KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION vs A1. PRANESHA — 28/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S,341,307,323,504,506,34,OF,IPC. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSION CASES

CNR: KABR010024812021

Filing Number

28/2021

Filing Date

11-Feb-2021

Registration No

28/2021

Registration Date

11-Feb-2021

Court

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL

Judge

536-Prl.district And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

168

Police Station

KAGGALIPURA PS

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section U/S,341,307,323,504,506,34,OF,IPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION

    Adv. A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A1. PRANESHA

  2. 2.A2. SOUMYA

  3. 3.A3. SHRIDHAR NAIDU N.

  4. 4.A4. POORNACHANDRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Summary of Sessions Case No. 28/2021 Court: Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District Decision Date: 24th March, 2026 Key Facts On 22 August 2020, after completing welding work at Accused No.1 Pranesha's house, complainant G. Brahmaiah demanded payment of ₹35,000 (with a balance of ₹20,000 already advanced). When payment was refused, a dispute arose. Brahmaiah sustained a fractured left leg requiring surgical intervention, claiming he was assaulted by all four accused with iron implements. Court's Decision All four accused (Pranesha, Soumya, Shridhar Naidu, and Poornachandra) were acquitted of charges under sections 341, 323, 326, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Key Reasoning 1. Lack of eyewitness corroboration: Only the injured party (P.W.1) testified to the assault; P.W.2-4 arrived after the incident occurred. 2. 10-15 bystanders present but not examined: When rescue arrived, numerous persons were at the spot, but prosecution failed to examine any independent eyewitnesses. 3. Alternative explanation: The court noted Brahmaiah was carrying heavy welding equipment (5-6 kg machine plus tools) while walking away frustrated about unpaid wages, suggesting his injury may have resulted from equipment falling rather than assault. 4. Reasonable doubt: Without independent corroboration, the court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. Bail bonds continued for six months pending any appeals. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  7. 21-Feb-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  9. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  10. 31-Jan-2026

    313 Statement

  11. 31-Jan-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  12. 13-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  13. 29-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  14. 12-Dec-2025

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  15. 08-Dec-2025

    Order

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  16. 29-Nov-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  17. 22-Nov-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  18. 18-Nov-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  19. 04-Nov-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  20. 09-Oct-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  21. 17-Sep-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  22. 02-Sep-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  23. 20-Aug-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  24. 06-Aug-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  25. 04-Aug-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  26. 21-Jul-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  27. 03-Jul-2025

    Deposition

  28. 03-Jul-2025

    Objection

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  29. 11-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  30. 07-May-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  31. 24-Apr-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  32. 09-Apr-2025

    To hear on application

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  33. 27-Mar-2025

    Deposition

  34. 27-Mar-2025

    Objection

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  35. 11-Mar-2025

    Deposition

  36. 11-Mar-2025

    Deposition

  37. 11-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  38. 10-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  39. 20-Feb-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  40. 19-Feb-2025

    Deposition

  41. 19-Feb-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  42. 30-Jan-2025

    Deposition

  43. 30-Jan-2025

    Deposition

  44. 30-Jan-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  45. 29-Jan-2025

    Deposition

  46. 29-Jan-2025

    Deposition

  47. 29-Jan-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  48. 28-Jan-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  49. 27-Nov-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  50. 26-Nov-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  51. 25-Nov-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  52. 03-Oct-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  53. 29-Aug-2024

    Await Property

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  54. 06-Aug-2024

    Call for property

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  55. 02-Jul-2024

    Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  56. 11-Jun-2024

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  57. 15-May-2024

    For Reply

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  58. 24-Apr-2024

    For Reply

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  59. 26-Mar-2024

    For Reply

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  60. 04-Mar-2024

    For Reply

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  61. 14-Feb-2024

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  62. 05-Jan-2024

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  63. 14-Dec-2023

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  64. 28-Nov-2023

    Call On

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  65. 04-Nov-2023

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  66. 16-Sep-2023

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  67. 05-Aug-2023

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  68. 14-Jul-2023

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  69. 01-Jul-2023

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  70. 13-Jun-2023

    Call On

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  71. 26-May-2023

    NBW To Accused

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  72. 18-Mar-2023

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  73. 17-Feb-2023

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  74. 02-Feb-2023

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  75. 17-Jan-2023

    Further Arguments

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  76. 16-Jan-2023

    Order

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  77. 07-Jan-2023

    Order

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  78. 05-Dec-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  79. 29-Oct-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  80. 28-Sep-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  81. 16-Aug-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  82. 16-Jul-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  83. 02-Jul-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  84. 16-Jun-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  85. 16-May-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  86. 06-Apr-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  87. 07-Mar-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  88. 11-Feb-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  89. 17-Jan-2022

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  90. 27-Dec-2021

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  91. 06-Dec-2021

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  92. 08-Nov-2021

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  93. 07-Oct-2021

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  94. 08-Sep-2021

    Hbc

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  95. 18-Aug-2021

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  96. 13-Jul-2021

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  97. 07-Jun-2021

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  98. 27-Apr-2021

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  99. 26-Apr-2021

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  100. 24-Apr-2021

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  101. 19-Mar-2021

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  102. 15-Feb-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  103. 11-Feb-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 28/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Sessions Case No. 28/2021 Court: Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District Decision Date: 24th March, 2026 Key Facts On 22 August 2020, after completing welding work at Accused No.1 Pranesha's house, complainant G. Brahmaiah demanded payment of ₹35,000 (with a balance of ₹20,000 already advanced). When payment was refused, a dispute arose. Brahmaiah sustained a fractured left leg requiring surgical intervention, claiming he was assaulted by all four accused with iron implements. Court's Decision All four accused (Pranesha, Soumya, Shridhar Naidu, and Poornachandra) were acquitted of charges under sections 341, 323, 326, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Key Reasoning 1. Lack of eyewitness corroboration: Only the injured party (P.W.1) testified to the assault; P.W.2-4 arrived after the incident occurred. 2. 10-15 bystanders present but not examined: When rescue arrived, numerous persons were at the spot, but prosecution failed to examine any independent eyewitnesses. 3. Alternative explanation: The court noted Brahmaiah was carrying heavy welding equipment (5-6 kg machine plus tools) while walking away frustrated about unpaid wages, suggesting his injury may have resulted from equipment falling rather than assault. 4. Reasonable doubt: Without independent corroboration, the court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. Bail bonds continued for six months pending any appeals. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case