Voluntary statement of accused No.1
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of accused No.1
Ex.P.7 : Voluntary statement of accused No.2
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of accused No.2
Ex.P.8 : Voluntary statement of accused No.3
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of accused No.3
Ex.P.9 : Statement of Mahesh
IV. For Defence side:-
-Nil-
27
S.C.No.125/2017
V. List of material objects marked:-
M.O.1 HTC mobile
M.O.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.2 Cement-white full arm shirt
M.O.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.3 Jeans pant
M.O.3(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.4 Samsung mobile
M.O.4(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.5 Yellow black full arm shirt
M.O.5(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.6 Dark blue shorts
M.O.6(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.7 Button knife
M.O.7(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.8 Yellow colour full arm shirt
M.O.8(a) Signature of P.W.1
M.O.9 Green colour chaddi
M.O.9(a) Signature of P.W.1(MALA N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.
28
S.C.No.125/2017Judgment pronounced in the open
Court (Vide separate judgment)ORDER
Invoking provision u/s 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are
hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable u/s 394 and 397 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused
No.1 and 2 and their sureties bonds
stand cancelled.
Bail bonds ans sureties bonds
executed by accused No.1 and 2 u/s
437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a
period of six months from this day.
M.O.1 to 9 seized under P.F.
No.184/2016 in Cr.No.343/2016 are
ordered to be kept intact till disposal
of split up case against accused No.3
in S.C. No.1939/2023.
Further, office is directed to
send the certified copy of this
judgment to the District Magistrate of
Bengaluru city, as required u/s 365 of
Cr.P.C.
(MALA. N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65,
BENGALURU CITY.