Bangalore District Court
State By Jalahalli Police Station vs B.P.Srinivasa on 26 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK COURT NO-X AT
BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
PRESIDING OFFICER,
FTC-X, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1046/2009
Complainant: State by Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.
/Vs/
Accused : B.P.Srinivasa,
S/o. Puttaswamy Gowda B.C.,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at Doddamane Estate,
Muniyuru, Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District
1. Date of commission of offence : 23.01.2002
2. Date of report of offence : 23.01.2002
3. Date of arrest of the Accused :
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. M.Chandrashekar
5. Date of recording evidence : 26.04.2010
6. Date of closing evidence : 25.06.2011
2 SC.1046/2009
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.307 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : The accused is
Acquitted U/s. 235(1)
of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : By Sri. K.Venkataramana,
Advocate
JUDGMENT
This is charge sheet filed by the Police Inspector of Jalahalli police station, Benglauru against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 23.1.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., when the complainant Chandrashekar along with Cw.5 were standing in the Karnataka Sangha Road coming within the jurisdiction of Jalahalli police station, the accused having previous enimity with regards to the financial transactions in respect of purchase of the Maruthi Car bearing regn.No.KA-04-N-8512. The accused came with Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 and drove the same with high speed and negligent manner and tried to dash the car against Cw.1. At that time, the Cw.1 with fear fell on the bonnet 3 SC.1046/2009 of the car and caught hold the wiper of the car and thereafter the accused drove the car about 100 meters in high speed and as a result, the complainant/Cw.1 fall on the ground and sustained greivious injuries, with an intention to kill or cause the death of the Cw.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C.
3. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet before C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C., against the accused. The learned magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence against the accused and registered a criminal case in C.C.No.19641/2003. All the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Since the alleged offences are exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial U/s. 209 of Cr.P.C.
4. After receipt of the records from the committal court, the Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge has registered a session case in S.C.No.1046/2009 against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C. and made over this case for 4 SC.1046/2009 trial to this court. After hearing the prosecution and defence, charge has been framed against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by this court.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution in examined 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14.
6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, the accused statements as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., are recorded by giving an opportunity to the accused persons to explaining incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused has denied the evidence of the prosecution.
7. During the trial Ex.D.1 is marked on behalf of the accused. No evidence is adduced on behalf of accused.
8. I have heard the arguments of the prosecution side and defence side.
9. The following points that have arisen for my consideration :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 23.1.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., when the complainant/Chandrashekhar was along with Cw.5 standing in the Karnataka 5 SC.1046/2009 Sangha Road, Bengaluru and within the limits of Jalahalli Police Station, the accused came with his car bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 with an intention to kill or cause the death of the complainant, in a rash and negligent manner, having previous enimity with regards to the financial transactions in respect of purchase of Maruthi Car bearing No.KA-04-N-8512 and with regards to the change of the documents of the said car, the accused dashed his car to the complainant and complainant fell on the bonnet of the car and accused drove the car about 100 meter away and thereafter the complainant fall on the ground and sustained greivious injuries and caused greivious injures to the complainant on his head and other parts of his body, with an intention or having knowledge that by that act if he had caused the death of Cw.1 Chandrashekhar he would have been guilty of murder of Cw.1/ M.Chandrashekhar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C.?
2. To what Order ?
10. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order below,
for the following,
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- It is case of the prosecution that, the car belonging to the complainant's brother was sold to the accused and in that regard, the accused has raised loan with some financier and in the said transaction the complainant was 6 SC.1046/2009 guarantor for repayment of the loan. The accused failed to discharge the loan. Therefore, the financier prevailed upon the complainant for repayment of the loan. The complainant had also requested the accused about the demand made by the financier. On 23.1.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., when the complainant and his friend was standing by the side of the road near Karnataka Sangha road, at Jalahalli, the accused came in Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 and dashed the same to the complainant with an intention to take away his life and caused the greivious injuries to the complainant with intention and having knowledge that if that act he had caused the death of the complainant/M.Chandrashekhar he would have been guilty of murder of M.Chandrashekhar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C.
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14.
