Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka By vs No. 1 :- Shailesh Pande on 6 March, 2020
1 S.C. No. 886/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LIIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2020
PRESENT
Sri R. ONKARAPPA, B.Sc, LL.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No. 886/2016
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka by
Amruthhalli Police
Station,
Bangalore.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No. 1 :- Shailesh Pande,
S/o Rajendra Pande,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Downs Lodi Pura
Village, Sepura Police
station limits,
Sepura District,
Behar State
(By N. Suryanarayana, Advocate)
1. Date of Commission : 11.03.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 11.03.2014
of Offence
3. Status of the accused : A1 is in Judicial
2 S.C. No. 886/2016
Custody.
4. Name of the : Sri. M. Babu
complainant
5. Date of Commencement :
24.07.2018
of evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
08.01.2020
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections 5, 7, 25(1)
of Indian Arms Act
r/w 34 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 is
convicted for the
offence punishable
under Sections 5, 7,
25(1) of Indian
Arms Act r/w 34 of
I.P.C. U/s 235(2) of
Cr.P.C.
(R. ONKARAPPA)
LIIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by the Police inspector of Amruthhalli Police station, Bengaluru against the accused No.1 and 2 for an offence punishable under sections 5, 7, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of I.P.C.
3 S.C. No. 886/2016
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 11.03.2014 afternoon at 12.45 pm at Hebbala ring road, within the Amruthahalli Police station limitation, Bengaluru city, without valid license the accused No.1 was with intention sell,he possessed one 7.65 Pistol, one cartridge having 8 alive bullets and the accused No.2 had one cartridge with 7.65 pistol 6 alive bullets and thereby the accused No. 1 and 2 have committed the above said offence.
3. The accused No.1 is in Judicial Custody. The case against the accused No.2 was split up in CC No. 938/2016. The case against accused No.1 has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offences are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned CMM, Bengaluru has committed this case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and thereafter made over to this court in SC No. 886/2016 for trial in accordance with law. After hearing the counsel for the accused before framing the charge, the charge was framed against accused No.1 for the offences 4 S.C. No. 886/2016 punishable under Sections 5, 7, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1, the prosecution examined four witnesses, out of total charge sheet cited nine witnesses, as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and material object as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The prosecution not able to examine other witnesses inspite of sufficient opportunity provided. Hence the evidence of the prosecution taken as closed and the accused No.1 has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He had not adduced evidence in his defence.
5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.
6. Having regard to the materials placed on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the only point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 11.03.2014 afternoon at 12.45 pm at Hebbala ring road, within the Ambruthhalli Police station limits, 5 S.C. No. 886/2016 Bengaluru city, with common intention to gain the profit the accused No. 1 without valid license with intention to sell ,he possessed one 7.65 Pistol, one cartridge having 8 alive bullets and the accused No.2 had one cartridge with 7.65 pistol 6 alive bullets and thereby the accused No. 1 has committed the offences punishable under sections 5, 7, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of I.P.C.?"
7. My finding to the above point is in the Affirmative, for the following:-
REASONS
8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1, the prosecution have examined four witnesses, out of total charge sheet cited nine witnesses, as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and material object as M.O.1. to M.O.3, as such firstly it requires to examine the testimony of each witness independently.
9. CW1 by name Babu examined as PW1. Who being a police inspector of Amruthalli police he got a information on 11.03.2014 at 12.45 pm, that near ring road within his 6 S.C. No. 886/2016 police station limits, some of the miscreants are atempt to sell a Pistol. Upon such information, he got collect CW5 Forman Sharif, CW6 Manoj Kumar as panchas. After collected the panchas he took the panchas along with his staff CW2 Karibasappa, CW3 Megharaj, CW4 Yashwath D Pawar in a government jeep near to ring road, it was at the time of 1.00pm when he reached. After stopped his jeep and he make concentrate upon 4-5 members who were stand near bus stop of Nagavara, he found one who stand there along with a pistol in his hand. After confirming the information he make ride on such miscreants. Among the four members, two members ran away and he succeed to caught hold two members with the assistance of his staff. After caught hold such two miscreants he make enquiry on them and he found their names, one is Shailesh Pande and another one is Narendra Pande. On enquiry on the accused No.1 Shailesh Pande he found one pistol in his hand and the accused No. 1 stated before him that about one week back he came from Bihar and he try to marketing said pistol for a high price 7 S.C. No. 886/2016 without any valid license. After freeze the said pistol from the accused No.1 he found 8 alive bullets and one cartridge. Upon enquiry on accused No.2 he found six 6 alive bullets with the possession of the accused No.2. The accused Nos.1 and 2 stated before him that, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 do not know the name and address of the miscreants who ran away from the spot. After caught hold the accused No. 1 and 2, pistol and alive bullets and cartridge, seized the same by drawing seizer mahazar at before panchas CW5 and CW6. Same mahazar got identified by him, same has been marked here in as per Ex.P1 and signature of the witness marked as per Ex.P1(a). After he took the accused Nos.1 and 2 along with seized articles to Amruthahalli police station, produced the same before CW8 along with one report. He got identified said report, same has got marked as per Ex.P2 and signature of the witness as per Ex.P2(a). Also identified the accused No.1, who stands before the court. Identified one Pistol, now already got marked as M.O.1, also identified five alive bullets as per M.O.2 and one cartridge as per M.O.3. 8 S.C. No. 886/2016
10. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that there was an 2 km distance between the Amruthhalli police station and the spot of incident. Admitted the suggestion that the place of incident is one of the busy place. And further gone through the cross examination portion of PW1, nothing much the defence has been establish to disbelieve the testimony of PW1, except some of the points which are not to drawn any inference against to the prosecution. As such evidence of PW1 stands adhered.
11. CW2 one Karibasappa examined as PW2, who being a police constable of Amruthahalli police station, who being a one of the staff who went along with PW1 for ride on group of miscreants. Who he also deposed as nearly as equal to the deposition of PW1 and PW2 also identified a signature available on Ex.P1 mahazar, same signature got identified as per Ex.P1(b). He also identified the accused No.1 who stood before the court. He too also identified one pistol already got marked as per M.O.1, five alive bullets as per M.O.2 and one cartridge as per M.O.3. Even in the cross examination 9 S.C. No. 886/2016 nothing has been established a case of the defence through the mouth of PW2 except denial of suggestion which put forth by the defence, as such testimony of PW2 also adhered.
12. CW8 one Siddarangaswamy examined as PW3. On 11.03.2014 who being a station house officer of Amruthhalli police station, PW1 M. Babu produced the accused Nos.1 and 2 along with one report and USA made one pistol and 14 alive bullets. He got identified said report gave by the PW1, now already got marked as per Ex.P2 and signature of the witness got marked as per Ex.P2(b). Upon the Ex.P2 report he registered a case against to the accused No.1 in Crime No. 23/2014 of his station for the offence punishable under sections 5, 7, 8 and 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. He got identified said FIR, same has been got marked as per Ex.P3, signature of the witness as per Ex.P3(a). He subjected said Pistol and 14 alive bullets in PF No.23/2014 of his station. He got identified one pistol, same has been marked as per M.O.1, three alive bullets and three used bullets got marked 10 S.C. No. 886/2016 M.O.2 and cartridge bears 5 alive bullets got marked as per M.O.3. On the same day he arrested the accused No. 1 and 2 and recorded the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 and 2. On the same day he recorded the witness statement PW2 Karibasappa, CW3 Megharaj, CW4 Yashwath, CW5 Paramansharif and CW6 Manoj kumar. On 12.03.2014 he got obtain the accused with the permission of the court for police custody and on 15.03.2014, the accused No.1 and 2 took to him to the house of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Wherein he make search the said house. On 15.03.2014 he produced the accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the court. On 03.04.2014 he sent M.O.1 and 3 to FSL, Madiwala for examination through CW7 Prasanna. On 24.05.2014 he received FSL report from FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru through CW7, same FSL report got identified by him and marked as per Ex.P4 and signature available on Ex.P4 got marked as per Ex.P4(a). According to ballistic report as per Ex.P4 officer of the FSL gave an opinion above one pistol is in status of make use and six bullets are alive in nature. On 16.07.2014 11 S.C. No. 886/2016 in order to submit the charge sheet against to the accused, he got obtained permission from the Police commissioner, Bengaluru, same permission letter got identified by him and got marked as per Ex.P5. On 06.08.2014, the Police commissioner, Bengaluru issued a sanction letter, same has identified by him and got marked as per Ex.P6. On 28.08.2014 he seeks permission before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to annex the FSL report and sanction letter as per Ex.P6 with the charge sheet. Same permission letter he got identified and same as marked as per Ex.P7 and signature as per Ex.P7(a). On prima facie established against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 he submitted a charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.
13. In the cross examination it clarified that this witness make enquired the PW1 when the accused No. 1 and 2 brought by PW1. It is the defence of the accused counsel that some of the persons, who establish a temporary tents for marketing ayurvedic medicine at near Hebbal Junction. But accused counsel never put any suggestion that 12 S.C. No. 886/2016 the accused No. 1 and 2 are the persons who try to marketing ayurvedic medicine at near Hebbal Junction.in further nothing has been established through the mouth of this witness to shake the creditness of testimony of this witness except the suggestion which are in the nature of denial,as the same suggestion are also denied by this witness. As such the testimony of PW3 adhered.
14. CW7 who is a police constable of Amruthahalli police station, who examined as PW4. PW4 deposed that on 04.04.2014, PW3 PSI Siddarangaswamy sent him to FSL along with three packets which bears the pistol and six alive bullets in which same were all covered by three packets packed with a white colour cloths and sealed manner. Upon such he went to FSL and deliver the three items packets covered by white colour cloths and in a sealed manner to FSL. To that effect he received a receipt from FSL, same receipt got identified by him and got marked as per Ex.P8. He also identified M.O.1 to M.O.3. In the cross examination, PW4 deposed that he took a packet to FSL under police 13 S.C. No. 886/2016 passport. Also deposed that FSL officers are signed to said passport. He deposed that he had not gave any statement in this regard. As such chief examination of PW4 also look like a natural. Accordingly testimony of PW4 stands adhered.
15. Despite of repeated process and coercive process issued against to CW5, CW6 and CW9 right from 14.03.2019, the police have not secured CW5, CW6 and CW9. On 08.01.2020 the learned Public prosecutor made prayer for further coercive steps against to the CW5, CW6 and CW9 and on the other hand learned counsel for the accused submits offence leveled against to the accused is one punishable under section 25 of Indian Arms Act, the accused No.1 is in continuous Judicial custody right from 12.03.2014. by considering the facts and circumstances involved on the case, prayer made by the learned public prosecutor had been rejected and evidence of CW5, CW6 and CW9 taken as nil. Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of CW3 and CW4. Hence their evidence taken as given up on 14 S.C. No. 886/2016 28.02.2019.
16. Charge leveled against to the accused is punishable under section 5, 7 and 25(1) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of IPC. For that it is necessary me to peruse, whether the prosecution comply the ingredients of section 5, 7 and 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. whether the accused possessed arms with intention to sell and make profit. M.O.1 is one sophisticated instrument. M.O.2 are the six alive bullets. M.O.3 is the cartridge. Now the question, whether the prosecution bring home the case against to the accused by seizing the M.O.1 to M.O.3.
17. It is the specific charge against to the accused for an offence to contravent the section 5, 7 and 8 of Indian Arms Act. As such it requires to the prosecution to prove whether the accused No. 1 along with the accused No.2 with their common object to gain the profit, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquires as in his possession or carries any prohibited arms at the relevant point of time as alleged by the prosecution.
15 S.C. No. 886/2016
18. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the information got by PW1 M. Babu through a informant, upon such information he got collected CW3 and CW4 as a panchas and along with his staff he went to the spot and raid on the miscreants group. Among the group of miscreants, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 caught hold by the PW1 and produce before CW8 K. R. Siddharangaswamy.
19. Perused the testimony of CW8. CW8 Siddharangaswamy examined before this court as PW3. PW3 also deposed that, PW1 got produced the accused No. 1 and 2 along with one report and one USA made pistole and 14 alive bullets. Upon such report PW3 got registered a case against to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/s 5, 7, 8 and 25(1) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of IPC and on such registering the case against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. PW3 sent a FIR as per Ex.P3 to the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
20. Peruse the Ex.P2 report. Ex.P2 gave by PW1 M. Babu. Ex.P2 speaks that, on 11.03.2014 at afternoon 3.00 16 S.C. No. 886/2016 pm, PW1 produced one Shailesh Pande and Narendra Pande and one pistole and four alive bullets and PW1 found accused no 1 and 2 atempt to sell MO 1 to 3 for price . Perused the cross examination portion of PW1. Learned counsel for the accused, a question posed to PW1 that at Ex.P2 report does not bears any recital in so far pistole, whether that pistole manufactured in India or outside of India. Also posed a question there is no recital at Ex.P2 what kinds of cloths that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were wore at the time of ride. Except to this nothing more question posed by the defence counsel. These are the questions are look like a question to just to over come the case by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and these kind of the questions are irrelevant to decide the question in fact herein. Because PW1 is one of the complainant and what he had felt on ride upon the miscreant same has been reported before the PW3 the then SHO of complainant police. Upon the Ex.P2 report, PW3 investigated the case and referred M.O.1 pistol to FSL to find out genuinety on pistol. At this stage I perused the testimony of 17 S.C. No. 886/2016 PW3. PW3 in his examination in chief, on 03.04.2014 PW3 sent M.O.1 to M.O.3 to FSL, Madival through CW7 Prasanna and on 24.05.2014 he got collect the report from FSL Madival as per Ex.P4. Perused the Ex.P4. Ex.P4 is one of the documents bears the title "Certificate of Examination" and it keen examine the very relevant portion is herein extracted
1. The weapon in article No. 1 is a fire arm.
2. The weapon in article No. 1 is a country made single shot pistol
3. The pistol in article No. 1 bears signs of discharge. But no option is possible regarding actual date and time of firing.
4. The pistol in article No. 1 is in working condition
5. The effective range of the pistol in article No. 1 is about 25 yards.
6. The 7.65 mm caliber cartridges in article No. 2 and 3 were live.
7. The mgzines in article No. 2 and 3 are the component of the pistol in article No. 1 FSL gave an opinion the same is herein extracted. 18 S.C. No. 886/2016
"The weapon in Article No. 1 is provided with firing mechanisum, chamber for housing ammunition space for controlled expansion of gases barrel for propelling projections. Hence the weapon in Article NO. 1 is a firearm. There are no serial number, proof marks and company name on the pistol Article No. 1. Hence the pistol in Article No. 1 is an illegally manufactured firearm. Article No. 2 sealed in a cloth packet, number of seals 3 with the impression "CM" seals are intact and tallied with seal sent by IO and bears Pancha's signature. Article No. 2 Contains one magzine loaded with eight 7.65 mm caliber rifle cartridges bearing head stamp KF-7.65. The Magzine in article No. 2 is exactly fit in to the magzine port of the pistol in article No. 1. Hence it is a component of a pistol in article No. 1. Article No. 3 sealed in a cloth packet, number of seals 3 with the impression "CM"
seals are intact and tallied with seal sent by IO and bears Pancha's signature. Article No.3 contains one magzine loaded with six 7.65 mm caliber rifle cartridges bearing head stamp KF-7.65. The magzine in article No. 2 is 19 S.C. No. 886/2016 exactly fit in to the magzine port of the pistol in article No. 1. hence it is a component of a pistol in article No. 1.
Test Firing - Out of eight cartridges in article No. 2, three and out of 6 cartridges in article NO. 3, three were successfully test fired through the pistol in article No. 1. Hence the pistol in article No. 1 is in working condition at the time of examination and cartridges are marked as T1 to T6 by me in the lab. The effective range of pistol in article No. 1 is about 25 yards".
21. As such, the very existence of M.O.1 to M.O.3 stands proved by the prosecution behind all reasonable doubt. Ex.P4 also evident M.O.1 to 3 are the arms as defined under s-s(c) of section 2 of the arms act 1959. It is true that such person of FSL who are examined M.O.1 to M.O.3 and gave an opinion on M.O.1 to M.O.3 not cited as a charge sheet witness and not examined before the court.
22. It is true the prosecution have not examined the FSL officers. Though the prosecution not examined the FSL officers before this court their records and their opinion 20 S.C. No. 886/2016 stands before this court as unchallenged and even the defence also not categorically denied the contents of Ex.P4 FSL report. As such evidence available on Ex.P4 documents adhered and M.O.1 to M.O.3 are herein inspire a confidence about their genuineness.
23. As per the prosecution Ex.P2 report given by the PW1 to PW3, PW3 registered a case against to the accused and sent a FIR as per Ex.P3 to Jurisdictional Magistrate. According to Ex.P2 at the spot itself the accused was caught hold by the PW1. As such the burden again lies on the accused to show why the police have caught hold and why the PW3 got arrest after complying the procedure contemplated under Criminal Law of Justice. To this aspect the accused nothing a material has been placed to disbelieve the caught hold and arrest of the accused and even the accused nothing made any statement while examine him under section 313 Cr.P.C., when such being the case, the accused is here failed to explain the fact especially within his knowledge.
21 S.C. No. 886/2016
24. The police have made a request to Police Commissioner, Bengaluru as per Ex.P5 seeks permission to submit a charge sheet against to the accused. Upon such request as per Ex.P5 the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru issued a sanction as per Ex.P6. The defence nothing cross examined upon Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Even Ex.P5, P6 and P7 documents are also not challenged by the accused before any authorities so far the procedure as well as sanctity of Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. As such the evidentiary value of Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 is herein adhered and the prosecution have successfully proved the fact that the accused No.1 acquires, as in his possession or carries prohibited arms as per M.O.1 to M.O.3. Accordingly the prosecution proved the contents of Ex.P1 Mahazar behind all reasonable doubt.
25. Another question born in the mind of this court is whether testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and conviction can be held without a corroboration by the independent witness. Admittedly the police have not secured 22 S.C. No. 886/2016 CW5 Farman Sharif, CW6 Manoj Kumar, who are the attesting witness to the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. Inspite of a repeated issuance of process against to CW5 and CW6, CW5 and CW6 have not secured.
26. As such I relied on the decision which is reported in (2004) 7 SCC 566 Lopchand Naruji Jat and another Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian has held that;
"The substances recovered from the appellants clearly come with the definition of "explosive" as per Section 4(d) of the Act. When the investigating officer was found to be trustful and in spite of incisive cross examination, nothing material has been that brought to discredit his evidence, the Trial Court was justified in recording conviction on his evidence alone".
27. Another decision which is reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311 Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that;
23 S.C. No. 886/2016
"the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon.
The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as mych in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated in the opening part of his examination in chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness. PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and has deposed that despite their best efforts no one from public was willing to join the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar statement has 24 S.C. No. 886/2016 been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that even in normal circumstances members of public are very reluctant to accompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking upon search of some premises. At the time when the terrorism was at its peak, it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links with terrorists".
28. Hence, though CW5 and CW6 have not examined the testimony available on record inspire a confidence upon the prosecution case and oral testimony of witness who are examined before the court also corroborate the documentary evidence. Hence I am of the opinion that I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution proved the case behind all 25 S.C. No. 886/2016 reasonable doubt against the accused No.1. Hence, I have answered the above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 is convicted in respect of Section 5, 7, 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of IPC.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcripted by her, printout taken thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of March, 2020).
(R. ONKARAPPA) LIIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.26 S.C. No. 886/2016
07.03.2020 ORDER ON SENTENCE
29. Heard arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused Nos. 1 on quantum of sentence to be imposed on the convicted accused No. 1.
30. The learned counsel for the accused No. 1 Sri. N. Suryanarayana, advocate has argued that the accused Nos. 1 has no criminal antecedents and he is not a previous convict. The accused No. 1 is poor. The accused No. 1 is in Judicial custody from 12.03.2014 and the period of judicial custody of the accused No.1 may be set off while imposing the sentence. Inter alia, on these grounds, the learned counsel for the accused No. 1 prays for taking lenient view while imposing sentence.
31. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that, since the guilt against the accused No. 1 unequivocally established. In view of it, the accused No. 1 should be given with maximum punishment provided under Sections 5, 7, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of IPC. Inter alia, on these grounds, 27 S.C. No. 886/2016 the learned Public Prosecutor prays for imposing of maximum sentence.
32. I have considered submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No. 1 in the light of penology of law.
33. In my considered view, these sentences will maintain the equilibrium between offences committed and sentences to be imposed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused Nos. 1 is hereby sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for Six years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for an offence punishable under sections 5, 7 and 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act r/w 34 of I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, the accused No. 1 shall further undergo S.I., for one month.
M.O.1 to M.O.3 are ordered to be preserved for trial of split up case against to the accused No. 2.
Acting under section 363(1) CrPC, office is hereby directed to furnish copy of this judgment to the convicted accused Nos. 1, at free of cost.28 S.C. No. 886/2016
Records speaks that, the accused Nos. 1 was in the Judicial custody from 12.03.2014. The same period of judicial custody of the accused No. 1 is hereby set off to substantive sentence of the offence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 7th day of March, 2020.) (R. ONKARAPPA), LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 M. Babu P.W.2 Karibasappa P.W.3 Siddharangaswamy P.W.4 Prasanna LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: NIL Ex.P.1 Mahazar Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.2 Report Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW3 E.xP.3 FIR 29 S.C. No. 886/2016 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.4 FSL Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P5 Letter Ex.P6 Permission Letter Ex.P7 Requisition Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P8 Acknowledgment LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1 Pistol
M.O.2 Five alive bullets
M.O.3 Three Used bullets
(R. ONKARAPPA)
LIIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.