KADUGODI POLICE STATION vs A1. VENKATESH K — 106/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S,341,323,307,504,R/W,34,OF,IPC. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 28th March 2026.
SC - SESSION CASES
CNR: KABR010012102024
Filing Number
106/2024
Filing Date
11-Mar-2024
Registration No
106/2024
Registration Date
11-Mar-2024
Court
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
Judge
536-Prl.district And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
28-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
238
Police Station
KADUGODI PS
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KADUGODI POLICE STATION
Adv. PP
Respondent(s)
-
1.A1. VENKATESH K
-
2.A2. RATHAN V
-
3.A3. NARAYANAPPA
-
4.A4. GANGAMMA C
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Mar-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Summary of Sessions Case No. 106/2024 The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District acquitted all four accused (Venkatesh K., Rathan V., Narayanappa, and Gangamma C.) on March 28, 2026, for offences under IPC sections 504, 506, 341, 323, 307, and 114 in a case involving alleged assault, criminal intimidation, and wrongful restraint. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the complainant (the alleged victim) did not testify despite being issued proclamation, the independent panch witness turned hostile and claimed ignorance of the incident, and only formal evidence from the investigating officer and medical doctor was available. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Mar-2026
Disposed
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Judgement
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
313 StatementView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Accused Statement u/s 313 CrPC
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
05-Jan-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
15-Dec-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
08-Oct-2025
Fdt
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
06-Oct-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
09-Sep-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
08-Sep-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
08-Sep-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
16-Jul-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
15-Jul-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
16-May-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
16-May-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
15-May-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
27-Mar-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
26-Mar-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
29-Jan-2025
Evidnce
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
28-Jan-2025
Evidnce
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
29-Nov-2024
Evidnce
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
12-Nov-2024
Call for property
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
05-Nov-2024
Charge
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
30-Sep-2024
Charge
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
04-Sep-2024
Charge
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
23-Jul-2024
Hbc
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
25-Jun-2024
Summons
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
07-May-2024
Summons
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 106/2024
Summary of Sessions Case No. 106/2024 The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District acquitted all four accused (Venkatesh K., Rathan V., Narayanappa, and Gangamma C.) on March 28, 2026, for offences under IPC sections 504, 506, 341, 323, 307, and 114 in a case involving alleged assault, criminal intimidation, and wrongful restraint. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the complainant (the alleged victim) did not testify despite being issued proclamation, the independent panch witness turned hostile and claimed ignorance of the incident, and only formal evidence from the investigating officer and medical doctor was available. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts