Bangalore District Court
State By Chennammanakere Achukattu vs No. 1. Suresh on 16 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2016
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. MADHUSUDHAN B.,
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.358/2009
COMPLAINANT:- State by Chennammanakere Achukattu
Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED No. 1. Suresh,
S/o. Mutthappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o. Thalluru village,
Kundapura taluk,
Udupi district.
C/o. Shanthisagar Hotel,
30th Main, Atthimabbe Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru-85.
2. K.Gopal,
S/o. Mahalinga Poojari,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o. Kenchanuru village,
Shettarakatte,
Karakunji Post,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District.
Presently R/at.
No.10, 1st Cross,
2 S.C.No.358/2009
Ramakrishna Nagara,
Kanakapura Road,
J.P.Nagara Post,
Bengaluru,
Owner of Shanthisagar Hotel,
30th Main, Atthimabbe Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru-85.
3. Suresha @ Suri,
S/o. Rajanna,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at.No.26, Old Bank Colony,
Konanakunte,
Bengaluru-67.
1. Date of commission of offence : 9.12.2007
2. Date of report of offence : 08.1.2008
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : A.1 to A.3 on 9.1.2008
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Ramesha
5. Date of recording evidence : 5.8.2014
6. Date of closing evidence : 10.6.2016
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec. 302, 201, 506 of
IPC. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : accused No.1 to 3 are
Acquitted U/s. 235(1)
of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Smt. M.Gayathri, Advocate.
3 S.C.No.358/2009
JUDGMENT
Inspector of Police of Chennammanakere Achukattu Police station, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3, for trial of offences punishable U/s.302, 201, 114 and 506 of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.6/2008.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case may be stated as under; On 11.12.2007 at about 8.00 a.m., one Nanjappa S/o. Puttaswamy of Mayaganahalli of Ramanagara taluk (Pw.6) was proceeding to his agricultural land. When he was proceeding near Grave Yard, B.M.Road, Muslim Community Burial Ground he noticed laying of one dead body just by the side of drainage. Therefore, he went to Ramanagara Rural police station and lodged a written report about laying of one dead body near drainage. On the basis of such written report P.S.I., Ramanagar Rural Police station registered one criminal case U/s.174 of Cr.P.C., in UDR.No.27/2007. P.S.I., of Ramanagar Rural Police Station secured the presence of witnesses and conducted inquest during which he has recorded statements of residents of Mayaganahalli. He also took photos of dead body laying on the spot. Thereafter, P.M. Examination was conducted with the assistance of Pw.21/ doctor, who was then serving at Ramanagar District Hospital. Thereafter dead body was cremated for which also a mahazar is 4 S.C.No.358/2009 conducted. However, P.S.I., has started further investigation by sending message of death of unknown person, to other police stations.
3. Meanwhile, on 8.1.2008 Ramesh S/o. Uttappa/Cw.1 submitted written report to Chennammanakere Achukattu police station, in which it is alleged that, he is serving in Shanthi Sagar Deluxe Hotel situated at 3rd Main Road, 3rd Stage, Banashankari Bengaluru city. In the report, it is also contended that, Gopal/accused No.2 is the owner of the said hotel in which Suresh/accused No.1 is the Manager of the said hotel. In the said report, informant mentioned that on 9.12.2007 at about 1.30 p.m., manager of the said hotel by name Suresh brought one person aged about 30 or 35 years to serve in the said hotel. Said person after finishing his lunch in the said hotel was directed by accused No.1/Suresh to commence his work in the hotel, for which said person requested Suresh to commence his service in the said hotel, from next day, since he was not keeping good health, on that day. For which Suresh got annoyed and assaulted him with his hand on his cheek. Accused No.1/Suresh also assaulted him on his stomach as well as on his chest, due to which, said person fell down. Meanwhile, accused No.1/Suresh kicked to his testicals, due to which he succumbed to injuries. This incident was witnessed by Cw.1/Ramesh/ informant and other persons who were serving in the said hotel, as suppliers, cook, and vegetable cutters. Thereafter, 5 S.C.No.358/2009 accused No.1/Suresh kept the dead body in a hotel store room and locked it. On the same day, during night owner of the hotel by name K. Gopal/accused No.2, returned to the hotel, at that time, accused No.1 narrated the incident. Thereafter, on the same day, both accused No.1 and 2 took gunny bags, in which they kept the dead body and on the same day, accused No.2/Gopal transported dead body in his own vehicle bearing No.KA-01-M-8524 with the help of accused No.3/Suresh, who was the driver of the said vehicle. Thus, dead body was thrown near Muslim Community Grave Yard, Mayaganahalli. On the basis of such written report, police concerned have registered a case against accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.6/2008. On 9.1.2008 police concerned