BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION vs A3. MANJUNATHA K N — 244/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S,143,144,399,402,R/W,149,OF,IPC. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th April 2026.
SC - SESSION CASES
CNR: KABR010039522024
Filing Number
244/2024
Filing Date
11-Sep-2024
Registration No
244/2024
Registration Date
11-Sep-2024
Court
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
Judge
536-Prl.district And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
27-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
95
Police Station
BYADARAHALLI PS
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION
Adv. PP
Respondent(s)
-
1.A3. MANJUNATHA K N
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Apr-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Summary of Sessions Case 244/2024 Court Decision: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, acquitted accused Manjunatha K.N. (Accused No.3) under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 IPC (dacoity and assembly of gang for dacoity). Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of independent corroborating witnesses. While police witnesses testified that the accused was caught with deadly weapons (iron rods and chilly powder packets) preparing to commit dacoity, the essential independent panch witnesses contradicted the prosecution's narrative—claiming they never actually witnessed the seizure. The court held that mere possession of weapons without proven criminal intent is insufficient, and absent credible independent verification, the evidence remained unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
27-Apr-2026
Disposed
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
17-Apr-2026
313 StatementView PDF
-
17-Apr-2026
Judgement
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
09-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
09-Apr-2026
Accused Statement u/s 313 CrPC
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
21-Jan-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
21-Jan-2026
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
29-Dec-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
02-Dec-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
01-Dec-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Fdt
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
17-Sep-2025
Fdt
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
28-Aug-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
16-Jul-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
11-Jun-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
24-Apr-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
28-Mar-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
27-Mar-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
27-Mar-2025
Call On
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
18-Mar-2025
Evidence
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
28-Feb-2025
Call for property
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2025
Charge
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
09-Jan-2025
Charge
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
23-Nov-2024
Hbc
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
28-Oct-2024
Hbc
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
30-Sep-2024
Furnish Surety by
Prl.district And Sessions Judge
-
11-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 244/2024
Summary of Sessions Case 244/2024 Court Decision: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, acquitted accused Manjunatha K.N. (Accused No.3) under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 IPC (dacoity and assembly of gang for dacoity). Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of independent corroborating witnesses. While police witnesses testified that the accused was caught with deadly weapons (iron rods and chilly powder packets) preparing to commit dacoity, the essential independent panch witnesses contradicted the prosecution's narrative—claiming they never actually witnessed the seizure. The court held that mere possession of weapons without proven criminal intent is insufficient, and absent credible independent verification, the evidence remained unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts