Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : Vinoda @ Varadaraj @ Appi on 19 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 19th day of November 2021
:PRESENT:
Sri Venkatesh R. Hulgi, B.Com. LL.B(Spl.),
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 128/2011
Connected with
S.C.No. 931/2011
Complainant The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Police Inspector,
Sriramapura Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : Vinoda @ Varadaraj @ Appi, S/o Krishnappa,
26 years, R/o No.1281, 2nd Main Road,
4th Cross, Srinagara, Bengaluru,
Accused No.2 : Karna @ Karunakara, S/o C.Mohan,
33 years, R/o No.74, Annanagar,
Mathigiri, Hosur, Tamilnadu,
Accused No.3 : Vedi, S/o Late Ramaswamy @ Kalappa,
42 years, R/o No.93, 5th Main Road,
Ambedkarnagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.6 : Selva @ Auto Selva, S/o Dhandapani,
32 years, R/o No.14, 5th Main Road,
Corporation Building, Okalipura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.7 : Babu, S/o Chandrappa, (Abated)
Accused No.9 : Sridhar @ Mande, S/o Magendran, 22 years,
R/o No.18, 5th Main Road, 6th Cross,
N.P. Block, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
2 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Accused No.10 : V.Mukesh, S/o Venkatesh, 27 years,
R/o No.91, 4th Cross, Sai Baba Nagar,
Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.11 : Loga @ Loganathan, S/o Kumar, 30 years,
R/o No.103, 7th Main Road, 7th Cross,
Ambedkarnagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.12 : Ganga .S, S/o Late Sampangi, 32 years,
R/o No.124, 7th Main Road, 7th Cross,
Ambedkarnagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.18 : Ramesh, S/o Late Ramamurthy,
27 years, R/o 7th Cross, Kottigepalya,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru,
Accused No.19 : Aruna.C, S/o Chandran, 23 years,
R/o No.236, 4th Cross, Christian Colony,
Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.20 : L.Janardhan, S/o Lakshminarayana,
19 years, R/o No.4, 5th Main Road, 7th Cross,
Ambedkarnagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.21 : Manoj Kumar.A, S/o Anjanappa, 19 years,
R/o No.11, 2nd Cross, Narayanarao Colony,
Ambedkarnagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.22 : Mani @ Auto Mani, S/o Sundar, 26 years,
R/o No.7H, 2nd Street, Keshavanagar,
1st Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru.
( Accused No.1 to 3, 6,7,9,10,
18 to 22 by HKN and Accused No.11
and 12 by NKV Advocates.)
S.C.No. 931/2011
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
The Police Inspector,
Sriramapura Police Station,
Bengaluru City .
(By Public Prosecutor)
3 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Vs.
Accused No.4 : Dharma, S/o Das, 26 years,
R/o No.97, 7th Main Road, 7th Cross,
Ambedkar Nagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
(Abated)
Accused No.5 : Saravana, S/o Late Sampangi,
38 Years, R/o No.124, 7th Main Road,
7th Cross, R.K.S. Nagar,
Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.8 : Raja @ Cable Raja, S/o Kumar,
32 years, R/o No. 124, 7th Main Road,
7th Cross, R.K.S. Nagar,
Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.13: Poobala, S/o Late Sampangi, 42 years,
R/o No. 124, 7th Main Road, 7th Cross,
R.K.S. Nagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.14: Ganesha, S/o Late Sampangi, 34 years,
R/o No. 124, 7th Main Road, 7th Cross,
R.K.S. Nagar, Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.15: Velu, S/o Sundaram, 40 years,
R/o No.111, 7th Main Road,
7th Cross, Ambedkar Nagar,
Srirampura, Bengaluru,
Accused No.16: Mallige, W/o Kumar, 45 Years,
R/o No.103, 7th Main Road,
7th Cross, Ambedkar Nagar,
Srirampura, Bengaluru, (Abated)
Accused No.17: Jayalakshmi, W/o George, 40 Years,
R/o No.21, 6th Cross, Bapuji Block,
Srirampura, Bengaluru.
( Accused No.8,13,14
by Sri N.N. Advocate,
Accused No.15 & 17
by Sri. MTC)
4 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
1 Date of commission of offence 25.07.2010
2 Date of report of offence 25.07.2010
3 Date of arrest of the accused A-2 & A-6: 16.8.2010
A-3 : 18.8.2010
A-9 : 25.8.2010
A-19, A-20
& A-21 : 04.9.2010
A-7, A-17
& A-22 : 10.9.2010
A-1 : 13.9.2010
A-10 : 21.9.2010
A-11 & A-12: 21.10.2010
4 Date of release of accused on bail A-1, 3, 6, 7 on 3.5.2011.
A-11 & 12 on 27.7.2011
5 Date of commencement of evidence 16.11.2016
6 Date of closing of evidence 26.08.2021
7 Name of the complainant Sri. Shankara
8 Offences complained of Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,
120-B, 307, 302 R/w. 149 of
IPC.
9 Date of pronouncement of judgment 08/11/2021
10 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused-persons
not proved
11 Order of Sentence As per final-order
COMMON-JUDGMENT
Both the above cases arise out of Crime No.
187/2010 of Srirampura police-station registered for the
offences punishable under Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148,
120-B, 114, 307 and 302 of IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC.
5 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
2. The S.C.No. 128/2011 is registered against
accused No.1to 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 18 to 22. S.C.No.
931/2011 is registered against accused No.4,5,8 and 13
to 17. It appears that initially the committal court had
committed the first case and after securing the presence
of remaining accused-persons the second case was
committed to the Sessions Court. As both cases arise
out of common facts, hence after framing of separate
charges, both the cases are clubbed for recording of
common evidence with the consent of all accused. Hence
after recording of common evidence in both the cases,
common arguments was advanced by both the sides.
Hence after having heard the common arguments, both
the above cases are taken for disposal through this
common judgement.
3. This is a charge-sheet filed by the Police
inspector, Sriramapura Police station against accused
No. 1 to 22 for the afore mentioned offences.
6 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
4. The facts of the prosecution case (in common) if
briefly stated are as follows:
It is the case of prosecution that their existed
litigations, ill-will and always there used to be
altercations between accused No.11 and 12 on one hand
and deceased Smt. Pusha (Victim) and her family on the
other. Few months prior to the date of alleged incident
accused No.11 Loga and accused No.12 Ganga were
arrested and sent to jail in Crime No. 142/2010 of
Sriramapura police-station registered for the offences
punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 307 and 302 of
IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC regarding the murder of Ravi @
Punnekanna on 27.5.2010. Deceased Smt. Pushpa and
her family members celebrated this fact along with their
relatives and as such all the accused decided to do away
with the life of deceased Smt. Pushpa.
In this context on 2.7.2010 at about 8 p.m. a
meeting was held in the house of accused No.16 wherein
accused No.13 to 17 summoned accused No.1 to 9 and
discussed about the activities of deceased Smt. Pushpa
7 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
and her relative Narayana @ Matagara. The accused
were very angry as deceased Smt. Pushpa was financing
Narayana @ Matagara in getting accused No.11 and 12
arrested. Therefore, they decided to put an end to the life
of deceased Smt. Pushpa as she had made their life
miserable. They hatched a criminal-conspiracy to finish
of deceased Smt. Pushpa by some how or other to put an
end to her activities. Accused No.11 and 12 took the
responsibility to finance the execution of plan. In this
way they hatched a criminal-conspiracy to commit
murder of Smt. Pushpa. In furtherance of such common
object on 3.7.2010 at about 11 a.m. accused No.1, 6, 13
to 15 visited the central prison where accused No.11 and
12 were lodged in connection with above said crime and
they discussed about the plan how to furnish off
deceased Smt. Pushpa. Thereafter, again after few days
accused No. 8 to 22 went to central prison and met
accused No.11 and 12 and chalked out a plan how to do
away with deceased Smt. Pushpa. In furtherance of
such criminal-conspiracy and in furtherance of common
8 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
object of unlawful assembly, the accused met on
24.7.2010 at about 6 p.m. near old Gim of K.S.Nagar and
met in Harinivas hotel on 27.5.2010 at about 11 a.m.
and chalked out a plan to finish deceased Smt. Pushpa.
This was over heard by Cws 15 to 17 and Cws 27 and 28.
Thus in furtherance of such common object of unlawful
assembly on 25.7.2010 at about 6.40 p.m., accused No.1
to 10 went in a Maruthi van bearing registration No. KA-
02-AA-4878 and accused No. 11 to 22 went in a Santro
car bearing No. KA-04-Z-8550 to 7 th main road,
Sriramapuram and from there they went near
Sri.Vinayaka stores on the said road by forming an
unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons like longs
etc., with common object of killing Smt. Pushpa. When
Smt. Pushpa and her son Shankar(complainant) came
outside the said Vinayaka stores near their two wheeler,
at that time accused came up and started assaulting
deceased Smt. Pushpa with deadly-weapons with an
intention to murder her. In this process accused No.1
assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her
9 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
head, hand and shoulder. Accused No.2 assaulted
deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her stomach.
Accused No.3 assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a
long on her back. Accused No.4 assaulted deceased
Smt. Pushpa with a long on her legs. Accused No.5
assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her
back. Accused No.6 assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa
with a long on her back. Accused No.7 assaulted
deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her stomach.
