Solving Crime: How a Bengaluru road rage murder case survived hostile witnesses to end in a conviction

The motorcycle stopped. Words were exchanged—sharp, brief, and escalating faster than anyone could anticipate. One of the men picked up a wooden log lying nearby and struck Koushal on the head. Ravi Prakash, who rushed forward to intervene, was also attacked. Before the situation could fully register, the two men fled into the darkness.

There was no chase. No prolonged fight. No history between the men. Just a sudden burst of violence between strangers, one that would prove fatal.

Koushal collapsed at the scene. He was rushed first to a nearby hospital and later shifted to Apollo Hospital on Bannerghatta Road. Four days later, on June 30, 2018, he died from severe head injuries.

At first glance, it seemed like a case that would follow a familiar pattern: a late-night altercation, swift police action, and a straightforward prosecution. In fact, the case moved with striking speed in its earliest phase.

However, what the police secured quickly in terms of arrests would take far longer to prove as fact. The case, which began with urgency and apparent clarity, would go on to be tested, challenged, and repeatedly strained over the next seven years.

The first setback

The case was taken up by the Mico Layout police station, with then inspector R M Ajay leading the investigation. But even as arrests were made swiftly, investigators were aware of a critical gap—the most important moment of the crime had not been captured.

There was no footage of the assault. “We had no direct CCTV from the spot. What we had was reconstruction,” Ajay said. “We were not working with a complete picture…only fragments.”

Those fragments came from scattered sources. A worker from a nearby establishment, who had been asleep inside, stepped out after hearing the commotion. By the time he reached the road, the assault was over. He saw the attackers only as they were leaving, but managed to note down what he believed was the motorcycle’s registration number. He later filed the complaint based on that recollection.

For a brief period, that detail appeared to give the investigation direction. But the clarity did not last. “The number plate initially given to us was not accurate,” Ajay recalled. “For some time, we were working with a lead that did not match.”

Investigators widened their approach. They analysed CCTV footage from surrounding junctions and roads, tracking vehicle movement across multiple cameras. Timestamps were compared and mismatches eliminated to reconstruct the sequence around the crime.

Gradually, a motorcycle matching the general description began to appear across different camera points. Its repeated presence helped investigators piece together a rough timeline—not of what was directly seen, but of what could be logically connected.

In parallel, field verification and interrogation helped narrow down suspects. This combination of technical tracking and on-ground work eventually led police to the two accused. Within 48 hours, the police had identified and arrested Girish V, 28, and Mahesh M K, 26. The alleged weapon was recovered, and a chargesheet was filed.

But what seemed like an open-and-shut case took seven years to prove: links had to be built, evidence pieced together, and though arrests came quickly, conviction did not.

Girish V, 28, and Mahesh M K, 26, were arrested within 48 hours of the road rage incident resulting in murder in Bengaluru.

Kannada, Hindi, and triggered egos?

In the early stages, the case was widely seen as road rage. An attempt to murder case was filed, but as the investigation progressed, that explanation began to feel insufficient. There had been no aggressive driving, no prolonged confrontation, no pursuit. What, then, had triggered such violence?

Koushal was on his way to Electronics City with a group of friends, driving ahead while others followed on a motorcycle. Along the way, he pulled over briefly to wait for them. As he stepped aside, a two-wheeler carrying the accused passed close by, its mirror brushing against him before continuing ahead. Reacting to the sudden contact, Koushal told them to be careful—first in Hindi, and then, as the exchange continued, in broken Kannada, an officer familiar with the investigation explained.

According to an officer, the turning point was not the caution itself, but how it was perceived. “The victim was speaking in broken Kannada; the accused, being locals, identified him as a non-local and questioned how someone from outside could tell them how to ride. That is how the argument escalated,” the officer added.

In that brief moment, the interaction shifted. What began as a routine warning was taken as a challenge. The issue was no longer about a minor road incident, but about identity and ego. “It was not planned. It happened in seconds,” Ajay said. “But those few seconds were enough.”

Losing eyewitnesses

The trial phase unfolded with uncertainty. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on eyewitness accounts, but as proceedings progressed in court, several key witnesses began to withdraw or contradict their earlier statements, significantly weakening the narrative built during the investigation.

Naveen, who was present in the car with Koushal on the night of the incident, denied witnessing the assault during his deposition. Surendra Naik stated that he had seen Koushal only later at the hospital and had no direct knowledge of the attack. Swamy, who was expected to support the identification of the accused, also turned hostile, claiming he was unaware of the case details. Another witness said he had signed statements at the police station without fully understanding their contents.

Richard Rai, another friend linked to the case, gave inconsistent testimony: he initially suggested he had seen the incident unfold, but later admitted he arrived after the assault and was relying on what others told him. With each reversal, the prosecution’s chain of eyewitness evidence weakened further, creating gaps that could not be bridged by direct visual proof.

Ajay said the turning of witnesses was one of the biggest setbacks in the trial. “Several witnesses turned hostile during the proceedings. In a case like this, where there is no direct footage of the assault, witness consistency becomes crucial,” he said.

One testimony holds the case

Amid the collapse of multiple eyewitness accounts, one testimony remained consistent throughout the trial—that of Prakash. As Koushal’s close friend and the complainant witness, he consistently maintained that after the initial exchange near the road, the accused returned and attacked Siddharth with a wooden log, while the second accused allegedly instigated the assault.

Even under cross-examination over several years, his version did not materially change. Investigators said this consistency became critical in anchoring the prosecution’s case at a stage when other oral evidence had fractured. “Ravi’s statement matched the medical and forensic findings, which strengthened its credibility.” Officer Ajai said

Medical reports confirmed that Koushal’s death was caused by severe head injuries inflicted by a blunt object. Forensic examination also detected human blood on the recovered wooden weapon. These findings, when read alongside the reconstructed CCTV trail of the accused’s movement, helped corroborate Prakash’s account.

As the trial stretched across nearly seven years, the case became less about a single straightforward narrative and more about piecing together surviving fragments of evidence. Delays caused by procedural factors and the COVID-19 pandemic further slowed proceedings, widening gaps in memory and testimony and some witnesses were even threatened.

Investigators noted that the passage of time itself became a challenge. By the time the trial approached its conclusion, what remained was a combination of forensic evidence, reconstructed movement through CCTV inputs, and the testimony of a single witness that aligned with the physical findings.

Together, these elements formed the final chain that the court ultimately relied upon to convict the accused.

Justice on Koushal’s birthday

On October 24, 2025, Koushal’s birthday, the court delivered its verdict.

Judge Balachandra N Bhat of the 59th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court found Girish V and Mahesh M K guilty of murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 10,000 each.

The court observed that striking a person on the head with a heavy object demonstrated clear knowledge that such an act could cause death and that the force used was disproportionate. “The accused No.1 (Girish) was not justified in having used disproportionate force to avenge the calling of the deceased to ride carefully,” the judgment stated.

For Koushal’s father, Koushalendar Kumar Pandey, the verdict marked the end of a long wait. “My son’s birthday was on October 24—the day the court pronounced both the accused guilty. I know my son won’t come back, but the conviction coming through on his birthday is justice delivered. A lot of witnesses in the case were threatened, but the police ensured their safety,” he said.