A Special Court in Bengaluru has delivered a verdict acquitting Congress MLA BK Sangamesha, alongside four others, in relation to an alleged assault case dating back to 2010. The case involved accusations of an attack on C Mahesh Kumar and his sister Jayamma in Shivamogga. The acquittal was handed down by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shivaprasad KB, who exonerated Sangamesha, BK Mohan, Ganesh, Basavaraj, and Jagadeesh alias Jagannath.
The accused were initially charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B), rioting (Section 147), attempted murder (Section 307 read with Section 149 for unlawful assembly), and voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 326 read with Section 149). However, the trial uncovered profound deficiencies in the investigation process. At one point, a man with mental illness named Jagadish was wrongly implicated as a scapegoat to divert attention from the politically influential accused. Jagadish was later discharged in 2018 due to his mental unfitness to testify.
The court’s final pronouncement emphasized the flawed investigation and directed that the matter be referred to an Acquittal Review Committee. This committee is tasked with identifying and taking action against the officials responsible for the investigation lapses.
The incident in question allegedly occurred in May 2010, following a wrestling event related to the Haladamma Devi festival in Bhadravati. The prosecution alleged that Sangamesha and his associates attacked Mahesh Kumar with lethal weapons. Jayamma purportedly suffered injuries while intervening in the altercation. Mahesh Kumar lodged a complaint the subsequent day, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) by the Paper Town police.
Initially, the FIR named five individuals, but during the investigation, Jagadish was apprehended as a sixth suspect. The police’s shift in narrative led to a chargesheet against Jagadish, while initially dropping accusations against Sangamesha and the others. During the trial, the prosecution, relying on witness testimonies, invoked Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to reinstate charges against Sangamesha and the others. The court granted this application.
The special court’s findings highlighted significant investigation faults. It noted that accused no.6, Jagadish, was apprehended without substantial evidence. The prosecution failed to present his alleged confession or evidence of his purported involvement with Jayamma. The investigation also neglected to examine the role of Sangamesha and others, despite specific allegations in the initial complaint. Notably, no test identification parade was conducted for Jagadish, despite witness accounts of an unknown assailant attacking Jayamma.
The court’s judgment pointed out that Jayamma later provided statements and a video implicating the five accused, which the investigation ignored. The court ruled that the investigation’s glaring defects made it impossible to substantiate the charges against the accused, thus entitling them to the benefit of the doubt.
The court abstained from recommending compensation for the victim, questioning the credibility of Mahesh Kumar’s testimony. The defense was represented by Advocate C H Hanumantharaya.
