Acquitting five accused in a 2010 attempt-to-murder case, a Bengaluru special court found the investigation “deliberately defective,” observing that a poor, mentally-ill man appeared to have been made a “scapegoat” and arrested without any definite basis to shield politically influential accused, and directed the case to the Acquittal Review Committee to fix responsibility.
Bengaluru: A special court in Bengaluru, designated exclusively to try criminal cases involving sitting and former MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, has acquitted five accused in a 2010 attempt-to-murder case arising out of alleged political enmity, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the investigation was “defective and improper.” The Court further directed that the case be placed before the Acquittal Review Committee to identify the officials responsible for the defective investigation and to take appropriate action against them [State v. Sangamesha and Others].
The LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Special Court for MP/MLA cases), acquitted the five, who had been arraigned as accused during the trial, of the offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 307 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), extending them the benefit of doubt. Having been acquitted, the five stand cleared, and the presumption of innocence in their favour remains intact.
The case
The prosecution’s case, on the complaint of the first informant, was that in May 2010, in the background of political enmity, the accused followed him to his sister’s house and, armed with deadly weapons, attacked him and his sister, causing grievous injury to her. An FIR was registered against the five and their companions. However, the investigation took an unusual turn: after the matter was handed over to the CID pursuant to a Karnataka High Court order on the injured woman’s petition, the investigating agency filed the charge-sheet against a different man, referred to in the record as accused no. 6, and dropped the original five accused.
The five were subsequently brought back into the case during the trial, when the prosecution, after examining witnesses, applied under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the provision that empowers a court to summon and try persons not named as accused if the evidence discloses their involvement, and that application was allowed. Accused no. 6, meanwhile, was discharged after the court found no incriminating evidence against him.
‘A scapegoat’: the Court’s findings on the investigation
The most striking part of the judgment concerns the Court’s assessment of how the investigation was conducted. The Court found that accused no. 6, a man of poor means, had a documented history of mental illness, having been diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder and having been under medical supervision, including at NIMHANS, for a substantial period during the pendency of the case. It noted that he had been apprehended on the basis of “suspicious behaviour,” with no definite basis shown for his arrest, that the panch witnesses did not support the seizures attributed to him, and that the forensic report on the alleged blood stains was inconclusive.
On that material, the Court recorded a serious inference against the investigating agency, observing that it appeared the accused had been falsely implicated by taking advantage of his mental illness. It held that it “may be true that in order to help the accused no. 1 to 5, who are politically influential persons, the investigating officers conducted defective investigation and made the accused no. 6 as a scapegoat, projected him as accused.” The Court noted that the mentally-ill man had been arrested without any definite basis, sent to judicial custody, and had remained in custody for a number of days, unable even to furnish surety after being granted default bail, as none of his family members were willing to take him in due to his condition. He had, the Court said, “suffered due to deliberate defective investigation by a responsible instrumentality of the State.”
Three conflicting versions, and unreliable testimony
Turning to the case against the five, the Court found the evidence riddled with infirmities. It doubted the very presence of the first informant at the scene, noting that no independent witness placed him there, that the assailants’ names were not disclosed to the medical officers at the earliest point, and that his account of having witnessed the incident could not be believed. The testimony of the injured woman and other related witnesses was found to be “interested” and internally contradictory on the manner of the incident, with the allegations shifting during the evidence from one accused to others.
Crucially, the Court noted that the evidence had thrown up “three set of versions since the complaint,” including one in which “one unknown person” was said to have attacked the injured woman. In the light of these defects and the emergence of the unknown-assailant version, the Court held that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the five beyond reasonable doubt, and that they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. It also declined to recommend compensation to the victim, finding the first informant’s evidence untruthful.
ALSO READ: Are Police Encounters Legal In India? Understanding The Law And The Controversies
The order
Acquitting all five accused under Section 235(1) CrPC, the Court directed the State to place the case before the Acquittal Review Committee, a mechanism instituted to review acquittals and identify lapses, to fix responsibility for the faulty investigation and to take appropriate action against the erring officials. It directed that the bail bonds continue for six months as required under Section 437-A CrPC, ordered the destruction of certain material objects and the confiscation of the weapon and bicycle after the appeal period.
Why the judgment matters
Beyond the acquittal itself, the judgment is a disquieting illustration of how a defective, and in the Court’s assessment possibly deliberate, investigation can both let the actually guilty escape and ensnare an innocent, vulnerable person. The Court’s finding that a poor, mentally-ill man appears to have been arrested without basis and projected as the accused to shield politically influential persons is a serious indictment of the investigative process, and its direction to the Acquittal Review Committee reflects a growing institutional effort to hold investigating agencies accountable when prosecutions collapse due to their own failings, rather than treating every acquittal as merely the end of a case.
The decision also underscores familiar but important principles of criminal adjudication: that an accused is entitled to acquittal where the prosecution’s own evidence yields multiple, irreconcilable versions of events; that “interested” testimony of related witnesses, unsupported by independent corroboration and contradicted on material particulars, cannot sustain a conviction; and that the power under Section 319 CrPC to add accused mid-trial does not lower the standard of proof they are ultimately entitled to. The acquittal restores the five accused to the presumption of innocence, while the referral to the Acquittal Review Committee leaves open the separate question of accountability for how the case was investigated. The order is that of a trial court and is subject to appeal.
Case: Spl. C.C. No. 828 of 2018
Court: LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Special Court for MP/MLA cases)
Date of Judgment: September 22, 2026