Bengaluru court acquits Congress MLA Sangamesha, four others in 2010 attack case

A Special Court in Bengaluru has acquitted sitting Congress Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) BK Sangamesha (BK Sangameshwar) and four others in a 2010 case involving allegations of an attack on one C Mahesh Kumar and his sister Jayamma at Shivamogga.

An Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shivaprasad KB acquitted Sangamesha, BK Mohan, Ganesh, Basavaraj and Jagadeesh alias Jagannath.

Sangamesha and the four other accused had been charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rioting under Section 147, attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly), and voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The trial court, however, found glaring defects in the probe. It also observed that at one stage of the investigation, a mentally ill man named Jagadish was made a scapegoat to shield the politically influential accused.

In 2018, Jagadish was discharged from the case after the court noted that he was mentally unfit to give evidence.

By its final verdict, the court has now acquitted Sangamesha and his associates, citing defects in the investigation.

It also directed the State to place the case before an Acquittal Review Committee to identify officials responsible for the defective investigation and take appropriate action against them.

The case involved allegations that in May 2010, Congress MLA BK Sangamesha and his associates, after attending the inauguration of a wrestling event held as part of the Haladamma Devi festival in Bhadravati, went to the house of Mahesh Kumar and attacked him with deadly weapons.

Mahesh Kumar’s sister Jayamma, was also allegedly assaulted when she intervened. Mahesh Kumar filed a complaint the next day at the Paper Town police, which registered the first information report (FIR).

The prosecution claimed that Mahesh Kumar had developed political rivalry with Sangamesha, who was then the local MLA.

The FIR was initially registered against five persons. During the investigation, police apprehended a sixth person named Jagadish, arrayed as accused no.6, and proceeded on a different theory that he was responsible for the assault.

The CID subsequently filed a chargesheet against accused No.6, while dropping Sangamesha and the other accused from the case.

During the trial, relying on the evidence of witnesses, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to arraign Sangamesha and the four others as accused. The application was eventually allowed, and they were brought into the case.

The special court found serious shortcomings in the investigation. It noted that accused no.6 had initially been apprehended merely on suspicion. The prosecution had neither produced his alleged confessional statement nor placed material supporting its theory regarding his alleged relationship with Jayamma.

The court further noted that despite specific allegations against Sangamesha and the other accused in the original complaint, the investigating officer had not investigated their alleged role. No test identification parade was also conducted in respect of accused no.6, despite witness statements referring to an unknown person having assaulted Jayamma.

The court noted that Jayamma had subsequently submitted statements and a videograph alleging the involvement of accused nos.1 to 5. However, the investigating officer did not investigate those allegations.

Glaring defects in the investigation were evident from the material on record, the court concluded. The court further found that accused no.6 appeared to have been falsely implicated, allegedly taking advantage of his mental illness.

The judgment noted that medical records showed that accused no.6 had been suffering from mental illness and had undergone treatment, including examination at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS) during the pendency of the proceedings.

The court held that in order to help the politically influential accused nos.1 to 5, the investigating officers appear to have made accused no.6 a “scapegoat."

The court described accused no.6 as a poor and mentally ill person who had been arrested without a definite basis and sent to judicial custody, causing him suffering as a result of the investigation.

At the same time, the Court made it clear that defects in the investigation, by themselves, could not establish the guilt of Sangamesha and the other accused.

The court found serious doubts regarding the presence of complainant Mahesh Kumar at the scene of the incident. It noted that a car driver, who could have been an important witness, had not been examined.

The evidence of Mahesh Kumar, Jayamma and other witnesses also contained contradictions regarding the manner in which the incident occurred, the court said.

The Court further noted that although Mahesh Kumar had shifted Jayamma to a hospital, the names of the alleged assailants were not disclosed to the medical officers at the earliest stage.

It found that three different versions of the incident had emerged. The original complaint implicating accused nos.1 to 5; subsequent evidence implicating accused nos.2 to 4; and material suggesting that an unknown person had assaulted Jayamma.

In view of such defects, the court ultimately ruled that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.

The court also declined to recommend compensation to the victim, observing that the evidence of Mahesh Kumar did not appear to be truthful.

Advocate C H Hanumantharaya appeared for the accused.

[Read Order]