13. It is arguments of the learned advocate for the accused that, the accused had running finance in the premises of the complainant, which was let out by the complainant to the accused. The complainant having previous enimity has filed false 7 SC.1046/2009 complaint just in order to harass the accused. The incident is taken place on 23.1.2002. The complaint is filed on 24.1.2002 and spot panchanama has been recorded on 27.1.2002. Therefore, there is no reason for the Investigating Officer to wait for 4 days for recording the spot panchanama, when the witnesses are available. Further, it is arguments of the learned advocate for the accused that, no documents are produced to show that, there were any financial transaction with regards to the purchase of the car by accused from the complainant or complainant stood as a guarantor to the loan of car of the accused. No kind of documents are produced pertaining to the loan transaction. Therefore, the question of committing alleged act with an intention to murder the complainant by the accused does not arise. The Investigating Officer/Pw.6 has though in his chief examination stated that, he has collected the documents, but has not produced before the court. There are material contradictions in between the version of Pw.2/complainant and version of Pw.4. Further, there is no corroborations in between the versions of the Pw.4/eyewitness, Pw.2/complainant and alleged panch/Pw.3 with regards to the conduct of the spot panchanama by Pw.7. There are materials 8 SC.1046/2009 improvements during the chief examination of Pw.1, which is not stated in the complaint and said facts is elicited during the course of the cross-examination of Pw.2. The wound certificate discloses that the Pw.2 has taken treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident and he has given complaint by stating that, the accused has drove the car and dashed to complainant in order to kill him and attempted to kill the complainant. All these aspects create doubt on the story of the prosecution. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.
14. Pw.1/D.R.Manjunatha, who was Head Constable, at Jalahalli police station received the complaint as per Ex.P.1 on 24.1.2002 and registered the same in its Cr.No.14/2002 and sent F.I.R., to the court as per Ex.P.2.
15. Pw.2/Chandrashekhar is the complainant in his evidence has stated that, he knows the accused. The accused had purchased a Maruthi 800 Car from his elder brother. His elder brother had purchased the said car from raising loan from Ashok Leyland Finance to the extent of Rs.2,70,000/-. The said loan was not repaid by his elder brother. As the accused purchased the said car, the accused has to pay the said loan amount. The 9 SC.1046/2009 accused had only paid Rs.1,10,000/- towards the said loan. There is a balance of Rs.1,60,000/-. The accused has not transferred the said loan to his name nor repaid the same to the finance company, nor he got transferred the R.C., to his name. In spite of that the accused retained the position of the car. He stood as guarantor to the said loan. The finance company is demanding to repay the said loan. When he asked the accused to repay the said loan, the accused was prolonging the matter by saying that he will pay on next day. On 23.1.2001, he had been to Jalahalli for his personal work on his bike. Near Karnataka Sangha, Jalahalli at about 4.30 hours he was standing along with Cw.5 Raju and Cw.4 Babu. The accused came with Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 with high speed and dashed against him. Then he falls on the bonnet of the car and accused dragged him about 100 feet away. When he saw in side the car, the accused was driving the car. The accused drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and caused him to fell down and then he sustained injuries on his head, legs and hands. As he demanded the accused to pay the loan amount, the accused in order to kill him run his car on him. The accused went away without stopping 10 SC.1046/2009 the car. Raju, Babu, Ravishankar and others have witnesses to the incident. The said persons also shifted him to H.M.T.Hospital. As he had sustained injuries on his head, no treatment was given to him at H.M.T.Hospital. Thereafter, he shifted to Mallige Hospital and about five days as inpatient. He has filed complaint while in the hospital as per Ex.P.1. He has shows the spot to the police on 27.1.2002 and recorded spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3.
16. Pw.3/Somu, who is alleged to be witnesses to the spot panchanama on Ex.P.3 in his evidence has stated that, he had been to spot along with Ravishankar, Babu, Chandrashekhar and police have enquired them that they were present and how the accident is occurred and enquired about the place where the incident taken place and at what time and reduced the same into writing and obtaining his signature on Ex.P.3.
17. Pw.4/Babu, who is alleged to be witness to the alleged incident in his evidence has stated that, he knows Chandrashekhar. But he not acquaint with him. In the year 2002 one day he was coming near Karnataka Sangha, Jalahalli at evening i.e., at about 4.30 hours where Chandrashekhar was 11 SC.1046/2009 there by sustaining injuries on his hand, head. Thereafter Chandrashekhar informed him that, Srinivasa drove his car and dashed him. Thereafter, himself and his frined shifted the Chandrashekhar to H.M.T.Hospital, where firstaid treatemetn was given to Chandrashekhar and thereafter Chandrashekhar shifted to Mallige Hospital.
