A Special Court in Bengaluru on Tuesday (September 22) acquitted Congress MLA B.K. Sangamesha and four others in a 2010 case involving charges of criminal conspiracy, rioting, attempt to murder and voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

While acquitting the accused, the court found several defects in the investigation and directed the State to place the case before the Acquittal Review Committee to identify the officials responsible for the defective investigation and take appropriate action against them.

LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shivaprasad K.B. acquitted Accused No.1 Sangamesh, Accused No.2 B.K. Mohan, Accused No.3 Ganesh, Accused No.4 Basavaraj and Accused No.5 Jagadeesh @ Jagannath of offences under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 147 (rioting), 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case arose from an alleged attack on complainant Mahesh Kumar and his sister Jayamma at the latter's residence in Bhadravati, Shivamogga, in May 2010. The prosecution alleged that the accused, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, attacked the complainant and his sister with deadly weapons.

The prosecution case was, however, found to be riddled with inconsistencies. The court found serious doubts regarding the presence of PW-1 Mahesh Kumar at the scene of the incident and noted that the car driver who allegedly drove him to the spot was not examined.

The court observed that there was no independent evidence establishing that Mahesh Kumar had travelled to his sister's house in his car and that there was “strong doubt” regarding his presence at the scene when the alleged incident took place.

The court also noted contradictions in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and other witnesses regarding the manner in which the incident occurred. Although Mahesh Kumar shifted his sister to the hospital, the names of the alleged assailants were not disclosed to the medical officers at the earliest stage.

Further, while the initial complaint contained allegations against all five accused, the evidence subsequently presented a different version in which accused Nos. 2 to 4 were alleged to have assaulted PW-2. Yet another version emerging from the evidence suggested that an unknown person had attacked her.

“Thus, from the evidence placed, the prosecution could not able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5, beyond reasonable doubt,” the court held, granting the accused the benefit of doubt.

The court also came down heavily on the manner in which the investigation was conducted.

It noted that the investigating officers had failed to properly inquire into the allegations against accused Nos. 1 to 5 despite the allegations contained in the complaint and subsequent statements of the injured witness.

The court observed that the investigation had “totally neglected” the contentions of the first informant and his sister from the inception of the case and was “defective and improper.”

The court particularly questioned the investigation concerning Accused No.6, who had been implicated during the investigation but was subsequently discharged.

According to the court, there was no material to substantiate the alleged motive attributed to Accused No.6 or his relationship with PW-2. The seizure evidence against him was also not supported by the panch witnesses, while the forensic evidence concerning alleged bloodstains was inconclusive.

The court further noted that medical records showed that Accused No.6 had suffered from mental illness and had undergone treatment, including at NIMHANS.

It observed that he appeared to have been falsely implicated by taking advantage of his mental illness. The court further said that it “may be true” that, in order to help accused Nos.1 to 5, who were politically influential persons, the investigating officers made Accused No.6 a “scapegoat”.

The court noted that the mentally ill man had been arrested without a definite basis, sent to judicial custody and suffered as a result of the investigation. It therefore found the case fit for examination by the Acquittal Review Committee to fix responsibility for the faulty investigation and take appropriate action against those responsible.

Accordingly, in its final order, the court directed the State to place the case before the Acquittal Review Committee to identify the official(s) responsible for the defective investigation and take appropriate action against the erring officials.

Case Title: State by CID, Bengaluru/Paper Town Police Station, Bhadravathi v. Sangamesha S/o Bellada Kotrappa & Ors

Case Number: Spl.CC.No.828/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order