AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION vs A1. NAGAMMA — 273/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S,506,504,307,323,114,R/W,149,OF,IPC. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSION CASES

CNR: KABR010050372023

Filing Number

271/2023

Filing Date

06-Nov-2023

Registration No

273/2023

Registration Date

06-Nov-2023

Court

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL

Judge

536-Prl.district And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

2

Police Station

AVALAHALLI PS

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section U/S,506,504,307,323,114,R/W,149,OF,IPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION

    Adv. PP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A1. NAGAMMA

  2. 2.A2. KAVITHA

  3. 3.A3. JAYAMMA

  4. 4.A4. SUNANDAMMA

  5. 5.A5. MUNIRAJU

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Summary of Sessions Case No. 273/2023 Court Decision: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, acquitted all five accused persons (Nagamma, Kavitha, Jayamma, Sunandamma, and Muniraju) under Section 235(1) CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 307, 323, 327, and 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The two injured witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.6) turned partly hostile, and their evidence was not supported by other witnesses examined. The court noted no independent witnesses were produced, the medical evidence showed only simple injuries, and the materials on record were insufficient to establish the alleged offences. Consequently, the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  5. 02-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    313 StatementView PDF

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments.

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  10. 17-Mar-2026

    Accused Statement u/s 313 CrPC

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  11. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  12. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  13. 20-Feb-2026

    Objection

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  14. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  15. 17-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  16. 14-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  17. 14-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 14-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  19. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  20. 27-Nov-2025

    Fdt

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  21. 29-Oct-2025

    Fdt

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  22. 18-Sep-2025

    Fdt

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  23. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  24. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  25. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  26. 22-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  27. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  28. 12-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  29. 11-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  30. 10-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  31. 20-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  32. 19-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  33. 18-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  34. 19-Feb-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  35. 18-Feb-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  36. 18-Feb-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  37. 18-Feb-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  38. 18-Feb-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  39. 17-Feb-2025

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  40. 12-Dec-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  41. 11-Dec-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  42. 10-Dec-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  43. 25-Oct-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  44. 25-Oct-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  45. 24-Oct-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  46. 23-Oct-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  47. 23-Oct-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  48. 19-Sep-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  49. 18-Sep-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  50. 17-Sep-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  51. 05-Aug-2024

    Evidnce

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  52. 26-Jun-2024

    Await Property

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  53. 20-May-2024

    Await Property

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  54. 06-Apr-2024

    Await Property

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  55. 14-Mar-2024

    ChargeView PDF

  56. 14-Mar-2024

    Fdt

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  57. 31-Jan-2024

    Hear Before Charge

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  58. 18-Dec-2023

    Appearance Of Accussed

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  59. 07-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  60. 06-Nov-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 273/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Sessions Case No. 273/2023 Court Decision: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, acquitted all five accused persons (Nagamma, Kavitha, Jayamma, Sunandamma, and Muniraju) under Section 235(1) CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 307, 323, 327, and 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The two injured witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.6) turned partly hostile, and their evidence was not supported by other witnesses examined. The court noted no independent witnesses were produced, the medical evidence showed only simple injuries, and the materials on record were insufficient to establish the alleged offences. Consequently, the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case