18. Pw.5/H.A.Manjunatha, who is submitted F.I.R., as per Ex.P.2 to the court as per direction of Police Inspector.
19. Pw.6/ B.G.Koutekar, Dy.S.P., who is one of the Investigating Officer and has filed charge sheet in his evidence has stated that, he has worked as Police Inspector at Jalahalli police station between July 2003 to June 2006. On 31.7.2003 he took further investigation of this case from Cw.1/ Narayana Swamy. On 15.9.2003 he written letter to R.T.O. calling particulars of Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 and he received an information from R.T.O. On 18.9.2003 he obtained settlement of amount list from Ashok Leyland Finance. On 23.10.2003 he got released the accused as per order of the court and obtained his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.12 and as per his voluntary statement, the accused produced Tata Indica car 12 SC.1046/2009 parked in front of his estate house. He seized the same by recording of seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.13 and he also obtained the photo stead copy of the R.C.Book of the said car. Thereafter he recorded the further statement of Raju and complainant. On 2.12.2013 he has submitted the charge sheet to the court.
20. Pw.7/ N.Narayanaswamy, who is one of the Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that, on 24.1.2002 when he was working as Police Inspector at Jalahalli police station, he took further investigation of this case from Pw.1 and verified the file. Though he fixed the officials for search of the accused and car and same are not traced out. On 27.1.2002 the complainant himself appeared before the court that by saying that, he will show the spot. Accordingly, by taking two panchas he visited to the spot and recorded spot panchanama at Ex.P.3 in presence of panchas and he recorded the statements of witnesses Babu and Raju on 27.2.2002. On 16.3.2002 he received the wound certificate of complainant as per Ex.P.14 from medical officer. The accused and car were not traced out between 10.4.2002 to 24.7.2002, in spite of deploying his staff. 13 SC.1046/2009 Thereafter, he filed 'C' report on 18.9.2002 before the A.S.P., as the accused has not traced out. Thereafter, A.C.P. directed him to reinvestigate the matter. Though he conducted the investigation between 1.3.2002 to 30.7.2003, the accused and vehicle not traced out. Thereafter, he handed over the further investigation to Pw.6.
21. Pw.8/Kumar, who is alleged to present at the time of recovery panchanama on Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-05-Z- 1357 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
22. Pw.9/Dr.Ramareddy, Medical Officer, Mallige Hospital in his evidence has stated that, Chandrashekhar M. had been to their hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained in an accident on 23.1.2002. In inspection, the injuries were found on his head, abrasion on face and abrasion on his hands. The medical officer Srikanth, A.V.S., has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.14 and he knows his signature.
23. Pw.1 in his evidence has stated that, on 23.1.2002 when he was standing along with Cw.4/Babu and Cw.5/ Raju at 14 SC.1046/2009 about 4.30 p.m., on the road near Karnataka Sangha, Jalahalli, the accused came with his car in very rash and negligent manner and dashed against him in order to kill him, for the reason that, he has demanded to pay the loan amount in respect of car purchased by the accused, which was standing in the name of his brother and he stood as guarantor to the said loan and financial were demanding to pay the loan to him. While Pw.4/Babu, who alleged to be present at the time of alleged incident in his evidence has stated that, in the year 2002 one day he was coming near Karnataka Sangha, Jalahalli, at evening at about 4.30 hours when Chandrashekhar was there by sustaining injuries on his head and hand. Thereafter Chandrashekhar informed him that Srinivas drove his car and dashed against him. Therefore, from the chief examination of Pw.4 nothing is elicited to show that, Pw.4 Babu was present when alleged incident taken place. The prosecution has not examined the Cw.5/ Raju, who is alleged to be present at the time of alleged incident and eyewitness to the alleged incident. Therefore, the version of Pw.2/complainant that, the accused came with his car in very high speed and dashed against him in order to kill him is not supported by any 15 SC.1046/2009 independent witnesses. Pw.2/complainant in his evidence has stated that, as seen as the accident is occurred Cw.4 and Cw.5 shifted him to H.M.T.Hospital where no treatment was given to him. Thereafter he was shifted to Mallige hospital where he has taken treatment for 5 days as indoor patient. The prosecution got produced through the Investigating Officer/Pw.7 wound certificate at Ex.P.14 which is identified by the Pw.9, medical officer who alleged to be working at Mallige Hospital and known the signature of the person who has issued Ex.P.14. Pw.9 in his evidence has stated that, the complainant Chandrashekhar has taken treatment for the injuries sustained in road traffic accident. On going through the Ex.P.4, it also reveals that, treatment has been given to the complainant/Chandrashekhar for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. During the course of cross-examination Pw.7/Investigating