Back
Bengaluru Special Court Acquits Congress MLA BK Sangamesha in 2010 Attack Case
A has acquitted sitting Congress MLA B.K. Sangamesha and four others in a 2010 case involving allegations of an attack on a man and his sister, while sharply criticizing the investigation for being defective and biased. The court also observed that a mentally ill person was made a "" to shield the politically influential accused.
The Background: A Political Rivalry Turned Violent
The case dates back to , when complainant C. Mahesh Kumar alleged that Sangamesha—then the local MLA—along with his brothers and sons, attacked him and his sister Jayamma at her residence in Bhadravathi, Shivamogga. According to the prosecution, the attack was motivated by political rivalry stemming from the complainant's role in organizing a temple festival and wrestling competition without inviting the MLA.
The initial FIR named Sangamesha (accused no.1), B.K. Mohan (accused no.2), Ganesh (accused no.3), Basavaraj (accused no.4), and Jagadeesh @ Jagannath (accused no.5) as the assailants. However, during the investigation, the police arrested a sixth person—Jagadish—and proceeded on a completely different theory, eventually dropping Sangamesha and the others from the charge sheet. The later filed a charge sheet only against Jagadish.
The trial took a turn when the prosecution successfully moved an application under to arraign Sangamesha and the four others as additional accused. Jagadish was subsequently discharged in after the court found him , with medical records from confirming his mental illness.
The Court's Critical Findings
Judge Shivaprasad K.B. scrutinized the evidence and found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies. The court noted serious doubts about whether complainant Mahesh Kumar was actually present at the scene of the attack. His car driver, who could have corroborated his version, was never examined. The names of the alleged assailants were not disclosed to medical officers at the earliest opportunity, despite the complainant accompanying his injured sister to the hospital.
The judgment highlighted three conflicting versions of the incident: the original complaint naming all five accused; subsequent witness testimony implicating only accused nos. 2 to 4; and evidence suggesting that an unknown person had assaulted the victim.
"The presence of PW-1 at the house of PW-2 during the alleged incident is doubtful... and his evidence that he witnessed the incident cannot be believed,"
the court observed.
A Mentally Ill Person
The court was particularly scathing about the investigation's handling of accused no.6, Jagadish. It noted that he was arrested merely on suspicion, with no material to substantiate the alleged motive attributed to him. The panch witnesses did not support the seizure of evidence, and forensic reports were inconclusive.
"It appears 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
,"
the judgment stated.
The court noted that Jagadish, a poor, mentally ill person, was arrested without a definite basis, sent to judicial custody, and suffered as a result of the investigation.
The Verdict:
While acknowledging the defects in the investigation, the court clarified that these alone could not prove the guilt of the accused. Given the and the doubts surrounding the complainant's presence, the court granted the accused the .
Accordingly, the court acquitted all five accused of charges under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 147 (rioting), 307 (attempt to murder), and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) read with .
Order for Action Against Erring Officials
In a significant move, the court directed the State to place the case before the to identify the officials responsible for the defective investigation and take appropriate action against them. The court also declined to recommend compensation to the victim, stating that the evidence of the complainant did not appear truthful.
The judgment serves as a strong indictment of investigative lapses, particularly when they appear to favor politically influential individuals at the expense of a vulnerable mentally ill person.