have apprehended accused No.1 and 3 and on interrogations, both accused No.1 and 3 have confessed their guilt. Investigating Officer-Pw.18, who was then C.P.I., recorded voluntary statements of those accused and took them to the spot where dead body was thrown. There he conducted mahazar, during which two gunny bags were seized from the spot. Thereafter, Investigating Officer seized said vehicle, which was used for transportation of dead body for which also mahazar was prepared. Investigating Officer secured the photos of dead body from P.S.I., of Ramanagara Rural police station. Ramanagar Rural police have handed over file in UDR. No.27/2007 to the Investigating Officer. During further investigation, it was revealed that, name of the said 6 S.C.No.358/2009 unknown person is Siddaraju. Investigating Officer recorded statements of eyewitnesses as well as sister and father of deceased. He also recorded statements of other witnesses. Investigating Officer has also conducted panchanama in the house of accused No.2, during which he has seized Pass Book, VISA, Passport, driving licence, and photos. On 16.11.2008 Investigating Officer submitted requisition before II-ACMM., Bengaluru for recording statements of witnesses U/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, II-ACMM., Bengaluru recorded statement of Ramesh/Cw.1, Pw.2/Ganesh Poojar, and Pw.3/krishna, who were serving in the said hotel and have witnessed the incident. Meanwhile, accused No.1 was released on bail as per the bail order passed in Crl.Mis.No.1794/2008 dated 27.4.2008. Accused No.3 also released on bail as per order passed in Crl.Mis.No.344/2008 dated 16.2.2008. Accused No.2 was also released on bail on 10.3.2008.
4. After completion of investigation charge sheet is laid against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.302, 201, 114 and 506 of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and passed orders for registration of one criminal case in C.C.No.7577/2008 against accused persons. On 22.2.2009 Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of case to the Court of Sessions, Bengaluru. After 7 S.C.No.358/2009 committal of this case, same is registered as S.C.No.358/2009. After hearing, my Predecessor-in-Office has been passed detail order for framing of charge U/s. 302 against accused No.1 and U/s. 201, 506 of I.P.C. R/w. Section 34 of I.P.C., against accused No.1 to 3. Accordingly, on 25.6.2014 charges were framed, which accused have denied, hence, claims to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution in all together examined 21 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.21 and got exhibited as many as 34 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34. During trial 5 material objects got identified at Mo.1 to Mo.5. During trial defence got exhibited portion of statement of Pw.5, which is marked at Ex.D.1.
7. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, accused statements, as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., are recorded by giving an opportunity to accused persons for explaining incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution. Defence of accused is one of total denial of prosecution case. However no any defence evidence led in by accused.
8. I have heard arguments.
9. On the material placed before this court, following are the points for my consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 8 S.C.No.358/2009 committed offence punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C.?
2. Whether prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence of disappearance of evidence with an intention to screening offender from legal punishment, thus, committed offence punishable U/s. 201 of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.?
3. Whether prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 have given life threat to Cw.2 to Cw.6 that, if they discloses the incident to anybody, they will finish their life, thereby committed offence of criminal intimidation punishable U/s. 506 of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.?
4. To what Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. POINTS NO.1 to 3:- I have taken these points together to avoid repeated discussions.
12. During course of arguments, Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued contending that, though Cw.1 has not been examined by prosecution, and though other eyewitnesses to the scene 9 S.C.No.358/2009 of incident have not supported the prosecution case, but in view of evidence of Investigating Officer coupled with contents of Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.31, the only inference that can be drawn is that, it is accused No.1, who committed murder of Siddaraju. He also argued contending that, even on going through the contents of mahazars as well as P.M.Examination Report, it is crystal clear that, Siddaraju died because injuries sustained to his testicals, which opinion of the medical officer for cause of death is in corroboration with the contents of compliant, which is lodged by Cw.1/Ramesh. He also argued contending that, if entire evidence projected by prosecution is considered, there is no any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that, prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, insisted for recording conviction.
13. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the accused also vehemently argued contending that, merely because prosecution got exhibited statements of complainant and two other witnesses, which are marked at Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.31 this itself is not conclusive proof of contents of statements of those witnesses. She further argued contending that, Cw.1, who is complainant in this case, has not been examined by prosecution. She further argued contending that, entire case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, but all material witnesses Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.11, who according to the case of the 10 S.C.No.358/2009 prosecution were serving in the said hotel as on the date of alleged incident and have witnessed the incident, have not supported the case of prosecution and they were turned hostile, in which case mere statement of Investigating Officer cannot be base for conviction. She further argued contending that, in this case, even none of the material witnesses including Investigating Officer have seen the dead body and more over there is inordinate delay in lodging the report in which case, entire case of the prosecution is to be seen with suspicion. She also argued contending that, even evidence of Pw.21 is not conclusive proof of homicide. In this connection, she has drawn my attention to cross- examination of Pw.21. She also argued contending that, even evidence of Pw.18, who is Investigating Officer is not convincing so for as recording of statement of witnesses by II-ACMM., Bengaluru. She further argued contending that, mere proof of arrest of accused No.1 and 3 and mere seizure of one vehicle is not conclusive proof of guilt of the accused as alleged in the charge sheet. Thus, inter-alia she argued contending that, prosecution failed to substantiate the charges leveled against accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, she insisted this court to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.
14. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon decisions reported as under:
11 S.C.No.358/2009
1. 2010 Crl.L.J. 2867 in a case of Utpal Das and another V/s. State of West Bengal.
2. AIR. 1971 SUPREME COURT 1865 in a case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others V/s. Yelamarti Satyam and others.
3. (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 54 in a case of Subhash Maruti Avasare V/s.
State of Maharashtra.
15. Keeping these rival contentions as well as principles laid down in the above dictums in my mind, I have gone through the material on record. As already stated in all together, 21 witnesses are examined. Among them, as per the case of prosecution Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.11 are eyewitnesses to scene of incident, which occurred on that day at Shanthi Sagar Deluxe Hotel. Pw.5, Pw.7 and Pw.8 are here say witnesses. Therefore, their evidence is of little significant. Pw.5 is sister of deceased, while Pw.8 is press reporter. Pw.6, Pw.9 and Pw.12 are panch witnesses for inquest mahazar conducted by the then P.S.I., of Ramanagar Rural police station. Pw.10 is panch witness to the mahazar marked at Ex.P.7, which was said to have been conducted in house of accused No.2. Pw.13 is the another panch witness who according to the case of prosecution acted as panch witness for car/vehicle seizure mahazar. Pw.14 is panch witness for panchanama marked at Ex.P.17, which is said to have been conducted on the spot 12 S.C.No.358/2009 where dead body was laying and as well as seizure of two gunny bags from the spot.
16. Pw.15, Pw.17, Pw.19 and Pw.20 are police officers, who according to the case of prosecution were deputed in search of accused. Pw.16 is the then P.S.I., of Ramanagar Rural Police Station, who has registered UDR case U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C., and conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of deceased/Siddaraju.
17. Pw.18 is the then C.P.I., who conducted entire investigation. Pw.21 is doctor who conducted autopsy and issued P.M. Examination Report marked at Ex.P.32. Therefore, prosecution has examined almost all material witnesses.
