Allowed¶65

Chetan @ Benki v. State by Hebbagudi Police

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026CRL.RP/1071/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017; Chetan @ Benki v. State by Hebbagudi Police Station; Crime No.73/2014; Sections 323 & 307 IPC; J.C.No.20/2014 (Juvenile Justice Board); Crl.A.No.5003/2014 (III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anekal); acquittal in criminal revision under S.397/401 Cr.P.C.; non-examination of Investigating Officer held fatal; inconsistent eye-witness evidence of PWs.1 to 3; seized knife and blood stained clothes not produced as material objects; decided 05-01-2026 by Justice S Vishwajith Shetty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the Juvenile Justice Board in J.C.No.20/2014 dated 10.09.2014 and the judgment dated 10.10.2017 in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge sheeted offences; bail bond, if any, cancelled. ¶65

Chetan @ Benki Vs State by Hebbagudi Police — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Court (Juvenile Justice Board) and confirmed by the Appellate Court solely on the deposition of PWs.1 to 3 were sustainable, notwithstanding inconsistencies in that evidence and other infirmities in the prosecution case. +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

The deposition of PWs.1 to 3 is not consistent; the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner solely on the basis of that inconsistent evidence.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer, who investigated the case, filed the charge sheet and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, is a very material witness; his non-examination without any explanation offered by the prosecution would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶57

Key takeaways

Neither the blood stained clothes of the injured nor the weapon used by the petitioner was produced and marked as material object; the seized blood stained cloths and weapon were merely shown to the panch witnesses at the Police Station, which undermined the prosecution case.ratio¶51
The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court cannot be sustained; accordingly the criminal revision petition is allowed, both judgments are set aside, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge sheeted offences and his bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C. — Petitioner, tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District in J.C.No.20/2014 for offences under Sections 323 & 307 IPC (Crime No.73/2014, Hebbagodi Police Station), was convicted on 10.09.2014 and sentenced to three years imprisonment in a State Home; the conviction was confirmed and the first appeal dismissed by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (Anekal) on 10.10.2017 in Crl.A.No.5003/2014. Held: the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt — the Investigating Officer who recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 was not examined and his non-examination is fatal to the prosecution case; the deposition of PWs.1 to 3, the only eye witnesses, is not consistent; and the seized blood stained clothes and knife were never produced or marked as material objects. Conviction resting solely on such evidence cannot be sustained. Revision allowed; both judgments set aside; petitioner acquitted; bail bond cancelled. (Single Judge: S Vishwajith Shetty; decided 05.01.2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1071 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHETAN @ BENKI S/O ASHOK AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS AND AGED BELOW 17 YEARS AS ON 10/9/2014, RESIDING AT NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE AATTI BELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST - 562 107.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAMESH ADHITHYA, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY HEBBAGUDI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 099 REP. BY SR. SPP ATTACHED TO HON'BLE COURT.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2014 AND SENTENCE DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRSH CLASS, AND JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN J.C.NO.20/2014 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL IN CRL.A.NO.5003/2014 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT BY DISMISSING THE FIRST APPEAL AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C is filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District in J.C.No.20/2014 dated 10.09.2014 and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal).

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

parties.

¶24

The petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 307 of IPC in Crime No.73/2014 registered by Hebbagodi Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.02.2024 at about 8.00 p.m,, the petitioner had quarrelled with PW.2 - Asif @ Asif Khan and had assaulted him with a knife and caused injuries. When his brother Shajjad (PW.3) and Mudasir (PW1) tried to intervene he also assaulted them and caused injuries. The injured were taken to hospital and treated.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Based on the first information submitted by PW.1 - Mudasir, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and he was tried for the charge sheeted offences in J.C.No.20/2014 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and had got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of accused he had not led any evidence nor was any documents got marked on his behalf. The Trial Court had recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and heard the arguments addressed on both sides. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2014 the petitioner was convicted for the alleged offences in J.C.No.20/2014 and was sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment in a State Home. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in J.C.No.20/2014 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 dated 10.10.2017 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7. PWs.1 to 3 are said to be alleged eye witnesses in the present case and amongst them PWs.2 and 3 are the injured. According to prosecution, the incident in question had taken place at about 8.00 p.m, on 01.02.2014. PW1 is the first informant in the present case and FIR in Crime No.73/2014 was registered against the petitioner, based in the first information which was submitted at 2.15 a.m, on 02.02.2014.