Accused No.8 assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a
long on her head and stomach. Accused No.9 assaulted
deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her stomach.
Accused No.10 assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a
long on her stomach and chest. Accused No.18
assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her head
and Accused No.19 assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa
with a long on her stomach. Accused No.20 assaulted
deceased Smt. Pushpa with a long on her shoulder and
Accused No.21 assaulted deceased Smt. Pushpa with a
long on her leg and accused No.22 assaulted deceased
10 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Smt. Pushpa with a long on her hands and thereby they
have committed the murder of deceased Smt. Pushpa.
At that time accused No. 13 to 15 who were sitting in
their Santro car nearby were instigating the rest of the
accused to commit the said offence. The accused have
also assaulted the complainant Shankar S/o deceased
with deadly weapons and attempted to murder him.
Immediately the niece and nephews of deceased Smt.
Pushpa came to the spot and seeing them, all the
accused taken on their heels in the vehicles. Later
injured Smt. Pushpa was admitted to K.C.General
hospital, however the doctors declared her as brought
dead. The complainant Shankar was also admitted to
the hospital for treatment.
5. On the same day first statement of complainant
Shankar was recorded in Mallige hospital, Bengalore as
per Ex.P-1. Pursuant to said complaint a case was
registered in Crime No. 187/2010 of Srirampura police-
station for the aforesaid offences. During the course of
11 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
investigation I.O. has conducted inquest mahazar on the
dead body of deceased Smt. Pushpa and also spot
mahazar. The statement of all the witnesses was
recorded and the dead body was sent to post-mortem
examination. The accused were arrested and at their
instances and pursuant to their disclosure statement
many weapons have been seized. The blood stained
cloths were also seized and all the articles were sent to
FSL for opinion. The accused were remanded to judicial
custody and after getting P.M. Report, wound certificate
of complainant, the FSL reports etc., the I.O. has
completed the investigation and laid down the instant
charge-sheet.
6. As noted above, two separate Sessions cases were
registered, as they were committed one after the other.
All accused are on bail. It appears that before
commencement of trial, accused No.4, 7 and 16 were
reported to be dead. Therefore the case against the above
accused is abated.
12 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
7. The committal court after complying the provisions
of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. has committed both the cases. After
hearing the accused and on perusal of materials placed
on record, separate charges are framed in the above
cases for the aforesaid offences, read over and explained
to accused persons. Accused have not pleaded guilty and
they claimed to be tried.
8. As mentioned above at this stage with the consent
of both the parties, S.C.No. 128/2011 and S.C.No.
931/2011 were clubbed together and common evidence
is recorded in S.C.No. 128/2011.
9. During the course of trial, prosecution has
examined in all 53 witnesses as Pws 1 to 53 and got
marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-121. Material Objects
No. 1 to 52 are also marked for the prosecution.
10. After the evidence of prosecution is closed, the
statement of the accused under Section 313-B of Cr.P.C.
13 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
is recorded. Accused have denied every incriminating
circumstances appearing against them and they have not
chosen to lead any evidence in their defence. Total denial
of the case of prosecution and their false implication is
the defence of the accused persons.
11. I heard the common arguments from both sides
and perused the materials placed on record.
12. The following points arise for my consideration :
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable-doubt that on 25.7.2010 at about
6.40 p.m. near Vinayaka stores situated on the
7th main road, Srirampura, the accused being
the members of unlawful assembly that the
common object of which was to commit the
murder of deceased Smt. Pushpa and to
attempt to commit the murder of complainant
Shankar and thereby they have committed the
offence punishable U/Sec.143 of IPC ?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable-doubt that on the aforesaid date,
14 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
time and place, all the accused being armed
with deadly-weapons like long, dragger etc.,
were members of unlawful assembly and
thereby they have committed the offence
punishable U/Sec. 144 of IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of
IPC?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable-doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused being the
members of unlawful assembly and in
prosecution of common object of said assembly
namely to commit the murder of deceased
Smt. Pushpa by means of long and dragger
etc., which offence they knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of common object of
said assembly and accused being the members
of such assembly at the time of committing of
that offence and thereby the accused have
committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 149
of IPC?
(4) Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable-doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused being the
members of unlawful assembly and were at
15 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
that time armed with deadly-weapons or which
used as weapons of offence and was likely to
cause death of deceased Smt. Pushpa and
thereby the accused have committed the
offence punishable U/Sec. 148 of IPC?
(5) Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable-doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused being the
members of unlawful assembly have
committed the murder of deceased Smt.
Pushpa by intentionally or knowingly to cause
her death by means of long and dragger etc.,
and thereby the accused have committed the
offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of IPC R/w.
Sec.149 of IPC?
(6) Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable-doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused being the
members of unlawful assembly did an act
namely assaulted complainant Shankar by
means of long and dragger on his ear and right
hand with such intention or knowledge and in
such circumstances that if by that act the
accused had caused the death of complainant
16 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Shankar, they would have been guilty of
murder and thereby the accused have
committed the offence punishable U/Secs. 307
of IPC R/w. Sec.149 of IPC?
(7) Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable-doubt that on 2.07.2010,
3.07.2010 and 24.7.2010, the accused have
gathered and hatched criminal-conspiracy to
commit the offence of murder of deceased Smt.
Pushpa and thereby the accused have
committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 120-
B of IPC?
(8) What order?
13. My findings on the above said points are as
under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. In the Negative.
Point No.4 .. In the Negative.
Point No.5 .. In the Negative.
Point No.6 .. In the Negative.
Point No.7 .. In the Negative.
Point No.8 .. As per the final order
for the following:
17 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
REASONS
14. Point No's.1 to 7:- As these points are inter
connected with each other, hence they are taken together
for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and
evidence on record.
15. As mentioned supra, in the present case law was
set into motion by way of recording first information
statement of injured Shankar who is non other than one
of the sons of deceased Smt. Pushpa. In brief it is alleged
that there was a long standing enimity in between the
family of accused No.11 and 12 on one hand and the
family of deceased Smt. Pushpa on the other. In this
context the accused have formed an unlawful assembly
with an object to commit the murder of Smt. Pushpa to
put an end the long standing animosity. In the back
ground of these facts, the accused-persons hatched a
criminal-conspiracy to execute their plan of doing away
with the life of Smt. Pushpa. They had conspiring
meetings on many occasions in this regard, which was
18 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
over heard by many of the witnesses according to the
case of prosecution. Finally on 25.7.2010 when deceased
Smt. Pushpa and complainant had been to Market at
about 6.40 p.m. to purchase cloths on the occasion of
birthday of grand daughter of Smt. Pushpa, by that time
all the accused armed with deadly-weapons like long,
dragger etc., cordoned deceased Smt. Pushpa and the
complainant. They have assaulted Smt. Pushpa with
long and dragger with an intention to murder her. When
complainant Shankar came in the way of accused to
prevent them from assaulting his mother, the accused
have also assaulted the complainant with deadly-
weapons and attempted to commit his murder. The niece
and nephew of Smt. Pushpa who were present in a near
by shop witnessed this incident and rushed to the spot.
Looking to them all the accused ran away from the spot
with the weapons of offence. Immediately they shifted
the injured Smt. Pushpa and Shankar to hospitals.
Unfortunately Smt. Pushpa was declared brought dead.
The complainant Shankar was admitted to Mallige
19 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
hospital for treatment, where his first information
statement was recorded.
16. To prove the aforesaid allegations made against
the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 53
witnessed and produced 121 documents as Ex.P-1 to
P-121. Material objects 1 to 52 are also placed on record.
A perusal of evidence on record it is very pertinent to
mention that unfortunately most of the witnesses for
prosecution including the complainant, close relatives of
deceased and eye witnesses have failed to support the
case of prosecution. Only the official witnesses like
investigating officer, the Doctor who conducted Autopsy
on the dead body of Smt. Pushpa, officials of FSL and
other police staff have supported the case of prosecution.
Hence keeping in mind these developments it is
necessary to examine the case on hand.
17. At the out-set it is to be seen how far the
prosecution is able to prove the death of deceased Smt.
20 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Pushpa to be homicidal in nature. The prosecution has
examined PW-39 Dr. Dilip Kumar K.B. who has
conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Smt.
Pushpa. The evidence of this witness discloses that on
26.7.2010 he conducted the post mortem on the dead
body of deceased Smt. Pushpa in between 11.30 a.m. to
1.30 p.m. During the course of post mortem he has
noticed around 14 anti-mortem injuries on the dead body
of deceased Smt. Pushpa. According to him death of
Smt. Pushpa was caused due to shock and hemorrhage
as a result of multiple stab and chop injuries sustained.
He identified his report at Ex.P-75. His signature is
marked as Ex.P-75(b). According to him the 14 injuries
mentioned in the post mortem report at Ex.P-75 could be
caused by assaulting a person from weapons marked at
M.O. 5 to 17 and M.O.51 and 52. He has been cross-
examined by the learned advocate for accused. But in
the cross-examination they failed to elicit any material
which may support the defence of the accused and which
21 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
may takeaway the credible evidence given by PW-39 in
the chief examination.
18. In order to corroborate the statement of Pw-39,
prosecution has produced the inquest mahazar at Ex.
P-8. It also indicates that around 14 deep cut wound
injuries on the vital part of body of deceased was found
and oozing of blood was also noticed. This apart it was
also stated in Ex.P-8 that there was external injury
marks all over the body. The injuries mentioned in
column No.7 of Ex.P-8 tally with injuries mentioned in
Ex.P-75 the post mortem report. A conjoint perusal of
the above documents it becomes very clear that all the
anti-mortem injuries on the deadbody were caused by
sharp edged weapons which match with Mos 5 to 17 and
Mos. 51 and 52. The attesting witnesses to Ex.P-8 have
not supported the case of prosecution. However PW-13
the I.O. has sufficiently spoken about the inquest
mahazar. During his cross-examination accused have
failed to dispute the findings recorded in Ex.P-8. Except
22 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
some suggestions in the form of denials, no materials are
madeout in the cross-examination of Pw-13 to doubt his
veracity.
19. The post mortem examination report at Ex.P-75
read together with inquest report at Ex.P-8 and the
evidence of PW-39 doctor, I may say that prosecution has
successfully proved that the death of deceased Smt.
Pushpa was homicidal in nature which resulted from the
incident of assault. In this back ground now it is
necessary to examine the evidence to find out who is the
author of the assault. It is the case of prosecution that
the very accused before court are the authors of assault
on deceased Smt. Pushpa and also injured complainant
Shankar. Therefore let me go through the oral evidence
and other documentary evidence on record.
20. The complainant Shankar is examined as PW-1
in the present case. As noted supra it is the case of the
prosecution that on the date of alleged incident Shankar
23 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
had accompanied his mother to a shop to purchase gift
to the grand daughter of deceased Smt. Pushpa on the
occasion of birthday celebrations. When they were going
outside the shop near the place of parking of their two
wheeler, by that time the accused have assaulted
deceased Smt. Pushpa and complainant Shankar with
deadly weapons and committed the murder of Smt.
Pushpa and attempted to commit the murder of
complainant Shankar. Therefore, soonafter the incident
injured Shankar was admitted to Mallige hospital for
treatment where his first information statement was
recorded. Pw-1 has deposed to the effect that deceased
Smt. Pushpa is his mother. CW-18 Sathyanarayana is his
father. Cw-17 Lavanya, Cw-8 Vignesh, Cw-19 Manjunath,
Cw-22 Babu, Cw-23 Ashwini and Cw-24 Ishwarya are his
siblings. Cw-20 Jansirani is the wife of his brother,
where as Cw-21 is his brother in law. Cw-25 Smt. Shilpa
is his wife and Cw-26 Shoba is his cousin. According to
the complainant he do not know Cws 27 to 30. He know
accused No.1 to 3, A-5, A-6 and A-9 to A-22 as they are
24 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
from same locality. In so far as the alleged incident is
concerned, Pw-1 Shankar has deposed to the effect that
on 25.7.2019 at about 6 p.m. when himself and his
mother Smt. Pushpawere going on their two wheeler, by
that time a omni Maruthi car stopped in front of them
and about 14-15 persons got down from the said vehicle
and started assaulting his mother with long, dragger etc.,
on her body. When he attempted to save his mother from
the hands of the assailants, he also received injuries to
his both hands and head. Therefore he fell unconscious.
He regained conscious when he was in mallige hospital.
There police had come and recorded his first information
statement as per Ex.P-1. Interestingly in para 9 of the
chief-examination Pw-1 has deposed to the effect that
there was no any enimity between his family and the
family of the accused and there was no any kind of
scuffle between them. It is stated by Pw-1 that due to
some dispute in chit transaction, he has named some
persons as accused in the complaint at Ex.P-1, but
however he do not know who have committed the murder
25 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
of his mother. Strangely, Pw-1 has stated that he has
never given the names of the culprits before the police.
He went to the extent of saying that after Ex.P-1 he has
never given any further statements before the police and
not identified any of the accused persons in the police-
station. Except this he do not know anything about the
case is the evidence given by the Pw-1. As mentioned
above the very complainant and injured has failed to
identify the accused before court saying that they were
the persons who assaulted his mother and armed with
deadly weapons and caused death of his mother.
Consequently the prosecution got declared the witness as
hostile. Pw-1 has been cross-examined at length by the
learned public prosecutor. Unfortunately in his cross-
examination nothing worth material could be elicited
from the mouth of Pw-1 in support of case of
prosecution. On the other hand Pw-1 has denied having
given the complaint as per Ex.P-1 and further statements
asper Ex.P-2 to P-7 before the I.O. It is the case of the
prosecution that after identifying the accused persons on
26 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
various dates, the complainant has given further
statements as per Ex.P-2 to P-7. But unfortunately PW-1
has resiled from having given further statements as per
Ex.P-2 to P-7. Thus the prosecution has received a very
serious set-back at the hands of the very complainant.
The evidence of complainant discloses that it is totally
against the case of prosecution. Therefore the evidence of
Pw-1 alone is not much helpful to prove the allegations
made against the accused persons.
21. It is the case of prosecution that after the dead
body of deceased Smt. Pushpa was shifted to Victoria
hospital inquest mahazar was conducted in the presence
of Pw-2 Picchamuttu, Cw-3 S.Arjun and CW-4 Smt.
Sarasa. K.P. Muttu is one of the attesting witness to the
inquest mahazar is examined as Pw-2. According to him
about 3-4 years back from the date of evidence he had
been to Sriramapura police-station with his sister
Manikyamma to file a complaint about a trival matter. At
that time the police have obtained his signature on the
27 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
inquest mahazar as per Ex.P-8. It is stated by Pw-2 that
he do not know the contents of Ex.P-8 and he has never
seen any dead body. Going one step further Pw-2 has
deposed to the effect that police have not conducted any
inquest mahazar in his presence. Thus Pw-2 has failed
to support the case of prosecution that the I.O. has
conducted inquest as per Ex.P-8 in his presence.
22. Another attesting witness to Ex.P-8 the inquest
mahazar namely S.Arjun is examined as Pw-4. It is in
the evidence of Pw-4 that at about 5-6 year prior to the
evidence one day he had been to police-station with his
sister Manikyamma to file a complaint regarding a trivial
matter. At that time the police have obtained his
signature on a document marked as Ex.P-8, he identified
his signature at Ex.P-8(b). It is stated by Pw-4 that he
do not know the contents of Ex.P-8 and he did not see
any dead body. It is the evidence of Pw-4 that police
have not conducted any inquest mahazar in his presence
as per the case of the prosecution. In this way both Pw-2
28 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
and Pw-4 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
They have been cross-examined by the learned public
prosecutor. However in the cross-examination also
prosecution has failed to elicit any information from the
mouth of these two witnesses to indicate that the I.O. has
conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of
deceased Smt. Pushpa as per Ex.P-8 in Victoria hospital.
Thus the evidence of Pw-2 and 4 is also not helpful to
the case of prosecution. As noted above, the I.O.has
spoken about the inquest mahazar, however it is not
corroborated by the evidence of independent attesting
witnesses.
23. The prosecution has examined one Sathyanarayana
husband of deceased Smt. Pushpa and father of
complainant Shankar as Pw-5. In his evidence Pw-5 has
deposed to the effect that about 7 years prior to the date
of evidence one evening he was attending an Orchestra
function as an artist. At about 12 a.m. somebody
informed him that his wife was murdered by some
29 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
culprits and she died in K.C.G. Hospital, it was also
informed that the dead body of his wife was shifted to
Victoria hospital. Therefore next day he went o the
mortury of Victoria hospital and identified the dead body
of his wife. The police enquired him, however he did not
gave any statement before the police. It is catagorically
stated by Pw-5 that he do not know who has committed
the murder of his wife and the reason why the murder
was committed. The police also did not enquire him
about the reason for the murder of his wife. Hence he has
not given any statement before the I.O. regarding the
reason for murder of his wife. Thus the evidence of this
witness discloses that at the time of alleged incident, this
witness was attending an Orchestra function as an artist
and he cannot be an eye witness to the incident. Further
this witness has failed to support the case of prosecution
regarding material particulars. He has not identified any
of the accused before the Court. In this way he has
turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He has been
cross-examined at length by the learned public
30 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
prosecutor. In the cross-examination Pw-5 has denied
having given his statement before the police as per Ex.P-
10. He denied a suggestion as false that to help
accused, he is giving false evidence. In this way the
prosecution has failed to make out any material from the
evidence of Pw-5 in support of its case. His evidence has
failed to corroborate the evidence of his son Pw-1
Shankar. Thus the evidence of Pw-5 is not much helpful
to the case of prosecution.
24. Pw-6 Ramesh is the son-in-law of deceased Smt.
Pushpa. According to him he do not know the reason
why his mother in law died. He clearly stated that on the
date of incident, he was not at home and later he came to
know that his mother in law was murdered by some
culprits. Hence he went to K.C.General hospital to see
the dead body of his mother in law. The next day he
went to Victoria hospital and identified the dead body of
his mother in law. He has catagorically stated that he
has not given any statement before the police and he do
31 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
not know who has killed his mother in law and for what
reason she was killed. Thus Pw-6 also turned hostile to
the case of prosecution. He has been cross-examined by
the learned public prosecutor. In the cross-examination
Pw-6 has resiled from having given statement as per
Ex.P-11. Thus the evidence of Pw-6 is not much helpful
to the case of prosecution to prove the allegations made
against the accused.
25. PW-7 Smt. Shilpa is the daughter in law of the
deceased Smt. Pushpa and wife of complainant Shankar.
Her evidence goes to show that on the date of alleged
incident she was at Kolar. Therefore, she has no first
hand information about the alleged incident. It is
deposed by Pw-7 that after receiving the information of
death of her mother-in-law, she came down to Bengaluru
and identified the dead body of her mother-in-law. She
has clearly stated that she do not know who has
murdered her mother in law and for what reasons and
she has not given any statement before the police and
32 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
she has not identified any of the accused persons. In this
way she has failed to support the case of prosecution.
She has been declared as hostile and cross-examined by
the learned public prosecutor. In the cross-examination
PW-7 has denied that she has given statement as per
Ex.P-2 before the I.O. by identifying the accused persons.
She has denied a suggestion as false that she is giving
false evidence to help the accused-persons. In this way
the evidence of Pw-7 is also not much helpful to the case
of prosecution and it has failed to corroborate the
statement of Pw-1.
26. Pw-8 Smt. Shanthi is the elder sister of deceased
Smt. Pushpa. In the chief examination she has stated
that she do not know the reason for the murder of her
sister and she do not know about the culprits. However
she has over heard that accused No.12 got murdered her
sister Smt. Pushpa because of previous enimity. This is
a hear say evidence given by Pw-8. Her evidence
discloses that at the time of incident she was at home
33 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
and she came to know about the incident from others.
Hence she went to the spot. She denied for having given
statement before the I.O. She has been cross-examined
by the learned public prosecutor. In the cross-
examination she has stated that she has given statement
before the I.O. as per Ex.P-13 wherein she has
mentioned the names of the accused and also reasons for
murder of her sister. However in the subsequent paras
this witness has denied a suggestion as false that the
very accused before the court have committed the
murder of her sister, because of previous enimity. Thus
the evidence of this witness do not inspire confidence to
hold that the very accused have committed the murder of
Smt. Pushpa. Evidence of Pw-8 is not worth acceptable.
27. PW-32 S.Manjunatha is the younger son of
deceased Smt. Pushpa. According to him on 25.7.2010
somebody had committed murder of his mother Smt.
Pushpa. This witness has deposed to the effect that he
know accused No.11 and 12 as they are residing in the
34 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
same locality, however there is no previous enimity
between their family and family of accused No.11 and 12.
It is deposed by Pw-32 that on the aforesaid date at
about 6.30 to 6.45 p.m. when he was near Prathima
ground, by that time Pw-1 Shankar informed him about
the incident and asked him to come immediately to the
spot. By the time this witness went to the spot neither
the mother nor his brother Shankar were present. Hence
immediately he went to KCG Hospital and found his
mother lying dead. By looking to the injuries on his
mother, he became unconscious and fell down. When he
regain consciousness he noticed the presence of police,
but he did not know what they did on the spot. However
the I.O. has not enquired him, he had not given any
statement before the I.O. It is clearly deposed by Pw-32
that he do not know who has committed the murder of
his mother and the reason why they committed murder.
This PW-32 also went hostile to the case of prosecution.
He has been cross-examined by the learned public
prosecutor. In the cross-examination Pw-32 has denied
35 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
having given the statement before the I.O. asper Ex.P-77
and he denied suggestion as false that he is deposing
falsely to help the accused-persons. Thus the evidence of
Pw-32 also failed to corroborate the statement of any of
the witnesses regarding the incident. Hence, the
evidence of Pw-32 is not much helpful to the case of
prosecution to prove the allegations made against the
accused-persons.
28. PW-33 Jansirani is the daughter in law of the
deceased Smt. Pushpa and sister in law of complainant
Shankar. In her evidence she has deposed to the effect
that she know accused No.11 Loga and accused No. 12
Ganga, as they are residents of same locality. There used
to be some petty quarrels in between the families due to
petty business matters. In so far as the alleged incident
is concerned, it is deposed by Pw-33 that on 25.7.2010
she was at her mothers place. At about 7 p.m. somebody
informed that her mother in law was murdered by some
persons. Immediately she went to hospital and saw the
36 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
dead body of her mother-in-law. However the I.O. did
not make any enquiry with her and she do not know
who is the author of the crime and reason why they
committed the murder. In this way PW-33 has failed to
support the case of prosecution. In her cross-
examination, PW-33 has denied that she has given
statement before the I.O. as per Ex.P-78, which contains
incriminating material against the accused-persons. She
has denied the suggestion as false that she was very well
present at the time of conducting inquest mahazar on the
dead body of her mother-in-law and given a statement
before the I.O. According to her, she is not giving any
false evidence to support the accused-persons. Thus the
evidence of Pw-33 is not helpful to the case of
prosecution.
29. Pw-34 Shobha is the niece of deceased Smt.
Pushpa. Her evidence discloses that she was not present
on the spot at the time of incident and she do not know
how her aunt was murdered and who are the culprits.
37 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
She do not know the reason for murder of her aunt and
she has not given any statement before the I.O. In the
cross-examination she has clearly denied that she has
given statement as per Ex.P-79 before the I.O. regarding
the alleged offence. Except this no material worth the
name is madeout in the cross-examination of PW-34 to
support the case of prosecution. Hence the evidence of
PW-34 is also not much helpful to the case of
prosecution.
30. PW-35 Prabhu.S. is one of the sons of deceased
Smt. Pushpa. His evidence discloses that on the date of
alleged incident, he had been to get a cake and he was
near Atria hotel. At that time CW-7 Lavanya informed
him about the incident and asked him to come
immediately. By the time he went to the spot his mother
was shifted to KCG hospital. Therefore he directly went
to the hospital and found dead body of his mother with
grievous injuries. He also found his brother Shankar in
the hospital with injuries. But he did not know who has
38 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
committed the murder of his mother and reason why his
mother was murdered. He has not given any statement
before the I.O. about the incident. In this way this
witness also failed to support the case of prosecution. In
the cross-examination, he has denied having given the
statement before the I.O. as per Ex.P-80(a) and P-80(b).
In this way evidence of PW-35 is also not much helpful to
the case of prosecution as she has failed to identify the
accused and also failed to speak about the accused
before the court having committed the murder of his
mother. In the cross-examination by defence this witness
has repeatedly stated that he has not given any
statement before the I.O. about the incident and he did
not see the accused-persons committing murder of his
mother. Thus the evidence of Pw-35 is not much helpful
to the case of prosecution.
31. Pw-36 Ishwarya is one of the daughters of
deceased Smt. Pushpa. Her evidence discloses that on
the date of alleged incident she was at home and Cw-5
39 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Vinod informed her about the incident. Therefore she
went to the spot to see her mother. She has stated that
she do not know who has committed the murder of her
mother and reason for the murder. She has not been
enquired by the I.O. and she has not given any statement
before the police as per Ex.P-81. Thus the evidence of
Pw-36 is also not helpful to the case of prosecuion.
32. In the same way evidence of PW-37 Ashwini
another daughter of deceased Smt. Pushpa is also not
much helpful to the case of prosecution as she has stated
that she do not know who has committed the murder of
her mother and reason why her mother was murdered.
According to PW-37 she has not given any statement
before the police as per Ex.P-82. Thus the evidence of
Pw-37 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
33. Pw-40 Shivakumar is one of the relatives of the
deceased Smt. Pushpa. According to him he do not know
anything about the present case and he has not given
40 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
any statements before the I.O. Thus he has totally failed
to support the case of prosecution. He has been declared
as hostile, in the cross-examination PW-40 has denied
having given statement before the as per Ex.P-87. Thus
the evidence of Pw-40 is not much helpful to the case of
prosecution.
34. PW-43 Eligibeth @ Gangamma is one of the
sisters of deceased Smt. Pushpa. Her evidence discloses
that she knows A-11 Loga and A-12 Gangaa, as they are
the persons of same locality. There used to be oral
altercations between A-11 and 12 on one side and her
sister on the other with regard to some financial
transaction. She was knowing that there is a life threat to
her sister Pushpa at the hands of A-11 and 12.
Therefore she had given a word of caution to her sister to
be very careful. In so far as the alleged incident is
concerned in para 16 of the chief-examination Pw-43 has
deposed to the effect that on 25.7.2010 in the evening
she was at home and at about 6 p.m. Cw-5 Vinoda
41 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
informed her that her sister Smt. Pushpa is dead and
somebody has committed her murder. Hence she
immediately went to the spot along with CW-5 and Cw-8.
By the time around 13-14 persons wearing monkey caps
ran away from the spot in a Maruthi van. Hence she
could not identify them. She found her sister Pushpa
fell down with grievous injures asking for water.
Immediately she was shifted to hospital. However she
was declared dead in the hospital. However this witness
has failed to identify any of the accused before the court
nor she has spoken about the alleged act of the accused.