18. Entire case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, though initially one case is registered U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C., as UDR.No.27/2007 by Ramanagar Rural Police. Though alleged offences said to have been committed on 9.12.2007 but police concerned have registered a case against accused No.1 to 3 only on 8.1.2008, which means there is delay of about one month in registering case though, there are eyewitness to the scene of incident, which occurred in the hotel Shanthi Sagar Deluxe Hotel on 9.12.2007 at about 1.30 p.m. Therefore, very case of the prosecution starts with suspicion, since prosecution has not given satisfacotyr explanation for delay in lodging 13 S.C.No.358/2009 the report. Though Cw.1 is prime witness for prosecution, but prosecution has not examined him, in spite of repeated issuance of non-bailable warrants against Cw.1, but same were returned unexecuted. Even this court passed orders for issuance of proclamation warrant U/s. 82 of Cr.P.C., to secure the presence of Cw.1. But then also presence of Cw.1 is not traced out. Thus, available eyewitnesses to the scene of incident are Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.11, who as per the case of the prosecution were serving in said Shanthi Sagar Deluxe Hotel, on that day. But none of the eye witnesses have supported prosecution version. All material witnesses Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Pw.11 were turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, Learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine them. But even during course of their cross-examination, they have categorically denied about witnessing the act of assault by accused No.1 on deceased- Siddaraju. Therefore, version of material witnesses are not helpful for the prosecution to prove the alleged assault by accused No.1 on deceased-Siddaraju. Ofcourse, it is borne out from the records that, during investigation, Investigating Officer has filed requisition before II- ACMM., Bengaluru for recording statements of witnesses U/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.29, Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31, it appears that, Cw.1/informant/Ramesh, Pw.2/Ganesh Poojari, and Pw.3/Krishna have given their statements before II-ACMM., Bengaluru, 14 S.C.No.358/2009 who recorded their statements U/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3, in their cross-examination, they have denied the fact of giving their statements before Learned Magistrate. What all stated by Pw.2 and Pw.3 is that, they gave statements before Learned Magistrate on the threat of police concern. But on perusal of Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31, it appears that, these witnesses have given their statements before Learned Magistrate. But during trial, they retracted from their statements. In which case, prosecution is expected to prove the contents of Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31. During course of cross- examination prosecution has not made any efforts to confront Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 to Pw.2 and Pw.3. because, Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 are previous statements of Pw.2 and Pw.3. Therefore, to prove contents of Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31, the only course left with the prosecution is to confront statements of Pw.2 and Pw.3 to those two witnesses, but this has not done by the prosecution. If I gone through the principles laid down in the above dictums, which are relied upon by the defence, I am of the opinion that, mere marking of statements of Pw.2 and Pw.3 or Cw.1, is not conclusive proof of contents of those statements. Statements recorded U/s. 164 of Cr.P.C., are previous statements of those witnesses, which can be proved only by confronting those statements to the particular witnesses i.e. Pw.2 and Pw.3. In the present case, it was for prosecution to prove contents of Ex.P.30 and 15 S.C.No.358/2009 Ex.P.31, which are previous statements of these witnesses. Therefore, mere marking of documents as exhibit in evidence does not dispense with proof of such contents of Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31. Therefore, contents of Ex.P.29, Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 cannot be used against accused. If contents of Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 are not established by the prosecution, no evidentiary value can be extended to the contents of Ex.P.29, Ex.P.30 and Ex.31.
19. Apart from those material witnesses, I have gone through the evidence of Pw.6, who according to the case of the prosecution is first informant who gave information to the police about laying of one dead body. During course of trial Pw.6 also not supported prosecution version. He never states that he lodged report as per Ex.P.18. Thus contents of Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.24 are neither proved nor established by prosecution. When there are no any direct evidence implicating these accused in the alleged incident, then evidence of panch witnesses and also police officers have no any much significant.
20. Pw.7 and Pw.8 are here say evidence, whose evidence is not much significant in proving the guilt of accused. Pw.5/Bharathi, who is the sister of deceased - Siddaraju is also here say witnesses. Therefore, her evidence is of formal one.
16 S.C.No.358/2009
21. I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.9 and Pw.12, who are panch witnesses for inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P.14. Even if contents of Ex.P.14 are considered, but same have no any direct link against accused so as to infer that, it is accused No.1, who committed murder of deceased.
22. Pw.10 is another panch witness for panchanama marked at Ex.P.7 under which driving licence, VISA, Pass book, photos were seized from the house of accused No.2/Gopal. Even on going through the contents of those documents coupled with contents of panchanama marked at Ex.P.7, I am of the opinion that, same are not conclusive proof of commission of murder by accused No.1.
23. I have also gone through the evidence of Pw.13 and Pw.14, who are panch witnesses for car seizure mahazar and as well as another panchanama under which two gunny bags were seized. Mere seizure of car bearing reg. No.KA-01-M-8524 is not conclusive proof of guilt of the accused. Two gunny bags seized from the spot where dead body was laying. It is pertinent to note that, two gunny bags were seized after one month of alleged incident. When there is no any direct evidence implicating accused for the alleged crime, recovery of two gunny bags has no any direct impact against accused. I have also gone through the evidence of medical officer, who was serving as 17 S.C.No.358/2009 Senior Medical Officer at Ramanagar District Hospital, and who has conducted P.M.Examination on the dead body. As per the opinion of Pw.21/doctor, Siddaraju died due to vase vagal shock as a result of injury to testes ( testicals). On going through the cross-examination of Pw.21, it is clear that, probable time of death is not indicated in Ex.P.32, which is P.M.Report. Pw.1 has also stated that, there is a possibility of sustaining injury to testicals by some other reasons. Even for moment it is held that, death of Siddaraju is homicide, but there is no any iota of direct evidence against accused, in order to hold that, deceased-Siddaraju succumbed to injuries due to assault by accused No.1. Therefore, even on evidence of medical officer, no conviction can be recorded against accused.
