Bangalore District Court
Madiwala P.S vs Amanulla Aman on 6 February, 2025
KABC010169452016
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 6th day of February 2025.
S.C.No.883/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by
Madiwala Police,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Amanulla @ Amaan
S/o.Late Soudagar,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.No.255, 2nd Main,
2ndCross, Kupendrareddy Nagar,
Opp. to Police Quarters,
Parappana Agarahara,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.N.D.L., Advocate)
S.C.No.883/2016
2
Date of commission of offence : 05.03.2016
Date of report of offence : 06.03.2016
Date of arrest of the 07.03.2016
accused :
Date of release of the Accused is in judicial custody.
accused :
Period of imprisonment Accused is still in judicial
undergone by the accused : custody.
Name of the complainant : Sri.Azimuddin
Date of commencement 05.07.2018
of trial :
Date of closing of evidence : 01.10.2024
Charges framed : Under Section 302 of IPC.
Opinion of the court : The Accused is convicted for
the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC.
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC.
2. The Learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the offence is under Section 302 of IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After S.C.No.883/2016 3 committal of the case, the case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Mohammed Nasarulla, who was physically challenged was running a mobile shop on the main road of Venkateshwara Layout under the name and style "Shanur", within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru. On 5.03.2016 at about 10-00 p.m., the accused who had developed vengeance against the deceased for the reason that even though the brother of the accused had helped the deceased in establishing the said shop,the deceased had refused to put currency and download songs to the mobile of the accused ,and under the wrong impression that the deceased used to give cigarettes, Ganja and liquor to the brother of the accused. So on the same day at about 5-00p.m., the accused had made preparation to commit the murder of deceased by collecting knife and chopper. After closing the shop, when the deceased was about to take his bike meant for physically challenged which was parked on the road side of 1 st main, S.C.No.883/2016 4 Venkateshwara Layout, Bengaluru, the accused with an intention to commit his murder had assaulted him with a knife on all the parts of the body and also assaulted him with a chopper on his head, causing grievous bleeding injuries, knowing fully well that such injuries may likely to cause death of a person. When the deceased- injured was shifted to the hospital, he was declared as dead by the doctors. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
4. On securing the presence of the accused, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against him for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 20 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked the 30 documents from Exs.P.1 to 30 also got marked 14 material objects from M.Os.1 to 14. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence stated against him. The accused has chosen not to adduce any defense evidence on his behalf.
S.C.No.883/2016 5
5. Heard both sides.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 05.03.2016 at about 10-00 p.m., when deceased Mohammed Nasarulla was about to take his bike meant for physically challenged after closing his shop, the accused with an intention to commit the murder of Mohammed Nasarulla, assaulted him and stabbed him with a knife on all the parts of the body and also assaulted with a chopper on his head, causing grievous bleeding injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?
2. Is the death of Mohammed Nasarulla on 5.03.2016 homicidal?
3. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Affirmative, POINT No.2 - Affirmative POINT No.3 - As per the final order for the following :
S.C.No.883/2016 6 REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 & 2: As these points are interrelated to each other, they are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Mohammed Nasarulla, who was physically challenged was running a mobile shop on the main road of Venkateshwara Layout under the name and style "Shanur", within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru. On 5.03.2016 at about 10-00 p.m., the accused who had developed vengeance against the deceased for the reason that even though the brother of the accused had helped the deceased in establishing the said shop, the deceased had refused to put currency and download songs to the mobile of the accused and has a wrong impression that the deceased used to give cigarettes , Ganja and liquor to the brother of the accused. So on the same day at about 5-00p.m., the accused had made preparation to commit the murder of deceased by collecting knife and chopper. After closing the shop, when the deceased was about to S.C.No.883/2016 7 take his bike meant for physically challenged which was parked on the road side of 1 st main, Venkateshwara Layout, Bengaluru, the accused with an intention to commit his murder had assaulted him with a knife on all parts of the body and also assaulted him with a chopper on his head, resulting which he collapsed with grievous bleeding injuries, knowing fully well that such injuries may likely to cause death of a person. When the injured Mohammed Nasaraulla was shifted to the hospital, he was declared as dead by the doctors. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Azimuddin is the complainant and brother of the deceased. He has stated that deceased Nasiruddin is his second younger brother, whose left leg was crippled by birth. The deceased was running a rented mobile service shop in Muneshwara Block. The father of the accused by name Soudagar was the friend of their father and they were working at the same place. As such they were knowing the family members of the accused. The accused was known to them, he used to come to the shop for recharge and to get S.C.No.883/2016 8 the songs downloaded to his mobile and used to harass his younger brother. He was informed about the same by his younger brother. The elder brother of the accused by name Asadulla and his friends used to come to the shop of his younger brother and they used to smoke ganja, beedi and cigarette. He had advised his younger brother to avoid their company. The accused had developed hatred towards his younger brother with a wrong impression that his elder brother was getting spoilt by coming to the shop of the deceased. The accused used to regularly visit to the shop of the deceased and threaten to kill him if he continued to do the same which he came to know after his deceased younger brother informed him and at that time they did not take it seriously.
On 5.03.2016 at about 10-30 p.m., his last younger brother by name Bashiruddin telephoned and informed him that Amanulla-accused had gone with a knife and machu near the shop and was waiting there and at about 10-00 p.m., after his younger brother closed the door of the shop and was returning, the accused stabbed him with a knife on his body several times causing injuries and also hit him on his head with a machu and S.C.No.883/2016 9 thereby causing his death and also informed him that the dead body was kept in St. John's Hospital. On receiving the information he went to St. John's Hospital and saw the dead body, where he found injuries on the head and various parts of the body of the deceased. During the midnight hours at 12-45 a.m., he went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P.1). He was present when the police conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.2) at the place of incident in the presence of Manjunath and Girish. At the time of mahazar the blood stains were collected from the spot with the help of the cotton which was packed and seal "MPS" was put on it. At the time of mahazar inside the compound wall of Surabhi House a blood stained 12 inches long knife was traced and the same was seized and it was covered with a white cloth and seal "MPS" was put on it. The mahazar was conducted between 5-30 to 6-00 a.m. He has identified the blood stained cotton (M.O.1), sample cotton (M.O.2), knife (M.O.3). After the post portem he obtained the dead body. He had identified the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that in the year S.C.No.883/2016 10 2016 he was working as Head Constable at Kudur Police Station, Magadi Taluk. It is elicited that the distance between Bengaluru to Kundur is 60-70 kms. It is elicited that the distance between Magadi to Bengaluru is 40-50 kms. It is elicited that his father was staying at Parappana Agrahara which is at a distance of 20-25 kms., from Bengaluru. It is elicited that his brother (P.W.4) informed him about the death of Mohammed Nazarulla. At 10-30 p.m., when he received the information through phone he was in his quarters in Kudur. He immediately left the quarters and reached St. John's Hospital, Bengaluru at 11-30 p.m. It is also elicited that after informing his superior officers he came to Bengaluru in a rented car belonging to Srinivas. He has denied the suggestion that he came to Bengaluru between 12-30 to 1-00 p.m., and visited St. John's Hospital. It is elicited that the dead body was in the mortuary of St. John's Hospital and his family members i.e., his parents and brother were present along with other relatives. It is elicited that he stayed in the hospital for half an hour. He was informed by the police and his relatives that on 5.03.2016 at 10-00 p.m., when his brother was S.C.No.883/2016 11 closing the mobile shop the accused had murdered him. It is elicited that other than him no one went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. It is elicited that Madiwala Police Station is at a walkable distance of 5-10 minutes from St. John's Hospital. He has denied the suggestion that his brother Mohammed Nasaruddin had died due to fatal injuries sustained by him in an accident. He has denied the suggestion that on 6.03.2016 after discussion and due deliberation they have intentionally lodged a false complaint against the accused. It is elicited that at 12-15 a.m., he along with his father and brother went to the Police Station where he gave a written complaint to the the Police Inspector at 12- 45 a.m. He has denied the suggestion that he had influenced and pressurized the police to register a false case against the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he has lodged a complaint on the next day morning at 9-00 a.m., by misusing his status as a police. He has denied the suggestion that C.Ws.2, 5 to 8 and 14 to 18 are his friends. But he stated that they are known to him. He has denied the suggestion that his relatives and friends are made as witnesses in this S.C.No.883/2016 12 case. He has denied the suggestion that the accused is a mentally retarted person. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was taking treatment at NIMHANS from 2013. He has denied the suggestion that due to loss of patience the accused used to shout and scold the people. He has denied the suggestion that while he and others were talking with each other, the accused used to interfere and object their conversation. He has denied the suggestion that due to the said attitude of the accused he was not in good terms with his brother. He has denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the accused and the death of his brother. It is elicited that C.Ws.5, 6 and 26 were present along with the Police Inspector when he visited the spot at Madiwala, Venkateshwara Layout, Bengaluru. He admitted that the said road is a two way busy road. He admitted that on both sides of the road, there are shops and business establishments which close at 9-00 p.m., and also there are residential houses in front of the shops. He has denied the suggestion that the shops and establishments will be open till 12-00 in the midnight. He has denied the suggestion that no traces of incident was S.C.No.883/2016 13 available on the said road. He has denied the suggestion that if really the incident had occurred, other people would have lodged the complaint. He has denied the suggestion that no knife was seized at the spot and no mahazar was conducted in the presence of panchas as stated by him. It is elicited that M.O.3 (Knife) had a black coloured grip, but he denied the suggestion that there are no special marks to identify the same. He has denied the suggestion that the accused is a mentally retarted person and was not coming outside the house. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to harass the accused.
11. P.W.2 -Sri.Nadan has stated that he has signed the inquest mahazar (Ex.P.3) as per Ex.P.3(a). He stated that the dead body had injuries. He has stated that the injuries on the head, hands and body were caused by a knife. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that he has not read the contents of the inquest mahazar. He does not know what is written in the document. He denied the suggestion that he has signed a blank paper in the police station.
S.C.No.883/2016 14
12. P.W.3-Sri.Manjunath has stated that he has signed the mahazar (Ex.P.2) on 5.03.2016. He has put his signature pertaining to the murder of Mohammed Nazirhudin who was murdered in his mobile shop. He was present at the spot when the mahazar was drawn. They collected the blood samples, seized a knife measuring 12 inches, also the police collected a plain cotton in a container. He has identified the said properties marked from M.Os.1 to 3. He stated that the police did not take his signature at the spot. As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he has signed the mahazar at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to help the accused.
13. P.W.4-Sri.Bashiruddin has stated that his brother was murdered. His deceased brother was having a mobile shop at Old Madiwala, Begaluru where he was doing mobile service, downloading film songs, dealing with accessories, etc. He knows the accused Amanulla. He stated that his father and the father of the accused were both S.C.No.883/2016 15 working in K.S.R.P. Department. The accused is their family friend. He had assisted his brother to get a shop on rent to run a mobile shop. His deceased brother is handicapped from birth and the accused used to visit his mobile shop asking him to download the songs and to recharge his mobile. At first his brother used to do it freely, thereafter his deceased brother refused to do the work without money and at that time the accused started threatening his brother and posed life threat to his brother. He had also blackmailed his brother stating that he is teaching bad habits to the brother of the accused. On 5.03.2016 at about 12-30 a.m., when he was returning back from his work near dairy circle check post he received a call from Madiwala Police and informed him that his brother was murdered by the accused who had assaulted him with a chopper and a knife and the body was taken to St. Johns Hospital. He came to know that his brother was assaulted near the mobile shop. After he went to the hospital he called his brother (C.W.1) and his father. The body had sustained injuries on his head, stab injuries on the chest. He stated that the accused had caused injury by a knife and a chopper due to the enmity S.C.No.883/2016 16 for not recharging his mobile and as the accused had made allegation against his deceased brother that he was assisting the brother of the accused to develop bad habits. In this regard C.W.1 had lodged the complaint.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that since 10 years he was working as an Event Manager. It is elicited that his brother and the brother of the accused were friends. He denied the suggestion that his deceased brother and the brother of the accused are alcoholic. He has denied the suggestion that his brother used to come home late. He denied the suggestion that the accused had requested them not to send his brother with his brother to consume alcohol and smoke ganja. He denied the suggestion that from the year 2013 the accused has been taking treatment for his mental health in NIMHANS. He denied the suggestion that the accused was suffering from mental ill-health disorder. It is elicited that his brother used to drive a scooty. He has denied the suggestion that his brother did not have a D.L., and he used to return back after 11-00 pm. He has denied the suggestion that Maruthi Nagar Road is S.C.No.883/2016 17 a busy road and there are hotels and shops on the side of the road. He has denied the suggestion that the hotels and shops will be open even after 11-00 pm. He denied the suggestion that his brother was driving the scooty in a intoxicated condition and met with an accident resulting which he had died. He has denied the suggestion that at 10-30 p.m., his brother was undergoing treatment in the hospital. It is elicited that when he was in the hospital 2 police personnels were also present but he does not know the exact time when he was in the hospital. He does not remember the time at which his another elder brother and father came to the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that the police intimated him that his brother had met with an accident. It is elicited that his another brother by name Azeemuddin lodged a complaint and he is working as Head Constable in Kudur Police Station and it is situated at a distance of 80 kms., from St. Johns Hospital. He denied the suggestion that the police did not record his statement. He denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the accused and the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that just to harass the accused they have lodged a S.C.No.883/2016 18 false complaint against him.
14. P.W.5-Sri.Girish is a spot mahazar witness. He has stated that on 6.03.2016 he has signed the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) as per Ex.P.2(c) at Venkateshwara Layout near the mobile shop. C.W.26 had drawn the mahazar regarding the murder and had taken the signature. He came to know that one Mohammed Nasurulla was murdered. He stated that P.Ws.1 and 4 were also present at the time of mahazar. He stated that the police collected the blood stains with a cotton and also a sample cotton was also taken. Further he stated that at a distance, there was knife which was having blood stains, the hand grip of the knife was black in colour. The police seized the same and put an initial "NPS" and affixed the slips which had bear their signatures. The mahazar was conducted from 5-30 a.m., He has identified the knife, plain cotton and blood stained cotton which are already marked as M.Os.1 to 3. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that the police did not issue him any notice asking him to be a mahazar witness. He stated that he has signed the mahazar at the spot and at that time one Manjunath, Police Inspector S.C.No.883/2016 19 and Police Constable were present. He stated that the mahazar was typed at the spot. He does not know the boundaries mentioned in the mahazar. He has denied the suggestion that he does not know the contents of the mahazar and it was not conducted in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Nagaraj.C. has stated that about 3 years ago (from 2019 when the witness adduced his evidence) when he along with C.W.7 were waiting for bus at Madiwala Bus-stop, the police informed them that Mohammed Nazuruddin was murdered and the police wanted them to sign the mahazar as witnesses. The police showed them the accused Amanulla. The accused took the police along with him and C.W.7 to his house situated in the 2nd floor at Kupendra Reddy Nagar and produced blood stained clothes i.e., grey colour shirt, blue colour jeans pant, 1½ feet length chopper. The police seized the same, covered them in a white cloth and affixed the seal as "MTS". The police have drawn the mahazar (Ex.P.4) in the house of the accused and he signed it as per Ex.P.4(a). He has identified the accused S.C.No.883/2016 20 and the articles i.e., blood stained shirt, chopper, jeans pant which are marked at M.Os.4, 5 and 6.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused it is elicited that the police did not issue him a notice asking him to be a panch witness. He has denied the suggestion that he usually stands as pancha witness in Madiwala Police Station. He stated that at 8-30 a.m., the police called him and from there, the accused took him along with another pancha and police to his house. He has denied the suggestion that several cases are registered against him in Madiwala Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that the accused did not take him to his house. He has denied the suggestion that no property was seized in his presence. It is elicited from 9-30 a.m., to 12-30 p.m., they were in the house of the accused and during that time the police seized the articles and he has signed the mahazar at 12-00 noon. It is elicited that he does not remember as to how many signatures he had put. He admitted that the article like M.O.5 is available in the market. He has denied the suggestion that he has put his signature to the mahazar and M.Os.4 to 6 in the Police Station. He has denied the S.C.No.883/2016 21 suggestion that as the complainant is his friend, he is deposing falsely before the court.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Mouddin is the father of the deceased has stated that on 5.03.2016 his son Mohammed Nasaruddin was murdered near his shop Shahanoor Mobile Clinic, Madiwala, Venkateshwara Layout. He stated that he knows the accused Amanulla, who was residing in Koramangala Police Quarters. The father of the accused by name Soudhagar was working in KSRP. They were having good relationship with the family of the accused. His deceased son was handicapped without a left leg. He was married having one child. His deceased son was servicing the mobiles, doing currency updates, storing songs in memory card, etc. The elder brother of the accused was helping his deceased son to run the shop. The accused used to demand his son to recharge the mobile and store songs free of cost. His son had informed him that he cannot give free service and recharge for the accused. The accused who was enraged by the same had told that he would take away the life of his son. On 5.03.2016 at about 11-00 p.m., he received the phone call from his son (P.W.4) regarding the S.C.No.883/2016 22 murder and death of his son and at that time he was in Sarjapura Road, Kutthigere. He came to know that the accused had assaulted his son with a chopper and knife on his head causing his death. He went to St. John's Hospital, where his son was admitted. He noticed that his son had sustained stab injuries all over the body and on his head. He came to know that his son was murdered by the accused as he refused to recharge and to give free mobile service.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, he has stated that he was working in KSRP. It is elicited that when the alleged incident had occurred he was working as a Field Officer in Ahath Builder Company situated at Kudti Gate, Sarjapura Road and he was on night shift. He has denied the suggestion that he was not knowing the accused before the alleged incident. He has denied the suggestion that he is seeing the accused for the first time before the court. He has denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the accused and the alleged incident. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
S.C.No.883/2016 23
17. P.W.8-Sri.Ravi is the seizure mahazar witness. He has stated that on 7.03.2016 while he was going near Total Mall, near Madiwala, the police called him to the station and showed him a person by name Amanulla (accused) and informed that he had murdered Mohammed Nasarulla near a mobile shop. Further the police had asked him to come with them near the house of accused where he had kept the clothes and chopper. Accordingly, he along with police and the accused went to the house of accused in a police jeep situated at Parappana Agrahara, Kupendra Reddy Nagar 2nd Main, Bengaluru, there the accused took them to 2nd floor of the house and showed the clothes and chopper kept in a cover beneath the cot in a room. The police have opened the cover and found a shirt, blue jeans pant and the blood stained chopper. The police seized the same and sealed it. The police have typed the mahazar in laptop and took his signature. He has identified M.Os.4 to 6 and the accused who appeared through V.C. Here itself it is necessary to note that the witness has not subjected himself for cross examination.
S.C.No.883/2016 24
18. P.W.9-Sri.Asif Pasha has stated that he is having a chicken shop at Venkateshwara Layout, Madiwala and the deceased was having Shahanoor Mobile Shop next to his shop. He had seen the close friend of the deceased by name Asadulla who had obtained the shop which was run by the deceased. The accused Amanulla used to come to the shop of the deceased twice a week. Amanulla used to get the mobile recharge and storing of songs in the mobile in the shop of the deceased. The accused was not giving any amount to the deceased since he was the brother of Asadulla. When the deceased asked for the amount for recharging, there was a quarrel. The accused had alleged that the deceased had made his brother Asadulla to consume ganja, beedi, cigarette and alcohol. He came to know about the incident after two weeks as he had not been to his shop for two weeks. On the date of the death of Nasarulla he came to know about it in the night hours. On 6.03.2015 he had seen the dead body in the mortuary where he noticed that there was injury on the head and all over the body. He came to know that the accused had killed the deceased in front of his mobile shop. He has identified the S.C.No.883/2016 25 accused who appeared through V.C. Here itself it is necessary to note that this witness has not appeared and subjected himself for cross examination. Hence he is dropped.
19. P.W.10-Sri.Manu has stated that he has signed the inquest mahazar (Ex.P.3) as per Ex.P.3(b) in St. Johns Hospital on 6.03.2016. The inquest mahazar was drawn between 10-00 and 11-00 a.m. He has stated that the deceased Mohammed Nazruddin was a physically challenged person and he operated with the plastic leg. He stated that he seen the injuries on his head, 6-7 stab injuries on his chest, one injury on his stomach. He does not know the cause of the death of deceased. The doctors did not inform him that the cause of death. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused it is elicited that he signed the inquest mahazar in Madiwala Police Station. It is elicited that he does not know the contents of the mahazar as it had taken place in the year 2016.