Therefore she has been declared as hostile. In the cross-
examination PW-43 has denied having given a statement
as per Ex.P.89 before the I.O. In this way the evidence of
Pw-43 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to
prove the alleged incident.
35. As noted above all the above witnesses are
closely related to complainant and deceased Smt.
Pushpa. Including complainant the close relatives of the
42 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
deceased Smt. Pushpa have failed to support the case of
prosecution. They have failed to speak against any of the
accused and they have failed to identify them. Thus the
evidence of above witnesses is not much helpful to the
case of prosecution to prove the allegations made
against the accused-persons beyond reasonable-doubt.
36. Now let me analyze the evidence of independent
eye witnesses. The prosecution has examined PW-9
Satish, Pw-10 Shivaji K, Pw-11 B.Krishnamurthy, Pw-12
Geetha, PW-13 Baby, Pw-14 Suresh, Pw-15 Prabhkar,
Pw-16 Manjunath, Pw-17 Hemanth kumar, Pw-50
Prabhakar. According to the prosecution some of the
aforesaid witnesses are the owners of the shops adjacent
to the place of occurrence and they have witnessed the
alleged incident and they have identified the accused-
persons during the enquiry and given statement.
37. PW-9 Satish is the owner of a cloth shop situated
at 7th main road, Sriramapura, where the alleged incident
43 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
of murder took place. In his evidence Pw-9 deposed to
the effect that he do not know deceased Pushpa and her
son complainant Shankar. He do not know any of the
accused and he had never seen them. According to him
about 5 years prior to the date of evidence after closing
his shop when he was going outside he came to know
that some untoward incident has taken place in near
visinity. However he did not know what had happened
there. Police did not examine him nor recorded his
statement. It is stated by Pw-9 that he never identify
any of the accused nor given any statement in that
behalf nor he has seen any Maruthi van or Santro car. In
the cross-examination by the prosecution Pw-9 has
deposed to the effect that he has not given any
statements as per Ex.P-15 to P-20 before the I.O. and he
never identified any of the accused in the police-station.
He denied a suggestion that to help the accused he is
giving false evidence. From the evidence of Pw-9 it
becomes very clear that he has not witnessed the alleged
incident. Therefore it creates doubt in the mind of the
44 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
court whether this witness is a eye witness to the
incident. The prosecution has failed to elicit anything
from the mouth of Pw-9 regarding the alleged incident.
Hence the evidence of this witness is not much helpful to
the case of prosecution.
38. Same is the evidence of Pw-10 K. Shivaji. He
has spoken in line with Pw-9 Satish. According to this
witness also he do not identified the deceased Smt.
Pushpa and her son Shankar. He do not know any of the
accused-persons and he do not know anything about the
incident. In his cross-examination Pw-10 has suggested
that he has not given any statement before the I.O. as per
Exs. P-21 to 26.
39. Same is the evidence of Pw-11 B.Krishnamurthy.
He has stated to the effect that he do ot know anything
about the case and he has not seen any of the accused or
any vehicle. In his cross-examination Pw-11 has stated
45 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
that I.O. has not examined him and he has not given any
statement before I.O. as per Ex.P-27 to 32.
40. Pw12 Geetha is also one of the resident of 7 th
main road, Sriramapura, having a cloth shop. Pw-12
turned hostile to the case of prosecution. According to
her she never witnessed any incident nor she identified
any of the accused. It is stated by Pw-12 that she has
not given any statement before the I.O. as per Ex.P-33 to
P38. It is clear from the evidence of above witnesses
that they are not eye witnesses to the incident. From the
evidence of the above witnesses only two things can be
inferred. The first one is no incident as alleged by the
prosecution is taken place near 7th main road,
Sriramapura nor the I.O. has cited these witnesses
without verifying the fact that whether they have
witnessed the incident. Hence the evidence of above
witnesses is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution
to prove the allegations made against the accused.
46 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
41. Unfortunately the above witnesses have clearly
stated that they did not know anything about the
accused and they have not witnessed the incident of
murder. They have not given any statements before the
I.O. regarding the incident. In their cross-examination
they have denied having given statement before the I.O.
as per Ex.P39 to P43 respectively. Thus it is clear that
these witnesses have not seen anything about the
incident and they do not know who are the authors of the
alleged incident. Hence their evidence is totally not
helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the
allegations made against the accused.
42. Similar is the evidence of PW 50 Prabhakar.
In the chief-examination Pw-50 deposed to the effect that
he do not know deceased Smt. Pushpa and he do not
know any of the accused. According to him he has no
any information about the alleged incident and he do not
know about the accused who were in jail, he has not
given any statement before the I.O. regarding the alleged
47 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
criminal-conspiracy. He has been declared as hostile.
Even in the cross-examination prosecution has failed to
elicit any material worth the name which could help
prosecution to prove the allegations made against the
accused. On the other hand this witness has denied the
suggestions made by the prosecution as false. Thus the
evidence of Pw-50 is not much helpful to the case of
prosecution to prove the allegations made against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
43. The discussions made in the above paras make it
very clear that the so called eye witnesses to the incident
and also the witnesses to the alleged criminal-conspiracy
have failed to support the case of prosecution. They have
clearly and categorically stated that they have not seen
the deceased nor any of the accused and they have not
witnessed any incident and not given any statement
before the I.O. Therefore it is very difficult to accept the
case of prosecution that the above witnesses are the eye
witnesses to the incident and they have witnessed the
48 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
accused-persons committing the alleged offences. As
noted above even in their cross-examination also
prosecution has failed to make out anything which may
indicate that though they have witnessed the incident, but
they are speaking falsehood before the court for some
extraneous reasons. It is suggested that they are giving
false evidence only to support the case of accused-
persons. However the said suggestion has been denied as
false by each witnesses referred to supra. Therefore the
prosecution has not gained anything by cross-examining
the aforesaid witnesses.
44. Now let me examine the evidence of the witnesses
who are said to be the attesting witnesses to various
mahazars under which the prosecution is said to have
seized the weapons of offence, blood stained cloths of the
accused, blood stained mud and sample mud etc.,
45. Pw-3 Selvakumar and Pw-19 Vinod kumar are said
to be the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-9 seizure mahazar
49 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
under which the investigating officer is said to have seized
the blood stained mud and sample mud from the place of
occurrence. In his evidence PW-3 Selva kumar has
deposed to the effect that about 5-6 years before the date
of evidence one day when he was proceeding in front of
Sriramapura police-station, by that time police summoned
him to the station and obtained his signature on Ex.P-9
mahazar. He identified his signature which is marked at
Ex.P-9(a). It is stated by Pw-3 that he do not know the
contents of Ex.P-9 and I.O. has not seized any materials
in his presence. Same is the evidence given by Pw-19
Vinod kumar. Pw-19 has identified his signature at Ex.
P-9(b). Thus the above witnesses have failed to support
the case of prosecution about the seizure of blood stained
mud and sample mud from the place of occurrence. Both
the witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the
learned prosecutor. Even in their cross-examination
these witnesses have denied that I.O. has seized the blood
stained mud and sample mud by drawing mahazar at
Ex.P9 near Vinayaka stores situated at 7th main road,
50 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Sriramapura, where the incident has occurred. It is
denied as false by Pw-3 and Pw-19 that after preparation
of mahazar on the spot, I.O. has obtained their signature
on the spot. Thus, the evidence of Pw-3 and Pw-19 is not
helpful to the prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P-9
and also seizure of blood stained mud and sample mud.
46. Pw-20 Manju is said to be the attesting witness
to Ex.P-45 mahazar. According to the case of prosecution
along with accused No.1 Vinod, this witness was taken to
central prison, Bengaluru to the visitors room where the
accused had conspiracy meeting with other accused. The
I.O. has conducted a mahazar of the said place as per
Ex.P-45. However in the evidence Pw-20 has deposed to
the effect that about few years back one day when he was
going to attend the work, by that time he was taken to
Sriramapura police-station and there his signature was
obtained on Ex.P-45 Mahazar. He has identified his
signature marked as Ex.P-45(a). He has denied that he
was taken to aforesaid place along with accused No.1 and
51 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
there the police conducted mahazar of the place of
criminal-conspiracy. Thus Pw-20 has failed to support
the case of prosecution. Even in his cross-examination
the prosecution has failed to elicit any material worth the
name to indicate that Pw-20 was taken to central prison,
Bengaluru to the visitors room along with accused No.1
and there the mahazar as per Ex.P-45 was conducted in
his presence. The other attesting witnesses to Ex.P-45 is
not examined in this case. Thus the independent
witnesses to the mahazar has failed to speak in support
of the case of prosecution. Hence the evidence of Pw-20 is
not helpful to prove the contents of Ex.P-45 mahazar.
47. Pw-21 A. Mohan and PW-42 Vinod are said to
be the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-46 seizure mahazar
under which the I.O. has seized blood stained cloths and
weapons of offence as per the disclosure statement of
accused No.7 Babu. Unfortunately both the aforesaid
witnesses have failed to support the case of prosecution.