24. I have also gone through the evidence of Circle Inspector of Police, who has been examined as Pw.18-Investigating Officer. As already narrated material eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Though Pw.18 states that, Pw.1 to 4 and 11 have given their statement as per Ex.P.1 to 4 and Ex.P.13, but in the absence of evidence of independent eyewitnesses, version of Pw.18 cannot be safely be believed. Ofourse, Pw.18 has deposed that, he has conducted mahazars and recorded statements of witnesses, but it is unsafe to place reliance on his evidence, since material witnesses have given 18 S.C.No.358/2009 complete go by to the case of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, I have not placed any reliance on his version.
25. Cumulative effect of entire evidence on material is very much clear that, there is no any direct evidence against accused. complicity of accused in commission of offences has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of two gunny bags from the spot where dead body was laying is not conclusive proof of commission of offences by accused as alleged by prosecution.
26. In view of my above discussion and in the result I have come to the conclusion that, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, charges leveled against accused are not sustainable. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 3 in Negative.
27. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on the above points No.1 to 3, accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal. Being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offences punishable U/s.302, 201 and 506 of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.19 S.C.No.358/2009
Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3, executed U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 to 5 being worthless articles are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July, 2016.) (MADHUSUDHAN B.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Nagaraju
Pw.2 Ganesh Pujari
Pw.3 Krishna
Pw.4 Jayakumar
Pw.5 Bharathi
Pw.6 Nanjappa
Pw.7 Rajanna
Pw.8 Chikkanna
Pw.9 Revanna
Pw.10 Raju
Pw.11 Prashanth
20 S.C.No.358/2009
Pw.12 Raghu
Pw.13 S.Kumar
Pw.14 Vijaykumar
Pw.15 H.Venkatappa
Pw.16 Chikka Doddaiah
Pw.17 T.Gopala
Pw.18 B. Nurulla Shariff
Pw.19 Channegowda
Pw.20 Anil Kumar G.S.
Pw.21 Dr.Onkar
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Statement of Nagaraju/Pw.1
Ex.P.2 Statement of Ganesha/Pw.2
Ex.P.3 Statement of Krishna/Pw.3
Ex.P.4 Statement of Jayakumar/Pw.4
Ex.P.5 & 6 Two photos
Ex.P.7 Panchanama
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.8 Pass Book
Ex.P.9 Driving Licence
Ex.P.10 VISA
Ex.P.11 Photo
Ex.P.12 Photo
Ex.P.13 Statement of Pw.11
Ex.P.14 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of Pw.12
Ex.P.15 Vehicle seizure mahazar
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of Pw.13
Ex.P.15(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.16 Photo (jeep)
Ex.P.17 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of Pw.14
Ex.P.17(b) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.18 UDR. Written complaint
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Pw.16
21 S.C.No.358/2009
Ex.P.19 UDR. F.I.R.
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of Pw.16
Ex.P.20 Inquest Report
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of Pw.16
Ex.P.21 Mahazar
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of Pw.16
Ex.P.22 & Photos
Ex.P.23
Ex.P.24 Complaint
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.25 F.I.R.
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.26 Statement of accused
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.27 Statement of accused
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.28 Spot mahazar
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of Pw.18
Ex.P.29 Statement of witness-Ramesh
Ex.P.30 Statement of witness-Ganesh Poojari
Ex.P.31 Statement of witness- Krishna
Ex.P.32 P.M.Report
Ex.P.33 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.34 Complainant
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of Pw.20
For Defence side:-
Ex.D.1 Relevant portion of Pw.5/Bharathi
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 & 2 Two Gunny Bags
Mo.3 One Green colour full sleeves shirt
Mo.4 One blue colour pant
Mo.5 One blue colour underwear
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY