A Bengaluru special court has acquitted sitting Congress MLA BK Sangamesha and four others in a 2010 assault case involving allegations that a man and his sister were attacked in Shivamogga.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shivaprasad KB acquitted Sangamesha, BK Mohan, Ganesh, Basavaraj and Jagadeesh alias Jagannath, holding that the prosecution case was weakened by serious shortcomings in the investigation.
The court also directed the State to place the matter before the Acquittal Review Committee so that responsibility for the defective investigation could be examined and appropriate action considered.
The case arose from an incident in May 2010, following the inauguration of a wrestling event organised as part of the Haladamma Devi festival in Bhadravati.
According to the prosecution, Sangamesha and his associates later went to the residence of C Mahesh Kumar and allegedly attacked him with deadly weapons. Mahesh Kumar’s sister, Jayamma, was also allegedly assaulted when she intervened.
A complaint was lodged at the Paper Town police station the following day.
Sangamesha, who was the local MLA at the time, was alleged to have been involved in the attack because of a political rivalry with Mahesh Kumar.
The initial FIR named five persons. However, the investigation later took a different course, with police arresting another man, Jagadish, on suspicion and treating him as the person responsible for the assault.
The CID subsequently filed a chargesheet against Jagadish while dropping Sangamesha and the other named accused from the case.
That position changed during the trial. Based on witness evidence, the prosecution sought to bring Sangamesha and the four others back into the proceedings under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was allowed and the five were arraigned as accused.
The trial court, however, found several gaps in the investigation.
It noted that Jagadish had initially been taken into custody merely on suspicion. His alleged confession was not produced before the court, while material supporting the prosecution’s theory about his alleged relationship with Jayamma was also absent.
The court further observed that the investigating officer failed to properly examine the allegations made against Sangamesha and the other accused in the original complaint. No test identification parade was conducted in relation to Jagadish, despite witness accounts referring to an unidentified person having assaulted Jayamma.
Jayamma later submitted statements and a videograph alleging the involvement of the original accused. Those allegations, the court noted, were not properly investigated either.
The court also took note of Jagadish’s medical history. Records showed that he had been suffering from mental illness and had received treatment, including examination at NIMHANS during the proceedings.
In 2018, Jagadish was discharged from the case after the court found that he was not mentally fit to give evidence.
The trial court observed that the investigation appeared to have resulted in Jagadish being used as a “scapegoat” while the role of the politically influential accused was not adequately examined. It described him as a poor and mentally ill person who had been arrested without a firm evidentiary basis and sent to judicial custody.
At the same time, the court stressed that shortcomings in an investigation cannot, on their own, establish the guilt of the accused who stood trial.
The evidence itself raised substantial questions, the court found.
There were doubts about whether Mahesh Kumar was actually present at the scene in the manner alleged. A car driver who could have provided potentially important evidence was never examined.
The testimonies of Mahesh Kumar, Jayamma and other witnesses also contained contradictions concerning how the assault took place.
The court further noted that although Mahesh Kumar took Jayamma to hospital, the names of the alleged attackers were not disclosed to medical personnel at the earliest opportunity.
As a result, three different versions of the incident emerged during the proceedings: the original complaint naming the first group of accused, later evidence implicating some of them, and material suggesting that an unidentified person had assaulted Jayamma.
Against this backdrop, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to Sangamesha and the other accused.
The court also declined to recommend compensation for the victim, observing that Mahesh Kumar’s evidence did not appear sufficiently reliable.
C H Hanumantharaya represented the accused.