According to them about few years back one day when
52 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
they were passing in front of Sriramapura police-station
they were called inside and their signatures were
obtained on Ex.P-46 Mahazar, they have categorically
stated that no materials are seized from anybody in their
presence. Both the witnesses have failed to identify the
weapons of offence said to have been seized in their
presence. Going one step ahead the above witnesses
have denied having given their statements as per Ex.P-47
and P-88 respectively before the I.O. Their cross-
examination by the prosecution discloses that I.O. has
not conducted any such mahazar in their presence nor
seized any material objects under mahazar. Hence the
evidence of Pw-21 and Pw-42 is not helpful to the
prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P-46 mahazar.
48. Pw-22 Somasundaram and Pw-25 Samson are
said to be the witnesses for Ex.P-48 seizure mahazar
under which the investigating officer is said to have
seized seized weapons of offence, blood strained cloths,
above referred Maruthi van and Santro car. In their
53 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
evidence both Pw-22 and Pw-25 have stated that about
4-5 years prior to the evidence, they were summoned by
Srirampura police and their signatures were obtained on
a mahazar at Ex.P-48. However the I.O. did not seize any
articles or vehicles in their presence and they have not
given any statement as per Ex.P.49 and P-51
respectively. In their cross-examination, prosecution has
failed to elicit any information in support of its case.
Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of
the aforesaid articles and also the contents of Ex.P-48
mahazar.
49. PW-23 Sunil Kumar S. is said to be the attesting
witness to Ex.P50 seizure mahazar, under which blood
stained weapons, blood stained cloths were seized as per
disclosure statement given by accused No.9. M. Sridhara.
In his evidence Pw-23 has deposed to the effect that
about 5-6 years prior to the evidence, he was summoned
to the Srirampura police-station by the police and his
signature was obtained on Ex.P-50 mahazar. The
54 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P-50(a).
According to Pw-23 he do not know the contents of Ex.P-
50 and the police have never seized any material objects
in his presence from anybody. In the cross-examination
also the prosecution has failed to elicit any information
from the mouth of Pw-23 in support of the case of
prosecution. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove
the contents of Ex.P-50 seizure mahazar and seizure of
material objects.
50. Pw-24 V.Suresh is said to be the attesting witness
to Ex.P-50 seizure mahazar. He has also failed to
support the case of prosecution. He has spoken in line
with Pw-23 Sunil Kumar. According to Pw-24 also his
signature was obtained in the police-station and no
material objects were seized in his presence. Hence the
evidence of Pw-24 is also not helpful to the case of
prosecution.
55 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
51. Pw-44 Nagaraja is said to be the attesting
witness to Ex.P-90 and 91 seizure mahazars. It is the
case of the prosecution that as per the disclosure
statement made by accused No.6 Auto selva, the
investigating officer has seized the blood stained long and
blood stained cloths of accused No.6 in presence of this
witness. Pw-44 has deposed to the effect that in the year
2010 one day when he was passing through Sriramapura
police-station, by that time he was summoned inside and
the I.O. has obtained his signature on Ex.P-90 and 91
mahazars. He do not know the contents of said mahazars
and nothing was seized in his presence. According to
him he has not given any statements as per Ex.P-92
before the I.O. Thus the aforesaid witness also failed to
support the case of prosecution.
52. Pw-45 Prakash is said to be the attesting witness
to Ex.P-93 seizure mahazar. It is the case of the
prosecution that as per the disclosure statement made by
accused No.1 Vinod, the investigating officer has
56 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
conducted a mahazar near the place where criminal-
conspiracy meeting was held and later his statement as
per Ex.P-94 was recorded. However Pw-45 has deposed
to the effect that one day in the year 2010 he was taken
to police-station and his signature was obtained on a
document Ex.P-93. He was not taken to any place nor
any mahazar was conducted in his presence out side the
police-station. He has stated that he has not given any
statement as per Ex.P-94 before the I.O. In this way the
evidence of Pw-45 is not helpful to prove the contents of
Ex.P-93 mahazar.
53. Thus from the discussions made in the above
paras, it becomes very clear that the independent
witnesses who said to have attested various mahazars
have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they
failed to support its case. Even in their cross-
examination, prosecution has failed to make out
anything in support of its case. Therefore it creates doubt
in the mind of the court about the veracity of the case of
57 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
prosecution that it has seized weapons of offence, blood
stained cloths, vehicles etc, as per the disclosure
statements made by the accused-persons in the presence
of the above witnesses.
54. PW-46 Nicolas is examined to speak about the
photographs of the dead body marked at Ex.P-58 to P-71.
His evidence discloses that he is a still photographer and
he has been working as such since 30 years having
photograph studio at Kalasipalya, Bengaluru. It is in the
evidence of PW-46 that about 7-8 years prior to his
evidence as per the request of Srirampura police, he had
been to Victoria hospital mortuary to take photographs of
dead body of a woman. Accordingly he took 14
photographs of the dead body from different angles,
which are marked at Ex.P-58 to P-71. The cross-
examination by the accused discloses that he is running
a photo studio without any license and he has not
furnished any receipt to the police regarding taking of the
photographs. Though the evidence remained intact,
58 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
however it is not much helpful to the case of prosecution
to prove the allegations made against the accused beyond
doubt.
55. Pw-50 Prabhakar is examined to speak about
Ex.P-109 Mahazar regarding place of criminal-conspiracy
meetings. According to Pw-50 he do not know any of the
accused nor the deceased. He was not taken to any place
by the police and no mahazar was conducted in his
presence as per Ex.P-109. He denied that he has given
statement before the I.O. regarding the mahazar. Except
this nothing is made out in the cross-examination of Pw-
50 to believe that the I.O. has conducted mahazar in the
presence of this witness as per Ex.P.109.
56. Pw-51 Gajendran is said to be one of the
attesting witness to seizure mahazar at Ex.P-110 and
Ex.P-111. According to this witness about 8-9 years
before the date of his evidence, when he was going to
attend his work, at that time Srirampura police called
59 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
him to the station and obtained his signatures on two
documents. He do not know the contents of those
documents and no properties were seized in his presence.
He has been cross-examined by the learned public
prosecutor. But unfortunately in the cross-examination
also Pw-51 has denied that mahazars at Ex.P-110 and
111 have been conducted in his presence. The cross-
examination by the defence discloses that he is unknown
to Kannada language, therefore he cannot read and right
Kannada language. He deposes that he did not read the
contents of Ex.P-110 and P-111 as he do not know
Kannada. Thus Pw-51 also failed to support the case of
prosecution.
57. It becomes very clear from the discussions made
in the above paras that almost all independent witnesses
have turned hostile and failed to support the case of
prosecution. The prosecution has failed to elicit any
material from the mouth of the above witnesses in
support of its case. On the other hand all the witnesses
60 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
have deposed to the effect that their signatures have
been obtained by securing them to the police-station and
nothing is seized in their presence. Therefore the
independent witnesses to the seizure mahazars have not
supported the case of prosecution. Now the evidence
remained is only of official witnesses, who have spoken
about investigational aspects of the matter and also
about the injury certificate, FSL report etc.,
58. PW-26 M.D. Shivashankarappa is examined to
speak about shifting of dead body to Victoria hospital for
post-mortem examination and other formalities.
Accordingly in his chief-examination PW-26 has deposed
to the effect that as per the instructions of Pw-47
B.L.Venugopal the then P.I. of Sriramapura police-
station, he shifted the dead body of Smt. Pushpa to
mortuary of Victoria hospital for post-mortem and after
post mortem examination he handed over the dead body
to Pw-5 Satyanarayana the husband of deceased Smt.
Pushpa. It is further stated by Pw-26 that at the same
61 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
time he had been to Mallige hospital to collect the blood
strained cloths of complainant Shankar. Accordingly he
collected blood stained jeans pant, a T-shirt and under
wear and produced them before the investigating officer
with report at Ex.P-52. Later he collected the blood
stained cloths on the dead body of Smt. Pushpa namely a
Saree, a pettycoat, a blouse and a bracier. Later
produced them before the I.O. through Ex.P-53 Report.
After some days he collected the post mortem report from
the Victoria hospital and produced before the I.O. Later
he took all the weapons to the FSL and produced them
before the FSL for examination. This is all the evidence
given by Pw-26 in chief-examination.
59. He has been cross-examined by the learned
counsel for accused. The cross-examination of Pw-26
indicate that only on the oral order of Pw-47 he did all
the work. Remaining suggestion are in the form of
denial. A cursory reading of the evidence of Pw-26 it is
clear that it is very formal in nature and has no any
62 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
serious consequences. The evidence of Pw-26 alone is
not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
60. Pw-27 Dr. H.P.Shanthakumar has spoken about
the examination of the complainant Shankar and
issuance of wound certificate at Ex. P.54. He has also
deposed to the effect that he has given opinion report as
per Ex.P.55 to the effect that injuries mentioned in Ex.
P.54 can be caused by assaulting a person with longs
and choppers. However for the reasons mentioned in his
deposition he could not identify a particular weapon
which said to have inflicted injuries to complainant
Shankar. It is not in dispute that at the time of alleged
incident complainant Shankar made an attempt to
rescue his mother from the hands of the culprits. At
that time the culprits have assaulted the complainant
and attempted to murder him. As these points are not
seriously disputed by the accused, therefore the evidence
63 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
of Pw-27 also not so significant in support of the case of
prosecution.
61. Pw-28 H.R.Sri Harsha is the Asst. Executive
engineer who has prepared Ex.P-56 the sketch of scene
of occurrence. According to him the place of occurrence
is near 7th main road of Srirampura opposite to
Vinayanaka Textiles. In the cross-examination it is
suggested that he has prepared Ex.P-56 by sitting in his
office and without visiting the spot. Said suggestion is
denied as false by Pw-28. Even otherwise I am of the
opinion that when the acts attributed to the accused-
persons and their involvement is not proved with cogent
evidence, hence the only evidence of Pw-28 is not
sufficient to infer that the accused have committed the
alleged offences.
62. Pw-29 K.T.Dwarakish has spoken about his
deputation to secure the accused persons. Therefore he
has stated about that aspect of the matter. His evidence
64 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
indicates that he has secured Accused No.1 to 3, A-6, A-
9, A-10, A-18, A-20, A-21 and A-22 and produced them
before the I.O.. Though in his cross-examination, Pw-
29 has not given any admission in favour of the accused,
however his evidence alone is not helpful to the case of
prosecution as the accused have not disputed that they
were arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime.
However the defence is that they have been falsely
implicated in the present case. To some extent this
defence of accused is supported by the other witnesses
for prosecution as they failed to identify any of the
accused and they failed to speak about the alleged
assault made by the accused. Therefore the only
evidence of Pw-29 is not much helpful to the case of
prosecution to prove the allegations made against the
accused-persons beyond doubt.
63. The prosecution has examined Pw-30.
V.P.Upadyaya, PW-47 B.L.Venugopal and Pw-48
H.K.Mahananda, who are the investigating officers. I
65 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
need not discuss their evidence in detail as their
evidence is only with regard to the investigational aspects
of the matter. The aforesaid witnesses have stated that
they have conducted the investigation as projected by the
prosecution. However the independent witnesses have
failed to corroborate the statements of Pw-30, Pw-47 and
Pw-48 in so far as the investigational aspects of the
matter and also recovery of weapons of offence. Hence, I
do not find that detail discussion of the evidence of above
witnesses is not essential in the present case for the
reasons that almost all the independent witnesses have
failed to support the case of prosecution. Therefore only
relying on the evidence of investigating officers, it is not
possible to conclude that the accused-persons have
committed the offences alleged against them.
Consequently I refrain from making discussion of their
evidence in detail.
64. Pw-53 B.G.Kavatekar would speak about his part
of the investigation and also laying down the charge-
66 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
sheet against the accused. As noted above most of the
charge-sheet witnesses have failed to support the case of
the prosecution. It is suggested that without sufficient
primafacie materials Pw-53 has laid down a false charge-
sheet against the accused only to harass them. Though
this suggestion is denied as false by Pw-53, however the
very fact that the important witnesses for prosecution
have denied the case of prosecution, hence the evidence
of Pw-53 cannot be accepted as cogent and trustworthy.
The evidence of investigating officers do not inspire much
confidence in the mind of this court to come to a
conclusion that their evidence is sufficient to infer that
the accused-persons have committed the alleged
offences.
65. Pw-31 Dr. A.J.Dayananda has spoken about the
injuries he observed when the dead body of Smt. Pushpa
was brought to KCG hospital at the first instance.
According to him after examination of the injuries and
also the fact that the injured was already dead, therefore
67 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
he has issued a death memo as per Ex.P-76. He has also
spoken about the injuries received by Cw-9 Vignesh and
Cw-26 Shoba. Interestingly these witnesses have not
spoken anything about the alleged injuries in the present
case. The death of Smt. Pushpa is not in serious dispute,
therefore the evidence of Pw-31 alone is not helpful to the
case of prosecution.
66. The Prosecution has examined Pw-38 D.S.Katti
the then Asst. Superintendent of Central Prison,
Bengaluru to prove the alleged criminal-conspiracy
meeting held in the Central prison Bengaluru. A perusal
of evidence of Pw-38 goes to show that it is not cogent
and trustworthy of acceptance. According to him he do
not know which of the accused was brought to Central
prison and what was done in the Central prison. This
witness has not spoken anything about the panchanama
nor identification of the accused-persons. Therefore to
that extent he has treated as hostile. Even in the cross-
examination he was not sure exactly on what date the
68 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
investigating officer had brought which accused and
what transpired in the Central prison. Therefore the
contents of Ex.P-45 and P-83 are not sufficiently proved
by the prosecution with other corroborative and cogent
evidence. Hence the evidence of Pw-38 alone is not
helpful to the case of prosecution.
67. The prosecution also take pain to examine the
officer of FSL one Smt. D. Malathi as Pw-52. It is in the
evidence of Pw-52 that on 28.9.2010 FSL, Bengaluru
received around 41 articles pertaining to Crime No.
187/2010 of Sriramapura police-station through P.C.
8832 in sealed cover. She examined the above articles
and submitted report as per Ex.P-114. She has
identified her signature which is marked as Ex.P-114(a).
She opined that the Articles No.1 and 2 were found to
stained with human blood, but she could not find out the
blood group. Therefore the test was unconclusive. She
has also spoken about Ex.P-115 another report and
Ex.P-116 the third report regarding Mos 51 and 52. Her
69 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
evidence is not so clear to conclude that all the weapons
she examined were stained with blood and they not
matched with the blood group either deceased or the
accused. This is clearly admitted by Pw-52 in her cross-
examination though she has denied the suggestion as
false that she is giving false evidence. However perusal of
evidence of Pw-52 goes to show that it is not so
conclusive. It is not a substantive evidence, but it is the
opinion expressed by an expert. Therefore it cannot be
sole base to convict the accused-persons for the alleged
offences.
68. From the analysis of the evidence of prosecution
witnesses in the above paras it becomes very clear that
though the prosecution has proved the death of Smt.
Pushpa was a homicidal death, however it has failed to
place cogent and acceptable evidence to indicate that the
accused-persons before court are the author of the said
crime. Unfortunately most of the witnesses including
the complainant and close relatives of deceased Smt.
70 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Pushpa have failed to support the case of prosecution.
They have not spoken anything about the alleged assault
made by the accused-persons and their presence on the
spot at the time of incident. In so far as the evidence of
official witnesses is concerned, I am of the opinion that
they are not corroborated by the evidence of independent
witnesses. Hence they cannot be accepted to hold that
the prosecution has proved the case against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore having no other
go, I have come to an irresistible conclusion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations
made against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore the accused-persons are entitled for benefit of
doubt. Hence for the reasons and discussions made
above, I answer the Points No.1 to 7 in the Negative.
69. Point No.8: In the result of my above discussions,
I proceed to pass the following;
71 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 Vinoda @ Varadaraj @ Appi, A-2 Karna @ Karunakara, A-3 Vedi, A-6 Selva @ Auto Selva, A-9 Sridhar @ Mande, A-10 V.Mukesh, A-11 Loga @ Loganathan, A-12 Ganga S., A-18 Ramesh, A-19 Aruna, A-20 L.Janardhan, A-21 Manoj Kumar and A-22 Mani @ Auto Mani in S.C. No. 128/2011 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 120-B, 307 and 302 of IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC.
Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.5 Saravana, A-8 Raja @ Cycle Raja, A-13 Poobala, A-14 Ganesha, A-15 Velu and A-17 Jayalakshmi in S.C.No. 931/2011 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 120-B, 307 and 302 of IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The accused No.1 to 3, A-6, A-9 to 12 and A-
18 to 22 in SC No. 128/2011 and Accused No.5, A- 72 SC No.128/2011C/w. 931/2011.
8, A-13 to 15 and A-17 in SC No. 931/2011 shall comply the provisions of Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The seized properties marked at MOs.1 to 52 being worthless shall be destroyed only after the expiry of appeal period.
Keep the original Judgment in SC No.128/2011 and the copy in SC No.931/2011.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 19th day of November, 2021) (Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
APPENDIX List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution-side in SC No. 128/2011 & SC No.931/2011:
PW.1 Shankar S.
PW.2 K.P.Muthu
PW.3 Selvakumar
PW.4 Arjun
PW.5 Satyanarayana
PW.6 Ramesha
PW.7 Shilpa
PW.8 Shanthamma
PW.9 Satisha
PW.10 Shivaji
PW.11 V.Krishnamurthy
PW.12 Geetha
PW.13 Baby
PW.14 Chinnakutty
73 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
PW.15 Prabhakara
PW.16 Manjunatha
PW.17 Hemanthkumar
PW.18 Suman P.
PW.19 Vinoda
PW.20 Manju
PW.21 A. Mohana
PW.22 Somasundaram
PW.23 Sunilkumar
PW.24 V. Suresh
PW.25 Samsung
PW.26 M.D.Shivashankarappa
PW.27 Dr. H.P.Shanthakumar
PW.28 Sriharsha
PW.29 Dwarakish R.T.
PW.30 V.P.Upadhyaya
PW.31 Dr. Dayanand P.G.
PW.32 Manjunath S
PW.33 Jansirani
PW.34 Shobha
PW.35 Prabhu S.
PW.36 Isywarya
PW.37 Ashwini
PW.38 Dharmappa Shivamurthappa Katti
PW.39 Dr. Dilipkumar K.B.