20. P.W.11-Sri.Sunil has stated that he knows deceased Mohammed Nasaruddin, who was a S.C.No.883/2016 26 disabled person running a mobile phone in Venkateshwara Layout. The father of the deceased was a Police Hawaldar. He also knows the accused and the father of the accused was also Police Hawaldar. All of them used to reside at Police Quarters, as such they know each other. He does not know what the accused was doing. The accused was a moody person and he was not mixing with others. The brother of the accused Asadulla had helped the deceased to start a mobile shop. The accused used to go to the mobile shop of the deceased to recharge the mobile and download the songs to his mobile. He stated that on 5.03.2016 he along with C.W.18 had been to BTM Layout and they returned back to Venkateshwara Layout at 10-00 p.m., and at that time the accused was assaulting the deceased with a machu and threatening the people who had surrounded there. He stated that the deceased had sustained injuries on his head and all over his body. The people were afraid, so they did not go forward to catch the accused and as such, the accused ran away. When the police came to the spot, the deceased was lying in the pool of blood. The police shifted the injured to St. John's Hospital, S.C.No.883/2016 27 where the Doctor declared the death of the deceased. He has identified the machu (M.O.5) used by the accused. He has identified two photographs of the deceased dead body. He has identified the accused produced before the court through VC. He stated that he had given his statement to the police.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that he is running a travel agency and his office timing is from 10-00 a.m., to 5-00 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that as he belongs to police family, he is deposing falsely to assist the Investigating Officer. It is elicited that his office is at a distance of 3-4 kms., from the alleged spot of incident. He was at the spot between 9.55 - 10.00 pm. He does not know the names of the people who had gathered at the spot. He has witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased with a machu. He does not know as to how many blows the accused had given to the deceased. The police were not present when the alleged incident took place. He was at a distance 10 feet from the place of incident. He has denied the suggestion that he has not seen the accused assaulting the S.C.No.883/2016 28 deceased. He cannot say the clothes worn by the accused on the day of alleged incident and as to who called the police to the spot. It is elicited that within 5 minutes the accused ran away from the spot. He has denied the suggestion that as he was at a distance of 10 feet from the place of incident and as the people gathered there, he was not able to witness the incident. He has denied suggestion that as he was at 10 feet away from the incident, he has not seen the weapon used by the accused. It is elicited that 5-10 people were present when the police came to the spot. On the next day between 11-00 a.m., to 12-00 p.m., the police recorded his statement. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of incident. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not going to the shop of the deceased to recharge and to download the songs to his mobile. It is elicited that he does not know the shop number of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that even though the accused and M.O.5 are not connected to this case, he is deposing falsely before the court.
21. P.W.12-Sri.Ravi, Police Inspector has stated that on 7.03.2016 C.W.26 had deputed him along S.C.No.883/2016 29 with C.W.24 to trace the accused. On obtaining reliable information that the accused is in his house situated at Parappana Agrahara, Hosa Road, near RTO Office at 7-00 a.m., they went to the said house and apprehended the accused and produced him before C.W.26 with a report (Ex.P.5). He has identified the accused. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that earlier to the alleged incident, an assault case was registered against the accused in which he was arrested. He stated that C.W.26 had not issued any written requisition deputing them to trace the accused. He stated that he has mentioned the same in his station diary. He has denied the suggestion he is deposing falsely before the court to assist the Investigating Officer.
22. P.W.13-Sri.Parameshwarappa, Head Constable has stated that on 26.04.2016 C.W.26 had deputed him to take the articles seized in this case to F.S.L., Mysore for examination. He was given a passport, requisition, 6 articles, warrant. He submitted the six articles in Mysore F.S.L., and received the acknowledgment (Ex.P.6) for having submitted the same. He has given a report regarding the same. He has identified the articles which were already S.C.No.883/2016 30 marked as M.Os.1 to 6. He has given his statement in this regard to the Investigating Officer. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, he denied the suggestion that M.Os.1 to 6 were created by the police. He denied the suggestion that he has not submitted M.Os.1 to 6 to the F.S.L., Mysore. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
23. P.W.14-Sri.Badesab, Head Constable has stated that on 5.03.20216 he was deputed for night patrol duty along with home guard Shivaiah. At about 10-15 p.m., at 1st Main Road, Papaiah Layout some people had gathered and one person who had sustained injuries was lying on the ground. They were informed by the public that he was assaulted by a knife and the person who had assaulted had ran away. They then shifted the injured to St. Johns Hospital, where the Doctor declared him dead. The deceased had sustained cut injury on the right side of his head, stab injuries on his chest and stomach. They then informed the same to their senior officers who came to the hospital. The name of the deceased was Mohammed Nasiruddin and he was disabled S.C.No.883/2016 31 person. He came to know that a person by name Amanulla had assaulted the deceased. He came to know that the deceased was running a mobile shop. In this regard he has given his statement to the Investigating Officer.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that he does not know the number of the auto in which he shifted the injured person. He has denied the suggestion that he has not shifted the injured to the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the place of occurrence and he is deposing falsely as per the instructions of his superior officers.
24. P.W.15-Sri.Umesh.M.V., Head Constable has identified his signature on the mahazars (Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4) as per Ex.P.2(d) and Ex.P.4(c). C.W.26 secured his presence to the spot i.e., Venkateshwara Layout 1st Cross. At the said spot C.W.26 informed the panchas about the conducting of the mahazar. There were blood stains on the ground which was collected by C.W.26 with a cotton swab. They then searched for the weapon, they found a blood stained knife in S.C.No.883/2016 32 the compound wall of a house, it was seized by conducting mahazar between 5-30 and 6-30 a.m.. They have also seized the blood stained cotton swab and the sample cotton swab. C.W.26 dictated the contents of Ex.P.2 and he typed the same in the laptop. The seized articles were covered with a cloth with seal, also slips were affixed on them. (M.Os.1 to 3). On the same day in St. Johns Hospital the inquest of the dead body was conducted and after the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives. On 7.03.2016 they apprehended the accused and he gave his voluntary statement. As per his statement the accused led them along with C.W.26 and panchas to his house. He had also carried along with him a laptop in a Government vehicle. In house No.255, 2nd floor i.e., the house of the accused, the accused showed them his clothes i.e., shirt and jeans pant worn by him on the day of the incident and the weapon machu which was used for the commission of offence. They seized the same by conducting mahazar between 9-30 to 10-30 a.m. The articles were covered with a cloth, sealed and signed slips were affixed on them (M.Os.4 to 6). C.W.26 dictated him the contents of S.C.No.883/2016 33 the mahazar (Ex.P.4) which he typed in the laptop. On 12.03.2016 he received the P.M.Report (Ex.P.8) of the deceased from St. John's Hospital along with the sample seal (Ex.P.9) and produced them before the Investigating Officer along with his report (Ex.P.7). He has given his statement to the Investigating Officer. He has identified the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused he has admitted that the articles like M.Os.1 to 6 are available in the market. He has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot and Ex.P.2 was not prepared on the spot and the same was prepared in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that the accused did not give his voluntary statement nor he had taken them to his house and he has not produced his clothes and machu. He has denied the suggestion that he has prepared the mahazar (Ex.P.4) in the Police Station. He stated that he does not know the company name of the laptop and its number. He does not know as to how many laptops are there in the Police Station and their model number. He has denied the suggestion that he has given a false statement to S.C.No.883/2016 34 the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the hospital and has not collected the articles of the deceased person. He has denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the accused and this case. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
25. P.W.16-Smt.Saira Naseen, Retired Asst. Engineer has stated that on 16.04.2016 their office received a requisition (Ex.P.10) from the Investigating Officer to visit the spot and prepare the hand sketch. As such on 7.05.2016 she visited the spot i.e., 1 st 'A' Main, Papaiah Layout, adjacent road, old Madiwala, Bengaluru and prepared the hand sketch (Ex.P.12) which she has signed the same as per Ex.P.12(a) and submitted the same with the office letter (Ex.P.11) dated:16.05.2016 to the Investigating Officer.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, she denied the suggestion that she has not visited the spot and she has prepared the sketch (Ex.P.12) in the office.
The witness was recalled for her further examination in chief by the learned Public S.C.No.883/2016 35 Prosecutor, wherein she has stated that as per the police requisition dated:6.04.2016 (Ex.P.10) the Madiwala Police asked her to prepare the rough sketch of the spot and accordingly on 7.05.2016 she visited the spot i.e., 1st 'A' Main, Papaiah Layout, Old Madiwala, it is also called as Venkateshwara Layout, 1st Main Road and she prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P.12). She stated that Papaiah Layout and Venkateshwara Layout are adjoining (ಅಕ್ಕ ಪಕ್ಕ ) to each other. She stated that in the rough sketch (Ex.P.12) Venkateshwara Layout is situated East West of Papaiah Road. She has mentioned Venkateshwara Layout in her note, but while preparing the official rough sketch (Ex.P.12) by oversight she has mentioned as Venkateshwara Layout in it. In the rough sketch Papaiah Road is mentioned and the said Papaiah Road is situated in Papaiah Layout.
In her further cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that she has not furnished any document to show that Papaiah Layout and Venkateshwara Layout are adjoining to each other. She stated that the police have to furnish documents regarding the same. She admitted that in the sketch she has not shown the S.C.No.883/2016 36 directions East - West and North-South. It is elicited that in the sketch they mentioned the direction in which the dead body was facing. She admitted that as per Mysore Engineers Manual 1961 they have to mention the boundaries. She admitted that it has to be mentioned in the sketch as to what is situated in East-West and North- South of the spot. It is elicited that they are not expected to show in the rough sketch the alternative sub-name of the road or layout. She stated in the covering letter (Ex.P.11) affixed to the rough sketch (Ex.P.12) she has mentioned Venkateshwara Layout. She admitted that in Ex.P.12 she has nowhere mentioned Venkateshwara Layout. It is elicited that the A.S.I.- Sri.Zameer Hussain took her to the spot. She denied the suggestion that the police personnel who showed the spot has to sign the rough sketch. She denied the suggestion that she did not visit the spot and has created the rough sketch (Ex.P.12) to help the police. She denied the suggestion that even though she has not prepared the rough sketch, she is deposing falsely before the court.
S.C.No.883/2016 37
26. P.W.17-Sri.Nagaraja.G. the then Police Inspector of Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru has stated that on 6.03.2016 at about 00-40 a.m., C.W.1 lodged the complaint (Ex.P.1) and on the basis of the said complaint, he has registered the FIR (Ex.P.13) and forwarded it to the court. On the same day he conducted spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) between 5-30 and 6-30 a.m. in the presence of mahazar witnesses. At the spot he collected the blood stains with cotton and knife (M.Os.1 to 3) and he sealed the same. He stated that the said spot is adjacent to Papaiah Layout and is bounded by towards its East :House of Narayana and Rukmini, West : SLV Enterprises, North : Venkateshwara Layout Road and South :1 st Main Road are located. He has denied that P.W.3 was not present while conducting mahazar. He received M.L.C.Report (Ex.P.14) from St.Johns Medical Hospital. He has conducted Inquest mahazar (Ex.P.3) between 10-00 and 11-45 a.m., in St. John's Hospital mortuary in the presence of panchas. He has issued notice to inquest pancha in Form No.144 (Ex.P.15) and submitted Form No.145 (Ex.P.16) to the hospital. He has also sent requisition (Ex.P.17) to the Medical Officer under S.C.No.883/2016 38 Form No.146(1) (Ex.P.18). On the same day he has recorded the statements of CW6 to 18. On 7.03.2016 P.W.12 & C.W.24 had produced the accused before him along with the report (Ex.P.5). He has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused (Ex.P.19). Thereafter the accused led them to his house situated at Parappana Agrahara and produced his shirt and pant worn by him at the time of incident and also produced the chopper (macchu) used to commit crime and he has seized these articles in the presence of panchas by drawing mahazar (Ex.P.4) between 9-30 and 11-00 a.m. He has affixed the slips on those articles and submitted P.F.No.92/2016 (Ex.P.20). He had recorded the statement of C.W.24. Further on 12.03.2016, he has deputed P.W.15 to collect the PM report and clothes of the deceased from hospital. Accordingly P.W.15 has collected the P.M.Report & clothes and produced them along with his report (Ex.P.7) and he has submitted the same in P.F.No.98/2016 (Ex.P.21) to the court.
On 5.04.2016 he has sent the articles for FSL examination through ACP along with requisition (Ex.P.22) in Form No.152 (Ex.P.23) and the Invoice S.C.No.883/2016 39 (Ex.P.24). He has received acknowledgment (Ex (Ex.P.6) through P.W.13. On 6.04.2016 he sent requisition (Ex.P.10) to the Executive Engineer, PWD to visit the spot and prepare hand sketch. On 20/05/2016 he has received letter (Ex.P.11) and hand sketch (Ex.P.12). On 26.04.2016 he recorded the statement of P.W.13. On 1.06.2016 he has sent requisition (Ex.P.25) to St. John's Hospital with a knife and chopper (M.O.3 and 5) to verify the articles and give their opinion. Accordingly he has received the opinion (Ex.P.26) along with sample seal (Ex.P.27). He has identified the photographs of dead body. He has submitted P.F.No.90/2016 (Ex.P.28) regarding the articles seized at the spot (Ex.P.2). After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused. He has recorded the statements of all other witnesses. He has identified the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that the place of incident is at a distance of 1 k.m., from their Police Station. It is elicited that at about 12-40 hours C.W.1 has lodged the written complaint to the police and on the same night at about 1-30 hours, he visited the spot, but at that time he did S.C.No.883/2016 40 not conduct the spot mahazar. It is elicited that between 5-30 and 6-30 a.m., again he visited spot and drew mahazar in the presence of panchas. The said spot is bounded by East : House named by Surabhi. West: SLV Enterprises Building, North:
Road and South:1st 'A' Main Road. He has denied the suggestion that the boundaries stated by him are not correct. He has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the spot to draw mahazar, but it was prepared in Police station. He has admitted that he has issued requisition (Ex.P.10) to the P.W.D. He has denied the suggestion that by colluding with PWD officer and C.W.1, he has got prepared hand sketch (Ex.P.12). He has denied the suggestion that the boundaries shown in the mahazar does not tally with the hand sketch. He has admitted that the boundaries stated by him are not mentioned in Ex.P12. He has admitted that he has not mentioned in the mahazar about Papaiah Road shown in Ex.P12 and also he has not made videography of mahazar and the mahazar was prepared in Laptop on his dictation through his staff. He has admitted that he has not issued notice to the mahazar witnesses. He has denied the suggestion that he has created the chopper S.C.No.883/2016 41 (M.O.5) and the photos (M.Os.7 & 8) for the purpose of the case. As per statement of the witnesses, he has ascertained about the physical features of the accused and arrested him. His staff have apprehended the accused at Hosa road and produced before him. Hosa Road is 3 km away from the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has denied the suggestion that he has created the statements of the witnesses. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has not given voluntary statement before him. He has denied the suggestion that for the convenience of this case, he has obtained the report (Ex.P.26) i.e., the opinion of Doctor on the weapon. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has not at all committed alleged crime. He has denied the suggestion that there is not connection between accused and crime. He has denied that he has filed false charge sheet against the accused. He has admitted that the knife like M.O.3 is very much available in the market. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposing falsely before the court.
S.C.No.883/2016 42
27. P.W.18-Dr.Shashikanth Nayak has deposed that as per the requisitions (Exs.P.17 and 18) received from Police Inspector of Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru, he has conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Mohammed Nasaruddin, aged about 32 years. He has collected the clothes and other articles which were on the body and handed over the same to the police with a seal (M.Os.9 to 14). The seal is marked as Ex.P.9. He has identified his signature on M.Os.9 to 14 as per M.Os.9(a) to M.O.14(a). He has issued the post mortem report (Ex.P.8). He has given the details about the clothes found on the body, the description of the dead body, external injuries which are numbered from 1 to 24 found on the dead body, the internal examination details and other features found on the body. He has given the opinion that the death was caused "due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained". On 1.06.2016 he received a letter from Police Inspector, Madiwala Police Station (Ex.P.25) to examine the weapons.
He had received two sealed packets bearing BS No.526/16 with wax seal label "RFSL MYS" and "MPS". Article No.2 was a chopper made up of S.C.No.883/2016 43 iron. It measures 51 cm., in length and 7 cm., in breadth and 0.8 cm., width. The handle measures 16.5 cms., in length and 11.5 cms., in its circumference. The handle had a hole. The blade measured 34.5 cms, in length, it is curved and has a pointed tip. One edge of blade is sharp and other edge is blunt measuring 0.8 cm., the blade contains reddish brown stains at places. Article No.3 contained kitchen knife with blank colour plastic handle. The blade is labeled as "LORD stainless rostfree inox", "ORIGINAL", "INNOVATIVE QUALITY" and GERMANY DESIGN". The knife measures 27.5 cms., in length and 4 cm. in breadth. The handle of a knife, blank in colour and it measures 13 cm. In length and 3 cm. Breadth and 1.4 cm. Thick. It has 3 (three) steel buttons on either side. The blade of knife measures 14.5 cm., in length and 4 cm. In breadth. It has a pointed tip. One edge of blade is sharp and other is blunt, it has light brown stains over blade at places.
As per his opinion all injuries except Injury No.4 mentioned in the P.M.Report could have been caused by the type of knife examined. Injury Nos.4, 7, 17, 18, 22 and 23 mentioned in the S.C.No.883/2016 44 P.M.Report could be possible by the type of chopper examined. After examination, he has labeled, sealed and affixed the signature on the weapons and handed over the same along with the sample seal (Ex.P.27). He has identified his signature on M.Os.3 and 5 as per M.Os.3(a) and M.O.5(b). He has opined that the death was due to "shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries sustained." In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused he denied the suggestion that if a person meets with an accident he may sustain the injuries as shown in Ex.P.8. He has denied the suggestion that to assist the police he has stated that the injuries were caused by assault. He has denied the suggestion that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.8 were not caused by an assault. He has denied the suggestion that M.Os.3 and 5 were not produced before him for his examination and for his opinion. He has denied the suggestion that to help the police he has given his opinion on the articles. He has denied the suggestion that the contents in Ex.P.8 are not true.
28. P.W.19-Sri.Moian has stated that he knows the deceased person who was running a mobile shop S.C.No.883/2016 45 near his hotel and he used to visit his shop for recharging his mobile phone. On 5.03.2016 at 10- 00 p.m., he was on his motorbike at Venkateshwara Layout, Bengaluru and at that time he saw that one person was stabbing Mohammed Nasaruddin with a knife, so he stopped the bike. He had seen the person who assaulted Mohammed Nasaruddin's head with a long, resulting which he fell down. He along with four others tried to hold the assailant, but he pointed the long towards them and put them in a fear and ran away. Immediately the police came to the spot and shifted the injured to St. John's Hospital in an autorickshaw, later he came to know that Mohammed Nasaruddin had died on the way to the hospital. He came to know that the assailant is the accused. He has identified the accused who was produced through VC. He has identified the knife and long which are already marked as M.Os.3 and 5. He has given his statement to the police.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, it is elicited that the said spot is at a distance of 100 mtrs., away from his hotel. It is elicited that on the day of the incident he was not S.C.No.883/2016 46 knowing that the name of the accused was Amanullah. On the said date and time, he was going to purchase items to his hotel, so he left the hotel at 9-30 p.m. After purchasing the items while he was returning back to the hotel, he saw the incident. At that time about 20 persons had gathered at the spot and they were screaming. He does not know as to who intimated the police to come to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed the incident. He stated that the knife which was used for stabbing was thrown away and then he took a long and assaulted Nasaruddin. It is further elicited that everyday he closes his hotel at 11-30 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot as stated by him. It is elicited that the police have recorded his statement on the next day of the incident. He has denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused for the first time through VC. It is elicited that the accused had stabbed 3-4 times by knife on chest, right and left sides of the abdomen of Mohammed Nasaruddin and also the accused had given a single blow with the long on the head of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that he S.C.No.883/2016 47 is deposing falsely as per the instructions of the police. He stated that he cannot say the colour of the clothes worn by the deceased and the accused on the day of the incident. He stated that the clothes of the deceased were blood stained due to assault.
29. P.W.20-Dr.Chaya Kumari, Deputy Director, F.S.L., has stated that on 26.04.2016 their office received 6 articles from ACP, Madiwala through P.C.12953. The reception section of their office on receiving the articles registered the same as RFSL/BS/526/2016 and sent the articles to the Biological Section. She received the said articles. The seals on the articles were intact and it was tallied with the sample seal. The description found on the articles was same as that in the invoice. On opening the articles she found that Item No.1 was blood stained cotton, Item No.2 was sample cotton, Item No.3 was one knife, Item No.4 was one shirt, Item No.5 was one machu and Item No.6 was jeans pant. She subjected all the articles to the chemical examination and found that Item Nos.1 and 3 to 6 contained the blood stains. But there were no blood stains on Item No.2. She has given the details of the blood stains in her detailed S.C.No.883/2016 48 report. Further the portion of blood stains were subjected to serological examination and found that the blood stains in Item No.3 to 6 were human blood and belonged to "O" Group blood. The blood stains on Item No.1 was disintegrated. Hence its origin could not be determined. In this regard she has given her report as per Ex.P.29 and signed the same as per Ex.P.29(a). After completion of the examination she has repacked and sealed the same with their office seal and sent it back to the concerned police. The sample seal is marked at Ex.P.30 and her signature is at Ex.P.30(a). The said articles are already marked as M.Os.1 to 6. She has identified the same along with their office seal. In her cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, she denied the suggestion that she seeing M.Os.1 to 6 for the first time before the court. She denied the suggestion that she has given a false report and has given false evidence before the court. She denied the suggestion that the blood stains on the articles are not of human blood. She denied the suggestion that she has not conducted any scientific examination of the articles and has given the false report to assist the police.