¶34

Perusal of the averments found in the first information would go to show that the petitioner / accused was a stranger to the first informant. In the first information, it is stated that initially the injured was taken to Vimalalaya hospital and thereafter to Sparsh hospital and subsequently to Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru. However, during the course of deposition PWs.1 to 3 have stated the injured was initially taken to

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Narayana Hrudayala hospital before he was taken to Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru.

¶39

According to PW1, blood stained clothes of the injured and knife which was used by the petitioner / accused to assault PWs.2 and 3 were produced by them before the Police Station. Ex.P4 is the Seizure Mahazar under which the weapon used to commit crime was seized by the police. As per the said document, the seizure of the weapon was from the spot of crime. It is not in dispute that neither the blood stained clothes

¶40

of the injured nor the weapon used by the petitioner / accused to commit crime has been produced and marked as material object on behalf of the prosecution in the present case.

¶41

PW.2 is the injured eye witness in the present case. However, this witness has not spoken about the presence of PW1 at the spot of incident nor he has spoken about PW.1 accompanying him to the hospital immediately after the incident in question had taken place. PW2 has stated that his brother Shajjad (PW.3) had come to the spot after the petitioner / accused had assaulted him with a knife. He has

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

stated that when PW.3 tried to intervene the petitioner / accused also assaulted him and caused injury near his left ear. This witness has not mentioned the time of incident nor has he correctly mentioned the name of hospital to which he was shifted immediately after the alleged incident in question had taken place.

¶46

PW.3 is said to be a injured eye witness in the present case. However, PW.3 has not taken any treatment in any hospital nor his wound certificate has been produced and marked in the present case. Except PWs.1 to 3 there are no other eye witness to the incident in question though the incident in question had taken place in a public place near a college.

¶47

PWs.4 and 5 are the panch witnesses to the recovery mahazar. According to PW.1 blood stained clothes and the weapon used to commit the crime were produced by them in the Police Station. Even PWs.4 and 5 have stated that they were summoned to the Police Station and blood stained clothes and knife was shown to them in the Police Station. However,

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the seized blood stained cloths and weapon has not been produced and marked as material objects in the present case.

¶52

PW.6 is the doctor who had treated PW.2 in Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru. According to PW.6, PW.2 has suffered one grievous injury and remaining injures were all simple in nature. Wound certificate of PW.2 is produced at Ex.P5. According this witness, PW.2 was examined by him in the hospital at about 8.00 p.m, on 01.02.2014. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident in question itself has taken place on 01.02.2014 at 8.00 p.m and before the injured was shifted to Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru, he was earlier taken to two hospitals and in the first hospital first aid treatment was given to the injured PW.2.

¶53

PW.7 is the police constable who had carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Court from the Police Station. This witness is not a part of investigation conducted in the present case. The police officer who has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution and no explanation has been offered by the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

prosecution for not examining this witness. The Investigating Officer is a very material witness and non-examination of this material witness would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The deposition of PWs.1 to 3 is not consistent and Investigating Officer who had recorded their statement during the course of investigation has not been examined in the present case. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and only based on the deposition of PWs.1 to 3 the petitioner has been convicted for the alleged offences in the present case. In my considered opinion, the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the Courts were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the charge sheet offences solely based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 which is not consistent. The prosecution has failed to not only examine the material charge sheet witnesses, but independent eye witnesses are also not examined in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences and therefore the impugned judgment and

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:295 CRL.RP No. 1071 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the

¶62

Appellate Court cannot be sustained.

¶63

Accordingly, the following :-

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶66

The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District in J.C.No.20/2014 dated 10.09.2014 and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal) are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge sheeted offences. His bail bond, if any stands cancelled.

¶67

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶68

NMS

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Chetan @ Benki v. State by Hebbagudi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan @ Benki v. State by Hebbagudi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subramanya Vs Muniyappa Since Deceased by His Sons

Smt. Latha Prakash Vs Smt Venkatalakshmamma

Prakash Hegde Vs Seetharama Shetty

G.Sharaschandra Vs Chandrashekar

Sri S Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

D M Nagaraju Vs Sri Anil S