Mr Manjunath v Vs State of Karnataka

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANAGARA TO CONDUCT FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN SC NO. 133/2020 OF KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, son of the deceased has preferred this petition for a direction for further investigation in S.C. No. 133/2020 registered at Kaggalipura Police Station, pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.

¶24

FIR was registered on a suo-motu complaint lodged

¶25

by the PSI of Kaggalipara Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5. The investigation revealed the role of the said accused in committing the murder of petitioner's father by name, Venkateshalu. Charge sheet was filed for the offences

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49733 WP No. 15220 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

punishable under Section 143, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC against the said accused.

¶29

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the statements of witnesses, namely CW2 to CW5, in spite of having the knowledge about the incident, they did not inform the Police and therefore, even they have committed the offence. Drawing the attention of the Court to the statements and further statements of the said witnesses, the learned counsel vehemently contented that they were present when the deceased was beaten up and killed, therefore, the Investigating Officer ought to have arrayed them as accused in the case.

¶30

I have carefully perused the statements and further statements of CW2 - G Sollapuri @ Sollapuradappa, CW3 – S Peddanna, CW4 – Seetharam and CW5-Eshwar S . Their statements do not reveal even minutely about their participation in the commission of the offence. On the other hand, it is seen that they are witnesses to the incident. That being so, the Investigating Officer has rightly recorded their statements and cited them as witnesses in the charge sheet.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:49733 WP No. 15220 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In fact, the statements show that they have tried to save the deceased by giving him first aid.

¶35

The contention raised by the learned counsel that further investigation is required in the case on the ground that CW2 to CW5 have also committed an offence, is misconceived. At the cost of repetition, the statements of CW2 to CW5 do not reveal their participation in the commission of the offence even

¶36

remotely. Hence, there is no merit in the petition.

¶37