Officer also admits that, Ex.P.14 discloses that, the complainant has taken treatment for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that, the complainant has taken treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident which is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the complainant with 16 SC.1046/2009 an intention to kill the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the document to show that, the accused has taken treatment for the injuries caused by the accused with an intention to kill him. Pw.2/complainant in his evidence has stated that, he has taken treatment for 5 days as indoor patient. On going through the Ex.P.14/wound certificate nothing is elicited to show that, the complainant has taken treatment for 5 days as inpatient. Pw.9/medical officer also no where in his evidence has stated that, complainant has taken treatment for 5 days as inpatient. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that, the accused has taken treatment as inpatient for 5 days. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the complainant has taken treatment for 5 days as inpatient. The complaint is filed on 24.1.2002, which is alleged to be recorded by the Pw.1 and registered the same against the accused. Pw.7 has taken further investigation of the case on 24.1.2002 itself. Till 27.1.2002 no witnesses are examined nor the Investigating Officer visited to the spot to record the spot panchanama. Pw.7 no where in his evidence has stated that, he has made an attempt to secure the witnesses to record spot panchanama or visited to 17 SC.1046/2009 the spot and enquired the Pw.2/complainant about the alleged incident. Pw.7 in his evidence has stated that, on 27.1.2002 the complainant himself appeared before him and informed him that, he will show that spot. Thereafter on securing the panchas, he visited to the spot and recorded by the spot panchanama in presence of the panchas as per Ex.P.3. Pw.3/spot panch in his evidence has stated that, the police have recorded the spot panchanama in his presence on 23.1.2002. Pw.7 and Pw.2 are not supported by the independent witness, panchas Pw.3. There is no corroborations in between the version of Pw.2 and Pw.7 with the version of Pw.3 spot panch. During the further cross- examination though Pw.3 has stated that, the police have recorded the spot panchanama on 27.2.2002 he admits that, what he has deposed earlier before the court. Therefore, from the version of Pw.3, it reveals that, the spot panchanama is recorded on 23.1.2002. The visiting of the Pw.7 from 24.1.2002 to 27.1.2001 nor making any efforts to take the statements of Cw.4 and 5 and enquiring to the Pw.2 till 27.1.2002 creates doubt about the investigation conducted by the Pw.7/Investigating Officer. During the course of cross-examination, Pw.7 admits 18 SC.1046/2009 that, the Pw.2 has given statement before him that, he do not know that the accused P.B.Srinivas dashed his vehicle in order to kill the complainant. Pw.6 also in his cross-examination admits that, witness Babu has given statement that, he do not know that the accused P.B.Srinivas dashed his vehicle to the complainant Chandrashekhar in order to kill him. Therefore, from the version of Pw.6, Pw.7 and Pw.2, it clearly evident that, there are no witnesses to the alleged incident. The Pw.7 nor Pw.6 and Pw.2 have given any explanation why the spot panchanama is not recorded immediately after the alleged incident and why the witnesses are not examined till 27.1.2002. Pw.7/Investigating Officer has not given any explanation why he has not examined the witnesses Cw.4 and 5 till the appearance of the complainant/Pw.2 nor Pw.7 has given any explanation why he has not visited to the spot to record the statement or enquire the Pw.2/complainant. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that, the complainant Pw.2 has taken treatment for 5 days as inpatient. Therefore, the recording of the panchanama on 27.1.2002 as per Pw.7 and Pw.2 creates doubt. Pw.2 in his evidence has stated that, earlier there are financial 19 SC.1046/2009 transaction with regards to the purchase of the vehicle. The vehicle in possession of the accused, the accused has not got transferred the vehicle to his name nor R.C., is transferred to in his name nor loan is transferred to his name. The loan is standing in the name of complainant's brother and complainant stood as guarantor and financier is demanding to pay the loan. The Pw.2/complainant nor Pw.6/Investigating Officer has produced any documents to show that, the vehicle was purchased by the accused and the accused had paid Rs.1,10,000/- towards the loan amount and there is a balance of Rs.1,60,000/-. The vehicle is yet standing in the name of the brother of the complainant and complainant stood as guarantor to the loan to the financier. Though the Pw.6 in his evidence has stated that, he has obtained settlement amount list documents with regards to the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 from R.T.O. Pw.6 has not produced any documents to that effec6t nor Pw.6, who is Investigating Officer and has filed the charge sheet has given any explanation on those documents are not produced. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that, there were financial transaction in between the complainant and accused with regards 20 SC.1046/2009 to car purchase by the accused from the complainant's brother and the vehicle has not been transferred to the name of the accused and the accused is in possession of the said vehicle. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that, there were any financial transaction with regards to the purchase of the car in between the complainant and accused. Thus, the question of attempting to commit murder of the complainant by the accused, for the reason of vehicle does not arise. Therefore, the version of Pw.2 as he demanded to repay the loan amount, the accused run his car with high speed and dashed him in order to kill him cannot be believed and reliable one. During the course of cross- examination Pw.2/complainant admits that, earlier the accused was running finance in the premises belonging to him, which was let out to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant/Pw.2 denied any finance business carrying by accused. Therefore, it shows that, the complainant has in a some enimity with the accused while the accused was running finance in the premises belonging to the complainant. Therefore, for that reason, the complainant has filed false complaint against the accused to harass him. The recovery of the seized vehicle from the banglaw of the accused is 21 SC.1046/2009 not proved by the prosecution as the revoery panch/Pw.8 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination, Pw.7 has specifically stated that, as there was no possibility of securing the presence of accused and vehicle, he has submitted 'C' report before his senior officer, who has directed for reinvestigation. There after investigation handed over the further investigation to Pw.6. From the investigation and version of Pw.7, it evident that, there was no incident taken place as alleged by the complainant. Pw.6 in his evidence has admitted that, Pw.4 has given statement before the Pw.7 that, he do not know that the accused drove his car in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the complainant in order to kill him. Therefore, in spite of coming to know the said fact and without securing any documents to show that, there was any finance transaction in between the complainant and accused. Pw.6 has filed charge sheet against the accused simply on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant. As the prosecution has failed to prove that, the complainant has taken treatment as indoor patient and spot panchanama is conducted on 27.1.2002 after 5 days and recorded the statement of Cw.4 22 SC.1046/2009 and Cw.5 after 5 days creates doubt about the story of the prosecution. The version of the Pw.1 is not helpful to the prosecution except showing that, he obtained the complainant and registered in his station Cr.No.14/2002 and sent F.I.R. to the court as per Ex.P.2. The version of Pw.3 that the spot panchanama is conducted by Pw.7 in his presence is not believable, as the records disclose that, spot panchanama is conducted on 27.1.2002 while Pw.3 has stated that the spot panchanama has conducted on 23.1.2002 on the date of incident itself. Therefore, the version of Pw.3 is not helpful to the prosecution to establish that the spot panchanama is conducted by the Pw.7 in his presence. Pw.8 who is alleged to present at the time of recovery of vehicle bearing No.KA-05-Z-1357 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined Pw.8.The further version of Pw.8 is not helpful to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused in the alleged manner. The version of Pw.9 is not helpful to the prosecution except showing that, Pw.2/complainant has taken treatment as per Ex.P.14. Therefore, all these aspects create doubt on the story of the prosecution. 23 SC.1046/2009 Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in the alleged manner. Accordingly, I answer this point No.1 in the Negative.
24. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER In view of power conferred U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C.
His bail bond and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2015.) (PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN) PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C -X, BENGALURU CITY.24 SC.1046/2009
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
PW-1 D.R. Manjunath PW-2 Chandrashekar PW-3 Somu PW-4 Babu PW-5 H.A.Manjunath PW-6 B.G.Koutekar II. For Defence:- - NIL -
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side :-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2 F.I.R.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.3 Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.4 to P.10 Photos
Ex.P.11 C.D.
Ex.P.12 Voluntary statement of Srinivas
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of accused
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of PW6.
25 SC.1046/2009
IV. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Defence side :-
Ex.D.1 Portion statement of Babu
IV. List of material objects marked:
-NIL-
(PATIL MOHAMMADGOUSE MOHIDDIN)
PRESIDING OFFICER,
F.T.C -X, BENGALURU CITY.
26 SC.1046/2009
Judgment pronounced in the open Court.
(vide separate Judgment)
ORDER
In view of power conferred U/s. 235(1)
of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the offence punishable U/s. 307 of I.P.C.
His bail bond and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-X. BENGALURU.