S.C.No.883/2016 49
30. I have considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court along with the decisions relied by the learned Public Prosecutor in support of the prosecution as under:
1.2003 SCC Online SC 355 (Balu Sudam Khalde and another .Vs. State of Maharashtra) ;
2.Crl. Appeal No.1750-1751/2022 (State through the Inspector of Police .Vs. Laly @ Manikandan & another etc.) ;
3.Crl. Appeal No.1109-1110/2010 (Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda Etc. .Vs. State of Karnataka) ;
4.Crl. Appeal No.1954/2012 (Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi .Vs. State of Karnataka) ;
5.2023 SCC Online SC 274 (Ravasaheb @ Ravashahebgouda & Others .Vs. State of Karnataka) ;
6.(2000) 2 SCC 646 (Ambika Prasad & another .Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
31. Now the question before the court is whether the prosecution has placed convincing evidence before the court to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Mohammed Nasarulla was caused due to assault made by the accused with a knife and chopper. In this regard it is necessary S.C.No.883/2016 50 to appreciate the evidence of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution.
32. The version of the eye witnesses :
The prosecution has examined P.Ws.11 and 19 as the eye witnesses to the incident. As discussed supra, P.W.11 has stated that on 5.03.2016 at 10- 00 p.m., at Venkateshwara Layout he saw the accused assaulting the deceased with a machu (M.O.5) i.e., chopper. He has identified the accused. He has also stated that after committing the offence the accused was threatening the people who had surrounded there. The said evidence goes to show that he had witnessed the incident.
In his cross examination, even though it is elicited that he does not know as to how many blows the accused had given the deceased. In this regard it is pertinent to note that when a heinous offence as that of killing a person wherein the accused has stabbed and assaulted the deceased is being witnessed one cannot expect a prudent person to count the number of blows given to the victim, as it is not a game where one will count every move of the player. Also as per his evidence S.C.No.883/2016 51 he was at a distance of 10 feet from the place of incident. Other than eliciting that he does not know the number of blows of assault given by the accused to the deceased, nothing has been elicited to discredit the evidence of P.W.11 (C.W.6) who is stated to have witnessed the incident.
33. Further P.W.19 has stated that on 5.03.2016 at 10-00 p.m., at Venkateshwara Layout he had witnessed the accused stabbing Mohammed Nasaruddin with a knife and also has seen assaulting him. He also witnessed the accused assaulting with the long on the head of the deceased. He has identified the knife and long (M.Os.3 and 5). In his cross examination it is only elicited that he does not know the colour of the clothes worn by the deceased and accused on the day of the incident, but he has stated that they were blood stains on the cloths due to assault. The advocate for the accused has not questioned the witnesses nor disputed about the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused to assault the deceased. Further nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to discredit the said evidence of P.W.19. On the contrary, in his cross examination by the learned advocate for the S.C.No.883/2016 52 accused, it is elicited that after stabbing with a knife the accused had thrown it away, but had taken the long which was used for the assault along with him which corroborates with the prosecution case.
34. In view of the said evidence of 2 eye witnesses, it is observed that P.W.19 has stated that the accused assaulted the deceased with a knife and long. But it is the prosecution that accused was assaulted the deceased with a knife and chopper.
Here it it is necessary to look into the meaning of Long and Chopper. "Long" is long sharp edged sharp weapon while "Chopper" is a little shorter sharp edged weapon the difference is in the length, but both are called as machhu in Kannada.
35. Here itself it is necessary to note that the names used by the common man for the weapon need not be the same as used by the court or by the police. The most important thing is that he has identified the property and he has stated that the manner in which the accused had assaulted the deceased. Also from the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 19, it is evident that the accused had S.C.No.883/2016 53 threatened the people who had surrounded there with a weapon and he had ran away.
36. As discussed supra, nothing has been elicited in their cross examination to prove that they have not witnessed the incident. Further minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses is bound to occur due to lapse of time. A parrot like evidence are not expected from the witnesses. After lapse of many years if a person gives a parrot like evidence the court has to doubt his evidence, but not when there are discrepancies which will not go to the root of the case. Further in the evidence of the eye witnesses, omissions if any brought out are not serious that it would create serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only a serious contradiction and omission which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. As discussed supra, the fact that P.W.11 could not say the number of people gathered at the spot and that he does not remember the colour of the clothes worn by the deceased and accused on the alleged date of incident is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Even otherwise in the evidence of S.C.No.883/2016 54 P.W.19, he has stated that he had seen the accused stabbing and hitting with a long. He has identified the property shown to him M.O.5 as "LONG" and he has also identified the knife (M.O.3) and advocate for accused has not disputed the same. Here itself it is pertinent to not that the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2016 and the said witnesses had come to the court to give evidence in the year 2023 i.e., after lapse of 7 years. From their evidence it establishes that when the deceased was last seen, he was lying on the road helpless being attacked, assaulted and stabbed by the accused. Further if they were tutored witnesses, their evidence would have been the replica of their statements recorded by the police.
37. In 1991 (Supp.2) SCC 677 (Jayaram Shiva Tagore & Others and. State of Maharashtra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that -
"Conviction based on testimony of sole eye-witness is permissible, but a rule of caution has to be maintained.
However, minor discrepancies are not fatal to the S.C.No.883/2016 55 prosecution case." Where the prosecution rests on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, the same should be wholly reliable. However, that does not mean that each and every type of infirmity or minor discrepancies would render the evidence of such witness unreliable."
38. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal upta v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 it was held as under:-
"While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions / omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial.
Minor-contradictions, inconsistencies,embellishment sor improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the S.C.No.883/2016 56 appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.
39. In Raj Kumar Singh .Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722 it is observed as under:
" It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.
Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a S.C.No.883/2016 57 ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief."
40. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Jayaram Shiva Tagore .Vs. State of Maharashtra" has observed as under :
"If there is no reason for the witness to falsely implicate the accused though there are some minor discrepancies and delay in recording the statement of such witness that will not in any manner make the S.C.No.883/2016 58 witness a interested-ness or the court cannot discard the evidence of such witness".
41. In view of the aforesaid decisions and evidence of the eye witnesses placed before the court, it is observed that it is a well settled law that, while appreciating the evidence of a eye- witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. Further in this case the accused has failed to shatter the veracity of the eye witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. As such the evidence of eye witness is found to be credible and trustworthy. The minor discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the prosecution case if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy.
42. RECOVERY:
It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the weapons used by the accused to commit the offence i.e., knife (M.O.3) and Chopper (M.O.5), S.C.No.883/2016 59 the blood and blood stained clothes of the accused have been recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas. Hence the recovery is proved in this case.
43. In this regard it is pertinent to note that in the evidence of P.W.6 who is the seizure mahazar witness, has supported the prosecution case. He has specifically stated in his evidence that the accused took the police along with him to his house where the accused produced his blood stained shirt, jeans pant and chopper which was kept in his house (M.Os.4 to 6). Also in his cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence.
44. Here itself it is pertinent to note that P.W.15-Head Constable, who has typed the mahazars and statements has supported the prosecution case. In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. Also as discussed supra, the complainant (P.W.1) has deposed about seizure of the knife. As such the court has to consider the evidence of P.W.6 along with the evidence of the Investigating Officer S.C.No.883/2016 60 P.W.17, who has deposed about the seizure of the clothes of the accused chopper (M.Os.4 to 6).
45. Here itself it is pertinent to note that P.W.6 has stated that the house of the accused was in Kupendra Reddy Nagar, while the Investigating Officer has stated that the house of the accused was Parappana Agrahara. On perusal of the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.4), it is noted that Kupendra Reddy Nagar is situated in Parappana Agrahara. As such even though P.W.6 has not specifically mentioned the date on which the seizure of the property was made by the police from the possession of the accused, but his evidence corroborates with the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.17). As discussed supra, nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of P.Ws.6 and 17 to disbelieve their evidence. Hence it can be safely said that M.Os.4 to 6 were seized from the possession of the accused from his house by the police in the presence of the panchas.
46. Further the knife (M.O.3) alleged to have been used by the accused to assault the deceased was seized by the police near the place of incident inside a compound. Also the blood stains S.C.No.883/2016 61 at the spot with a cotton (M.O.1) was collected by the Investigating Officer (P.W.17) in the presence of the panchas. In this regard P.W.1 has stated that he was present at the time when the alleged spot mahazar was conducted and seizure was made at the place of incident between 5-30 a.m. to 6-00 a.m. Also P.W.5, who is a spot mahazar witness has supported the prosecution case regarding the seizure of knife and collection of blood stains at the spot. In their cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their evidence. They have given the description of the knife that it had black handle and it had blood stains and also identified them before the court.
47. Here itself it is pertinent to note that the defense of the accused that the notice has not been issued to the panchas and they are the stock witnesses cannot be accepted, as non-issuance of notice to the panchas is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Further the Deputy Director of F.S.L. (P.W.20) has deposed about examining M.O.1 to MO 6. As such it can be safely said that the prosecution has successfully proved that the Investigating Officer had seized the blood stained S.C.No.883/2016 62 clothes worn by the accused and the chopper from the house of the accused as shown by the accused Also seizure of knife and collection of blood stains at the spot is proved.
48. Further it is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer (P.W.17) has deposed about the investigation carried out by him from the time of receiving the complaint from C.W.1 till the filing of the charge sheet. In his cross examination nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Also the accused has failed to bring out any lacuna in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer (P.W.17). In this case P.W.15 is the Head constable of the Police Station who has typed the mahazars on the laptop as dictated by the I.O. He has corroborated the evidence of the panchas and the Investigating Officer. In his cross examination nothing has been elicited to prove that the mahazars or any of the documents were created in the Police Station without visiting any spot.
49. In the light of above discussion, it is held that recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statement of the accused are duly proved by the prosecution S.C.No.883/2016 63 and there is no substantial reason to discard the same. The recovery of Choper at the instance of the accused is a strong incriminating evidence against the accused, especially when no plausible explanation is forthcoming from the accused.
50. Further, the scientific examination of the articles recovered completely place them in line with the chain of events described by the prosecution.
51. MOTIVE From the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1, 4 and 9, it can be said that accused harboured vengeance against the deceased for the reason that he believed that the deceased made the elder brother of the accused to consume ganja, alcohol and smoke beedi and cigarette also the accused had threatened the deceased many times that he would kill him.
52. Further the accused used to get free mobile recharge and other mobile services free cost from the deceased and when the deceased had refused to continue doing it freely the accused had fought and threatened the deceased. The said threats was informed by the deceased to his father and S.C.No.883/2016 64 brothers.
53. The said motive of the accused has been brought out in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 9. The accused has not denied the same in their cross examination.
54. Here itself it is necessary to note that in each and every case, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. The proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of prosecution case. The absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. Hence it can be safely said that in this case the prosecution has successfully brought out the motive of the accused to commit the alleged offence against the deceased.
S.C.No.883/2016 65
55. SUDDEN FIGHT OR PROVOCATION :-
In this regard it is pertinent to note that the deceased was a crippled who was using an artificial leg and he was running a small mobile store and he used to go home from his work on his two wheeler which is specially meant for the disabled persons. From the evidence placed before the court, it is evident that the accused was hiding with the weapons waiting for the deceased to close his shop and come out in the night hours. When the deceased after closing the shop was going towards his scooter, the accused with the knife and Chopper attacked the deceased who was a cripple and who could not run away from the spot or put up a fight with the accused .The accused very well knew that deceased was a physically handicapped and would be alone at the night hours while closing the mobile shop. The accused took advantage of the same and attacked the deceased with a knife and a chopper and had stabbed him many times on his body which is evident from the P.M.Report which states that there are 24 stab injuries on the body of the deceased. Further the accused had also assaulted the deceased with the chopper on the head S.C.No.883/2016 66 resulting which the deceased suffered the fracture on his skull. Also the membrane was lacerated corresponding to fracture site and there was hemorrhage on the head which clearly goes to show that the accused had given severe blow on the head of the deceased and had continuously stabbed the deceased with a sole intention to murder him. The said act of the accused was done without getting into any fight or any kind of provocation at the spot by the deceased. As discussed supra, accused had suddenly attacked the deceased without any fight or provocation with sole intention to kill him.
56. PRE-MEDITATION :
The alleged incident had occurred around 10 p.m., in the night. The accused had brought along with him a knife and chopper, waited for the deceased whose one leg was crippled and he was using an artificial leg to walk .On the said day and time when deceased closed his shop and was going towards his two wheeler meant for disabled person. When the deceased was alone in a helpless situation, the accused attacked, assaulted, stabbed and killed him. The very act of the accused in waiting outside the shop and not S.C.No.883/2016 67 going to the shop to fight and assault the deceased goes to show that he had planned to assault and kill the deceased who was a disabled man who could not protect or run to save his life.
Further the accused did not assault the deceased with a stone or material which was available at the spot, but had carried along with him the knife and chopper which clearly shows that it is premeditated attack on the part of the accused with an intention to take away the life of the deceased disabled helpless person.
57. SPOT OF MURDER:
It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused had assaulted the deceased with a knife and chopper while he was going to climb his two wheeler meant for disabled people in front of his mobile shop situated on the 1 st main road Venkateshwara Layout. In this regard the advocate for accused has vehemently argued that the sketch (Ex.P.12) prepared by the Engineer (P.W.16) shows that the incident had occurred on 1st 'A' Main, Papaiah Layout, adjacent road, Old Madiwala, Bengaluru. As such it is the specific contention of the learned advocate for the accused that the alleged incident has not taken S.C.No.883/2016 68 place at the spot as contended by the prosecution.
In this regard it is pertinent to note that the learned Public Prosecutor has recalled P.W.16 for further examination in chief. During her further examination in chief, she has stated that on 6.04.2016 she received a requisition (Ex.P.10) from the police asking her to prepare a rough sketch of the spot and accordingly on 7.05.2016 she visited the spot i.e., 1st 'A' Main, Papaiah Layout, Old Madiwala Road, it is also called as Venkateshwara Layout 1st Main Road and prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P.12). She stated that Venkateshwara Layout and Papaiah Layout are adjoining to each other. Venkateshwara Layout is situated to the East, while Papaiah Road is situated on the West.
She stated that she has mentioned in her note that the spot as 'Venkateshwara Layout', but while preparing the official rough sketch by oversight she has mentioned the spot as 'Papaiah Layout', even though it is Venkateshwara Layout. As such it can be safely said that the Engineer has created confusion regarding the place where the incident had occurred. Even though the accused wants to rely upon it and say that the incident had not occurred near the mobile shop at Venkateshwara S.C.No.883/2016 69 Layout cannot be accepted as an Engineer is brought to the spot only to measure the distance and boundaries. In this case, P.W.16-Engineer has stated that she visited the spot on 7.05.2016 and prepared the rough sketch at the spot. But on perusal of the rough sketch (Ex.P.12), it is observed that along with her signature as per Ex.P.12(a), she has endorsed the date as 10/05. From which it can be safely said that she has not prepared the rough sketch on the date of her visit to the spot i.e., on 7.05.2016 nor she has prepared the sketch at the spot. Even otherwise it is pertinent to note that in the rough sketch the directions are not mentioned. Also the indifference on the part of the Engineer (P.W.16) in preparing the sketch is very much evident as she has mentioned that "spot shown by Zameer Hussain ISI" instead of mentioning his designation as A.S.I. The said hand written details cannot be ignored as pen mistakes. As such it clearly goes to show that the Engineer (P.W.16) has shown total indifference in preparing the rough sketch. Further it is her bounded duty to give correct details in the sketch, but evidently she has failed to do so in this case. Hence it can be safely said that the rough sketch S.C.No.883/2016 70 (Ex.P.12) cannot be relied upon in favour of the accused regarding the entry of the place as Papaiah Road.
58. In this case the P.W.5 who is the spot mahazar witness has stated that on 6.03.2016 the police conducted mahazar near the mobile shop at Venkateshwara Layout and the police have drawn the mahazar where the alleged offence was committed. As discussed supra, the eye witnesses to the incident (P.Ws.11 and 19) have specifically stated that the offence had occurred in Vekateshwara layout and in their evidence nothing has been elicited by the accused to contradict the same.
59. Further P.W.14 who is the patrol police who went to spot immediately after the offence has stated that on 5.03.2016 when he was on night patrol duty on 1st Main Road, Papaiah Layout, people were gathered over there on the ground a person was assaulted by a knife was lying. P.W.15-Head Constable has stated that collected the blood stained knife in the compound of the house in Venkateshwara Layout 1st Cross by conducting mahazar between 5-30 to 6-30 a.m. S.C.No.883/2016 71 From the said evidence it can be safely said that the Papaiah Layout and Venkateshwara Layout appear to be adjoining to each other.
60. Irrespective of what is shown in the sketch as per the eye witnesses and the witnesses who reached the spot after the incident the deceased had fallen dead on the road of Venkateshwara layout main road and they have seen the dead body. It is not the defense of the accused that the dead body was brought from somewhere and was put on the road. It is also necessary to note that the spot mahazar and statements specifically mention the spot as 1st main road Venkateshwara layout. As such mere contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the engineer -PW16 placed before the court is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence it can be safely said that the deceased was assaulted and killed on the road of Venkateshwara Layout near his mobile shop.
61. DEFENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS :
In this case the learned advocate for accused has taken a specific contention that the accused was suffering from mental disorder. During the S.C.No.883/2016 72 cross examination of witnesses suggestions have been made to that effect that the accused is mentally ill and was taking treatment for his mental disorder at NIMHANS and the same has been denied by the witnesses. Further at the time of arguments the learned advocate for accused took a specific contention that the accused is suffering from mental illness but has not placed any oral of documentary evidence in this regard.
62. In view of the defense of "mental illness"
taken by the advocate for accused, it is just and necessary for this court to give a finding as to whether the accused has placed convincing material before the court to show that as on 5.03.2016 at 10-00 p.m., when the alleged offence is said to have been committed by the accused he was mentally ill or was of unsound mind not being aware of the nature of act being committed by him.
63. At first it is necessary to refer to Section 84 of IPC which provides as under :
"Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by S.C.No.883/2016 73 reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law ".
64. In this regard it is necessary to note that the accused was first produced under arrest before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 7.03.2016 along with the remand application. The learned Magistrate has enquired with the accused about the ill- treatment if any subjected by the police, which was denied by the accused. Also the learned Magistrate had informed him about the free legal aid to which the accused had answered that he would engage his own advocate and thereafter the accused was remanded to the judicial custody. Along with the remand application the police had enclosed a medical examination certificate which does not disclose that the accused was not in stable mental condition. As such it can be safely said that on 7.03.2016 i.e., 2 days after the incident when the accused was produced before the magistrate he was in stable mental condition.
65. Thereafter on 23.11.2016 the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., was filed S.C.No.883/2016 74 by the accused which was rejected by this court vide order dated:21.12.2016. On perusal of the said bail order, it is observed that one of the defense of the accused was "the deceased was known to the accused and that the accused is suffering from mental disorder and taking treatment for the same at NIMHANS and at St. John's Hospital, Bengaluru. Therefore, there is every chance of him causing harm to himself or to others due to the said ailment. Hence personal care of the accused is required by the family members". The said bail application was rejected. Thereafter the accused had filed petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No.1371/2013 praying to enlarge him on bail. On perusal of the said order, it is observed that the accused has not taken the defense of mental ill-health or schizophrenia before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said petition came to be rejected.
66. On 4.02.2020 the advocate for the accused filed an application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C., along with the copies of medical documents of the accused Amanulla from St. John's Hospital and NIMHANS. As such court called for psychiatric S.C.No.883/2016 75 report of the accused. As per the order sheet of this court dated:19.10.2020 the Psychiatrist of Central Prison, Bengaluru has given a report as to the medical condition of the accused Amanulla, wherein it is stated that "he is on regular treatment and the patient was previously diagnosed as Schizophrenia, with regular treatment and supervised medication in Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru. His symptoms is reduced and he is currently functioning well. Currently the patient is on maintenance dose of medication and is fit both physically and mentally to stand trial in the court". From the opinion given by the Psychiatrist this court has proceeded with the trial.
67. In view of the contention of the mental illness and opinion given by the Psychiatrist that the accused is suffering from Schizophrenia and as he is on medication. Hence his symptoms are under control and he can face trial. As such it is at first necessary to look into the meaning of schizophrenia. In Butterworth's Medical Dictionary II Edition, Page No.1514, the meaning of the word 'Schizophrenia' is defined S.C.No.883/2016 76 as under :
"A mental disorder characterized by a special type of disintegration of personality, though process are directed by apparently random personal association rather logically to a good, there is incongruity between the content of thought and corresponding emotion, and an impaired relation to reality".
68. In view of the medical opinion given by the Psychiatrist, it can be safely said that the accused is suffering from Schizophrenia which is under control by medication. Hence the question before the court is whether at the crucial point of time i.e., on 5.03.2016. at 10-00 p.m., when the alleged offence was committed by the accused was he in a state of mind to understand the nature of act committed by him and the consequences of the same. Also, whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC can only be established from the circumstances which preceded attended and followed the crime.
69. Further the unsoundness of mind should be of such an extent that it makes the accused S.C.No.883/2016 77 completely incompetent in knowing the nature of the act committed by him. The factor that the person is suffering from a mental illness is by itself not sufficient to prove that he is mentally unsound. In "Surendra Mishra .Vs. State of Jarkhand" it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "every person suffering from mental illness not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability".
70. It is pertinent to note that the burden is upon the learned advocate for the accused to prove that the accused was mentally unsound so as to not know the nature of the act committed by him. In this regard it is necessary to note that the learned advocate for the accused during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses has taken two defenses, one is that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a road accident and another is that of mental illness. The suggestion of mental illness was made only during the cross examination of P.W.4, which was specifically denied by the witness. While in the cross examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was made that the accused was mentally retarded and the same has been denied by P.W.1.
S.C.No.883/2016 78
71. Even otherwise during the cross examination of P.W.12, who is a Police Inspector who apprehended the accused and produced him before C.W.26 with a report. The learned advocate for the accused has not made any suggestion regarding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the apprehending the accused. The only suggestion made is that the accused was not apprehended by him and he has filed a false report. Further P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer. But no suggestion has been made in his cross examination that the accused was mentally ill. Also nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of P.Ws.12 and 17 to establish that the accused was mentally ill as on the date of the commission of alleged offence.
72. Further it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of the eye witnesses (P.Ws.6 and 11), who have stated about witnessing the incident. But in their examination in chief they have not stated about any abnormal behavior which can said to be of that of a mentally unsound mind being displayed by the accused at the time of committing the offence on 5.03.2016 at 10-00 p.m. They have stated that the accused threatened the people S.C.No.883/2016 79 who had gathered at the place of offence when they tried to catch him. Such a threat will be given even by a person with sound mind when he is trying to escape from the place of offence.
73. In the evidence of seizure mahazar witness (P.W.8) who had accompanied the police along with the accused to the house of the accused wherein the accused produced his clothes worn by him at the time of committing the alleged offence and the chopper used by him for the offence. In his evidence he has nowhere stated that the accused was abnormal in his behaviour. Also in his cross examination the learned advocate for the accused has made no suggestion regarding the mental health of the accused nor he has made any effort to elicit regarding the same.
74. In of the discussion made supra,it can be safely said the accused has miserably failed to elicit in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses about the his mental illness as on the date of the offence or on the subsequent date. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the decision of "Ratan Lal .Vs. State of M.P." AIR 1971 SC 778, wherein Their Lordships have held as under:
S.C.No.883/2016 80 "It is now well settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this lies on the accused"
75. It is necessary to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Surendra Mishra .Vs. State of Jarkhand" (2011) 11 SCC 495 has observed as under:
" The burden of proof in the case of Section 105 of The Evidence Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence with reference to the medical condition by production of medical evidence and relevant factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of IPC will not come to S.C.No.883/2016 81 its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and behavior preceding, attending and following the crime. Behavior of the accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of the offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him".
76. In "State of M.P. .Vs. Ahamadulla"
(1961 Crl. Law Journal 43), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:
"The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section lies on the accused who claims the benefit of his exemption vide Section 105 of The Evidence Act. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sain and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved".
S.C.No.883/2016 82
77. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in"Hari Singh Gond .Vs. State of M.P." (2008(16) SCC
109) has observed as under:
"Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of a psychopath efforts no protection under Section 84 of IPC".
78. In view of the law laid down in the decisions discussed supra, it is pertinent to note that even though the defence of mental illness of the accused at the time of commission of offence is taken. But the learned advocate has not examined any witnesses in support of his defense of mental illness of the accused. Even at the time of argument also advocate for accused has not placed before the court any medical document to show that accused was mentally ill at the time of the alleged offence.
79. It is necessary to note that at the time of perusal of the case file for judgment , it was observed that the learned advocate for the accused along with 329 application on 4/2/2020 had furnished xerox copies of the medical documents of the accused from St. Johns Hospital S.C.No.883/2016 83 and NIMHANS. But no efforts have been made to furnish the original documents or examine the Doctor or witnesses to convince the court that as on the date of the offence the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind.
80. Also in view of the opinion of the Psychiatrist of Central Prison that accused is Schizophrenic and he is stable to face trial as he is on medication,also taking note of unexhibited copies of hospital documents of the accused in the file. This court decided it necessary to call for the documents from St Johns Hospital and NIMHANS pertaining to the treatment given to the accused in their hospitals so that no injustice happens to the accused. As per the unexhibited medical documents of St. John's Medical College which were called for by this court, the Professor, Department of Psychiatry has furnished the case summary along with certificate wherein it is stated that "Mr.Amanulla was admitted under Department of Psychiatry at St. John's Medical College on 27.05.2015 and he was diagnosed as a case of paranoid schizophrenia. He was discharged from inpatient treatment on 19.06.2015 after S.C.No.883/2016 84 achieving medical fitness and was advised to continue follow-up treatment on outpatient basis. He continued his out-patient treatment till 17.02.2016."
81. Further as per the medical document furnished by NIMHANS "the Amanulla had taken treatment in OPD on 18.11.2015 and they do not have further details about the patient in their records."
82. From the aforesaid medical documents it can be safely said that the accused was discharged from the hospital as he was medically fit. Also as per the opinion of the Psychiatrist of Central Prison which was taken before proceeding with the trial he was stable under medication and fit to face trial. Hence it can be safely said that even though the accused is suffering from schizophrenia, his condition is under control on medication. The said medical documents does not establish that the accused by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of act that he is doing as to whether it is correct or wrong.
83. In view of the discussion made supra and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.C.No.883/2016 85 the aforesaid decision, it can be safely said that in the present case in hand the accused has failed to prove that as on the date of the alleged offence i.e., on 5.03.2016 at 10pm he was not in a condition to know the nature of act committed by him.
84. Per contra,the prosecution has proved that the accused was in a fit state of mind and was capable of knowing the act what he was doing. In the absence of any material to the effect of unsoundness of mind of the accused when the offense was done, it can be safely said that the on 5.03.2016 at 10-00 p.m., the accused was in a sound state of mind and was capable of knowing the nature and consequences of the assault on the deceased with a knife and chopper.
85. DEFENSE THAT DEATH WAS DUE TO ACCIDENT:
The second defense taken by the learned advocate for the accused is that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. In this regard it is sufficient to note that as per the P.M.Report (Ex.P.9) and the evidence of P.W.18, the injuries caused on the body of the deceased was stab injuries caused by S.C.No.883/2016 86 weapon and puncture injuries.
86. On examination of the dead body, he found the following injuries:
An oblique stab wound, 4.5cm
x 0.5cm x chest cavity deep,
present over back of left chest. It is situated 19cm below tip of left of left shoulder and 4cm from midline. Margins are clean cut. Tailing of wound is seen in upper inner end for a length of 5.2cm towards midline.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has nicked the upper lobe of left lung, by entering into left pleural cavity through 4th intercostals space. The stab wound is directed forwards, inwards and downwards. Upper inner end is sharp.
An oblique stab wound, 4.5cm x 0.5cm x chest cavity deep, present over back of left chest, 5cm below injury No.1 and 3cm from midline.
Margins are clean cut. Tailing of wound is seen in upper inner end for a length of 6cm towards midline. Upper inner end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has nicked the lower lobe of left lung, by entering into left pleural S.C.No.883/2016 87 cavity through 6th intercostals space. The stab wound is directed forwards, inwards and downwards.
Horizontal stab wound, 4.5cm x 0.5cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over back of right abdomen, situated 6.2m from midline and 6cm above right iliac crest. Margins are clean cut. Tailing of wound is seen in outer end for a length of 4cm. Inner end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has entered peritoneal cavity. The stab wound is directed forwards.
Oblique chop wound, 18cm x 1.5cm x bone deep, present over right side of hea(forehead, temporal region and parietal region), situated 3.5cm from glabella, 5cm above right ear lobule, 8cm from occipital protruberance and 10cm from coronal suture. Margins are sharp and clean cut. The wound is deeper in temporo-parietal region. On dissection of wound, the weapon has cut the scalp hair, scalp tissue, temporal muscle and has fractured skull bone.
Incised wound, three in numbers, present over lower aspect of right cheek, horizontally placed each measuring 6.5cm x 0.3cm, 3.5cm x 0.5cm and 5cm x 0.3cm respectively, present one above the other, situated 1cm apart. Margins S.C.No.883/2016 88 are clean cut and well defined.
Horizontally placed incised wounds measuring 9cm x 0.2cm and 8.5cm x 0.2cm respectively present over outer aspect of right arm situated 1.5cm apart and 11.5cm below right tip of shoulder. Margins are clean cut and well defined.
Punctured wound, 1.5cm x 1cm, present over lower part of outer aspect of right arm, situated 6.5cm above elbow. Upper end has a tailing of 2cm.
Incised wound (defence wound), 1.3cm x 0.5cm, present over outer aspect of right thumb.
An oblique, stab wound, 3.5cm x 1.5cm x chest cavity deep, present over front of right chest. It is situated 8cm from midline, 12.2cm below midpoint of right clavicle and 2cm from right nipple. Margins are clean cut. Upper inner end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has nicked the middle lobe of right lung, by entering into right pleural cavity through 4th intercostals space. The stab wound is directed backwards, downwards and inwards.
An oblique, stab wound, 4cm x 1.5cm x chest cavity deep, present over front of left chest. It is situated 13cm below midpoint of S.C.No.883/2016 89 left clavicle, 3.5cm from midline. Margins are clean cut. Lower outer end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has entered left ventricle of heart near to apex through 4th intercostals space and fracturing the upper end of 5th rib. The pericardial sac was filled with 200ml of blood. The stab wound is directed backwards, downwards and inwards.
An oblique, stab wound, 3cm x 1.5cm x chest cavity deep, present over lower part front of right chest. It is situated 14cm from midline, 25cm below tip of right shoulder.
Margins are clean cut. Lower inner end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has nicked the lower lobe of right lung, by entering into right pleural cavity through 6th intercostals space. The stab wound is directed backwards, downwards and inwards.
An oblique, stab wound, 3cm x 1.5cm x abdominal cavity deep, present over front of right abdomen, situated 9.5cm from midline and 18.5cm above anterior superior iliac spine. Margins are clean cut. Upper outer end is sharp.
S.C.No.883/2016
90
On dissection of wound, the
weapon has pierced skin,
subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has entered peritoneal cavity.
An oblique, stab wound, 2.5cm x 1cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over front of right abdomen, situated 1.2cm below injury no 12 and 12cm from midline. Margins are clean cut.
Upper inner end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has entered peritoneal cavity.
Horizontal stab wound, 3.5cm x 1.5cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over lower part of front of abdomen. It is situated 10.5cm from midline, 10cm from anterior superior iliac spine. Margins are clean cut. Outer end is sharp.
Horizontal stab wound, 3cm x 1cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over lower part of front of abdomen situated 1.5cm below injury no 14 and 10cm from midline. Margins are clean cut. Outer end is sharp.
Horizontal stab wound, 3cm x 1cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over lower part of front of abdomen situated 1.5cm below injury no 15 and 12cm from midline. Margins are clean cut. Outer end is sharp.
On dissection of injury No.14, 15 and 16, the weapon has pierced S.C.No.883/2016 91 skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles and has entered peritoneal cavity. Punctured wound, 0.5cm x 0.5cm, present over right flank 22cm below right axilla. Tailing of wound is seen backwards for a length of 1.5cm.
Punctured wound, 1cm x 0.5cm, present over right flank, 3.5cm below injury no 17, 25.5cm below right axilla.
Vertical stab wound, 3cm x 1.5cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over right flank. T is situated 7cm below injury no 18 and 15.5cm from anterior superior iliac spine.
Margins are clean cut. Upper end is sharp.
Horizontal stab wound, 2.5cm x 1cm x 3cm deep, present over upper part of front of right thigh. It is situated 6.8cm below injury no 19 and 21cm from pubic symphysis.
Margins are clean cut. Outer end is sharp.
On dissection of wound, the weapon has pierced skin, subcutaneous tissue, and muscles. An oblique, stab wound, 2.5cm x 1.3cm x peritoneal cavity deep, present over front of lower part of left abdomen. It is situated 16cm from midline and 19cm above anterior superior iliac spine.
Margins are clean cut. Lower inner end is sharp.
S.C.No.883/2016
92
On dissection of wound, the
weapon has pierced skin,
subcutaneous tissue, muscle and has entered peritoneal cavity.
An obliquely placed abrasion, 13cm x 0.5cm, present over front of middle third of right thigh.
An obliquely place abrasion, 9cm x 1.5cm, present over front of middle third of right thigh, 4.5cm below injury No.22.
Incised wound, horizontally placed, 4.4cm x 1.3cm, present over upper part of front of right leg, 4cm below right knee. Margins are clean cut and well defined.
87. Further, he found the following injuries on internal examination.
Scalp: On reflection blood extravasation is present over right fronto-temporo-parietal region. Skull: Cut fracture for a length of 19cm, present over fronto-temporal bone.
Membrane: Lacerated corresponding to fractured site.
Brain: Patchy subdural and sub arachnoid hemorrhage is present over right half of brain.
Wall, Ribs: Described.
Pleura & cavity: Both pleural cavity contains 250ml - 300ml of blood.
S.C.No.883/2016 93 Lungs & Heart: Described.
Walls: Described Peritoneal cavity: 100ml of blood present in the cavity.
Stomach & its contents: Contains 50ml of cream color fluid. No unusual smell. Mucosa is normal.
All other organs are normal.
88. Further he found other features :
Injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Fractured ends of bones show blood extravasation.
Track of all stab wounds are filled with blood and blood clots.
89. In the cross examination of P.W.18, he has specifically denied the suggestion that the death was caused in a road traffic accident. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.18 along with the observations made in the P.M.Report, it can be safely said that the contention taken by the learned counsel for the accused that the death of deceased Mohammed Nasirulla was caused in a road traffic accident cannot be accepted.
90. Further the learned advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that a false complaint has been lodged against the accused by the elder S.C.No.883/2016 94 brother of the deceased i.e., C.W.1, who is a police personnel working as Head Constable in Kudur Police Station, Magadi Taluk. It is contended that it is not possible for CW1 to reach St Johns hospital by 12.40 in the midnight by travelling a distance of 50-60 kms., from Magadi to St. John's Hospital when he admittedly came to know about the incident on 5.03.2016 at 10-30 p.m.
91. In this regard it is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P.W.1, he came to know about the incident on 5.03.2016 at about 10-30 p.m., and thereafter he left Kudur and came to Bengaluru. Here itself it is necessary to note that during night hours there will be no traffic on the road especially on the highway. From his evidence it is clear that he came in a rented car to Bengaluru. When there is no traffic on the road, a car can be driven at a high speed and C.W.1 on hearing his brother's death would have made his best efforts to reach St. John's Hospital to see the dead body of his brother. On perusal of the complaint (Ex.P.1) along with FIR (Ex.P.13), it is observed that the complaint has been lodged on 6.03.2016 at 12-40 a.m., and the same has been mentioned in the FIR. Even though it is contended S.C.No.883/2016 95 that Magadi is far away from St. John's Hospital, but nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of C.W.1/P.W.1 and in the cross examination of the Investigating Officer/P.W.17 who received the complaint to establish that a fabricated complaint was taken by the police on 6.3.2016 at 12-40 a.m.
92. Further the learned advocate for the accused has also taken a contention that the FIR has not been signed. No doubt, the FIR being an early record and first version of the alleged criminal activity conveyed to the police with an object to put the police in motion in order to investigate. As such the FIR is an important valuable document. The statute does not provide that the FIR must be full and precise details. It is not necessary that the minutest details should find place in the FIR . In the present case in hand the complainant being the brother of the deceased received the information about the incident from his another brother and thereafter he proceeded to the hospital and then lodged a complaint. Therefore, for the reason that the complainant has not signed the FIR is not a valid ground to brush aside the promptness of the prosecution case.
S.C.No.883/2016 96 Therefore the entire case of the prosecution cannot be rejected on the ground that the FIR does not carry the signature of the complainant .
93. This principle of law is well settled in the case of "Kakukka Perumal .Vs. State"
reported in 1982 Madras Law Journal (Cri.) 125 (DB), wherein it is held as under :
"It is well settled law that for a witness to be relied upon need not be cited in the first information witness. A witness could have seen the occurrence from the place where he was present which can be made out from the statement given by him and also by the surrounding circumstances".
Hence the contention taken by the accused that the brother of the deceased i.e., C.W.1 could not have reached the station by 12-40 a.m., and he and he has not signed the FIR does not hold water.
94. Further it is contended by the advocate for the accused that the witnesses are known to CW1 and that they are tutored witnesses, As discussed supra in the evidence of eye witnesses and S.C.No.883/2016 97 mahazar witnesses nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their evidence. In the case of Indersingh V/S State of Delhi - AIR 1978 SC 1091, it is observed that :
"Credibility of testimony, oral circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is urged that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to error, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why fake up? Because the court asks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic".
S.C.No.883/2016 98
95. As discussed supra along with the meticulous evaluation of evidence lead by the prosecution, it is held that the evidence is so complete which goes to prove the guilt of the accused that in all probability for the alleged offence.
96. In view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that the accused caused death of Mohammed Nasarulla by stabbing him with a knife repeatedly and by assaulting him on his head with a chopper with intention to cause his death. Further, the accused had knowledge that he is likely to cause the death of Mohammed Nasarulla when he assaulted him with a knife and chopper. Therefore, the act of the accused in causing murder of Mohammed Nasarulla does not fall in any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 of IPC. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, Point 1 and Point 2 are answered in Affirmative.
S.C.No.883/2016 99
97. POINT No.3: In view of my findings on Points No.1 to 3 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
The case is posted for hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 6th February 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
7.02.2025:
The accused was produced from judicial custody through V.C. ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the sentence.
The accused submitted that leniency be given to him in the sentence. This submission cannot be accepted as the court has already held that the accused has committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
S.C.No.883/2016 100 The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused has committed the heinous offence of murder under Section 302 IPC, which is punishable with either imprisonment for life or death. Hence the court cannot show any leniency in sentencing the accused and has relied upon the decision reported in "State of Madhya Pradesh .Vs. Najab Khan & Others" (2013) 9 SCC 509, Their Lordships have observed as under:
"B. Criminal Trial - Sentence - Principles for sentencing - Generally - commutation/Modification/Reduction of sentence - Special reasons must be assigned - Undue sympathy for accused not justified - Rights of victim as well as society at large should be kept in view - Corrective and and deterrence principles should be adopted on basis of factual matrix - Sentence should be appropriate and proportionate, having regard to nature and gravity of offence, manner in which executed or committed, motive, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and other relevant facts and circumstances".
In view of the submission, it is necessary to note that sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The nature of sentence should depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to factors, such as nature of offence, manner in S.C.No.883/2016 101 which it was committed or executed, motive for crime, conduct of the accused and all other attendant circumstances. The murder committed in this case by the accused is not rarest of rare case in order to punish the accused with death sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- has to be imposed on the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is sentenced to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and shall pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
M.Os.1 to 14 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
Free copy of the judgment shall be given to the Accused.
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.883/2016 102 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Ajimuddin P.W.2 Nadan P.W.3 Manjunath P.W.4 Bashiruddin P.W.5 Girish P.W.6 Nagaraja C P.W.7 Minuddin P.W.8 Ravi P.W.9 Asif Pasha P.W.10 Manu P.W.11 Sunil P.W.12 Ravi P.W.13 Parameshwarappa P.W.14 Badesab P.W.15 Umesh M.V. P.W.16 Saira Naseem P.W.17 Nagaraja G P.W.18 Dr.Shashikanth naik P.W.19 Moian P.W.20 Dr.Chayakumari
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.3 Inquest Report
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.6
S.C.No.883/2016
103
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.4(c) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.4(d) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.5 Report of P.W.12
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.6 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.02
Ex.P.7 Report of P.W.15
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.8 Postmortem Report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.9 Sample Seal
Ex.P.10 Requisition letter
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.11 Office letter
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.12 Hand sketch
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.13 FIR
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.14 Intimation letter
Ex.P.15 144 Form
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.16 145 Form
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.17 Form 146(I)
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.18 Form 146(II)
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.19 Visual statement of accused
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.19(b) Signature of Accused Ex.P.20 Property Form Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.21 Property Form 98/16 Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.22 Requisition letter Ex.P.23 Form No.152 S.C.No.883/2016 104 Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.24 Invoice Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.25 Requisition Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.25(b) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.26 Opinion letter Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.27 Sample Seal Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.28 Property Form Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.29 FSL Report Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.30 Sample Seal Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.19 List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Blood Stained mud M.O.1(a) Signature of P.W.17 M.O.2 Blood stained cotton M.O.3 Knife M.O.3(a) Signature of P.W.17 M.O.4 Shirt M.O.4(a) Signature of P.W.17 M.O.5 Chopper M.O.5(a) Signature of P.W.17 M.O.6 Jeans Pant M.O.6(a) Signature of P.W.17
M.Os.7 & 8 Photographs of deceased M.O.9 Dark Blue colour Formal pant M.O.9(a) Signature of P.W.18 M.O.10 White colour T-Shirt M.O.10(a) Signature of P.W.18 M.O.11 Blue colour Socks M.O.11(a) Signature of P.W.18 M.O.12 One cement colour socks M.O.12(a) Signature of P.W.18 M.O.13 Maroon colour underwear S.C.No.883/2016 105 M.O.13(a) Signature of P.W.18 M.O.14 Two blue colour shoes with white colour designs M.O.14(a) Signature of P.W.18 List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2025.02.07
17:15:55
+0530