PW.40 Shivakumar
PW.41 Vijay S.
PW.42 Vinod
PW.43 Eligibeth
PW.44 Nagaraj
PW.45 Prakash
PW.46 Nicolas
PW.47 B.L.Venugopal
PW.48 Mahananda H.K.
PW.49 Mallikarjuna
PW.50 Prabhakara
PW.51 Gajendran
PW.52 Malathi
PW.53 B.G.Kowtekar.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution-side in SC No. 128/2011 & SC No.931/2011:
Ex.P.1 Complaint.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the PW.30.
74 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Ex.P.1(b) Signature
Exs.P.2
to P.7 Statements of PW.1.
& Addl. Statements.
Ex.P.8 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature
Ex.P.8(b) Signature
Ex.P.8(c) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P.9 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.9(a) Signature
Ex.P.9(b) Signature
Ex.P.9(c) Signature of PW.30.
Ex.P.10 Statement of the PW.5.
Ex.P.11 Statement of the PW.6.
Ex.P.12 Statement of PW.7.
Ex.P.13 Statement of PW.8.
Ex.P.14 Statement of PW.8.
Ex.P.15 Statement of Pw.9.
Ex.P.16
to 20. Addl. Statements of PW.9 to 18. Ex.P.21 Statement of the PW.10. Ex.P. 22 to 26. Addl.Statements of PW.10. Ex.P.27 Statement of PW.11. Exs.P. 28 to P.32. Addl. Statements of the PW.11. Ex.P.33 Statement of Pw-12. Ex.P.34 to 38 Addl. Statements of PW.12. Ex.P.39 Statement of PW.13. Ex.P.39(a) Addl. Statement Ex.P.40 Statement of Pw.14 Ex.P.41 Statement of PW.15. Ex.P.42 Statement of PW.16. Ex.P.43 Statement of Pw.17 Ex.P.44. Seizure-panchanama. Ex.P.44(a) Signature Ex.P.44(b) Signature Ex.P.44(c) Signature Ex.P.45 Mahazar.
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of the PW.20. Ex.P.45(b) Signature of the PW.38.
Ex.P.47 Statement.
Ex.P.48. Seizure mahazar Ex.P.48(a) Signature of Pw-22 75 SC No.128/2011 C/w. 931/2011.
Ex.P.48(b) &(c) Signatures Ex.P.49 Statement Ex.P.50 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.51 Statement Ex.P.52 Report Ex.P.52(a)&(b) Signatures Ex.P.53 Report
Ex.P. 53(a) & (b) Signatures Ex.P.54 Wounds/Injury certificate. Ex.P. 54(a) Signature of Pw-27 Ex.P.55 Further opinion of Doctor Ex.P.55(a)&(b) Signatures Ex.P.56 Hand sketch map of scene of offences Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW-28 Ex.P.57 Original FIR Ex.P.57(a) Signature of Pw-30 Ex.P.58 to 71 14 colour photographs of deceased Pushpa. Ex.P.72 Covering letter of Mallige hospital Ex.P.72(a) Signature Ex.P.73. Requisition dt: 30/7/2010 of Superintendent central jail, B'lore.
Ex.P.73(a) Signature Ex.P.74. Reply to Ex.P.73.
Ex.P.74(a) Signature Ex.P.75 Post mortem report of deceased Pushpa Ex.P.75(a)&(b) Signature of Pw-30 Ex.P.76 Death Memo Ex.76(a) Signatures Ex.P.77 Statement of Pw-32 Ex.P.78 Statement of Pw-33 Ex.P.79 Statement of Pw-34. Ex.P.80 Statement of Pw-35. Ex.P.80(a) Signature Ex.P.81 Statement of Pw-36.(part) Ex.P.82 Statement of Pw-35.(part) Ex.P.83 Statement of Pw-38. Ex.P.84 Opinion Report. Ex.P.84(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.85 Specimen Seal Ex.P.86 Opinion Report II. Ex.P.86(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.87. Statement Ex.P.88. Statement Ex.P.89. Statement
Ex.P.90. Seizure Mahazar 76 SC No.128/2011 C/w. 931/2011.
Ex.P.90(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.91 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.91(a) &(b) Signatures Ex.P.92 Statement Ex.P.93 Mahazar Ex.P.93(a) Signature Ex.P.94 Statement Ex.P.95 K.C.Ganeral hospital copy. Ex.P.96 K.C.Ganeral hospital copy. Ex.P.97 Vol. Statement of Accused No.2 Ex.P.98 Vol. Statement of Accused No.6 Ex.P.99 Part of Vol. Statement of Accused No.3 Ex.P.100 Part of Vol. Statement of Accused No.9 Ex.P.101 Part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.102 Part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.103 Part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.104 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.105 part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.106 part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.107 part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.108 part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.109 Statement Ex.P.110 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.110(a)&(b) Signatures Ex.P.111 Mahazar Ex.P.111(a)&(b) Signatures Ex.P.112 Statement Ex.P.113 Specimen seal Ex.P.113(a) Signature Ex.P.114 FSL Report
Ex.P.114(a) & (b) Signatures Ex.P.115 FSL Report Ex.P.115(a) & (b) Signatures Ex.P.116 Sample seal Ex.P.116(a) Signature Ex.P.117 Govt. Order Ex.P.117(a) Signature Ex.P.118 HGB Ex.P.118(a) Signature Ex.P.119 part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.120 part of Vol. Statement of Accused Ex.P.121 FSL Report.
Ex.P.121(a) Signature.
77 SC No.128/2011C/w. 931/2011.
List of material-objects marked for the prosecution-side in SC No. 827/2012, SC No.115/2016, SC No.343/2016 & SC No.400/2016:
MO No.1 Safron colour saree MO No.2 Orange colour petticoat MO No.3 Orange colour blouse. MO No.4 Red colour bra.
MO No.5 One Iron long
MO No.6 One Iron long
MO No.7 One Iron long 2 ft 7 inch
MO No.8 One Iron long 2 ft 2 inch
MO No.9 One Iron long 2 ft
MO No.10 One Iron long 2 ft 3 inch
MO No.11 One Iron long 1 ft 10 inch
MO No.12 One Iron long 2 ft 5 inch
MO No.13 One Iron long 2 ft 3 inch
MO No.14 One Iron long 2 ft 2 inch
MO No.15 One Iron long 2 ft 6 ½ inch
MO No.16 One Iron long 22 inch
MO No.17 One Iron long 24 inch
MO No.18 Black coloured ½ sleeve T Shirt.
MO No.19 Jagging pant
MO No.20 Green colour full armed T shirt
MO No.21 Track pant.
MO No.22 Bisket colour shirt.
MO No.23 Coffee colur pant.
MO No.24 Iron long.
MO No.25 T Shirt
MO No.26 Blue coloured pant
MO No.27 Long
MO No.28 Iron long with Iron hand
MO No.29 Stripped shirt
MO No.30 Grey coloured jeans pant.
MO No.31 Long
MO No.32 Shirt
MO No.33 Blue coloured jeans pant.
MO No.34 Long
MO No.35 Shirt
MO No.36 Pant
MO No.37 Long
MO No.38 Shirt
MO No.39 Pant
MO No.40 Long
MO No.41 Shirt
MO No.42 Grey coloured pant
78 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
MO No.43 Long
MO No.44 Shirt
MO No.45 Pant
MO No.46 long
MO No.47 Shirt
MO No.48 Pant
MO No.49 Santro car mat MO No.50 Maruthi car mat MO No.51 long MO No.52 long.
List of witnesses examined for the defence-side in SC No. 128/2011 & SC No.931/2011:
- NIL -
List of documents exhibited for the defence-side in SC No. 128/2011 & SC No.931/2011:
- NIL -
(Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.79 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
(Judgment pronounced in the open-court. Operative-portion of the same is extracted as under) O RD ER Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 Vinoda @ Varadaraj @ Appi, A-2 Karna @ Karunakara, A-3 Vedi, A-6 Selva @ Auto Selva, A-9 Sridhar @ Mande, A-10 V.Mukesh, A-11 Loga @ Loganathan, A-12 Ganga S., A-18 Ramesh, A-19 Aruna, A-20 L.Janardhan, A-21 Manoj Kumar and A-22 Mani @ Auto Mani in S.C. No. 128/2011 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 120-B, 307 and 302 of IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC.
Acting under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.5 Saravana, A-8 Raja @ Cycle Raja, A-13 Poobala, A-14 Ganesha, A-15 Velu and A-17 Jayalakshmi in S.C.No. 931/2011 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 120-B, 307 and 302 of IPC R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC.80 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
The accused No.1 to 3, A-6, A-9 to 12 and A-18 to 22 in SC No. 128/2011 and Accused No.5, A-
8, A-13 to 15 and A-17 in SC No. 931/2011 shall comply the provisions of Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The seized properties marked at MOs.1 to 52 being worthless shall be destroyed only after the expiry of appeal period.
Keep the original Judgment in SC No.128/2011 and the copy in SC No.931/2011.
(Venkatesha R. Hulgi) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.81 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.82 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.83 SC No.128/2011
C/w. 931/2011.