Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Muniraju @ Raju on 30 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 30th day of December 2015
PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A., Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.968 / 2012
COMPLAINANT :- The State of Karnataka,
By Kothanuru Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:- 1. Muniraju @ Raju
S/o Muninanjappa
Aged about 21 years,
R/o Near Over Head Tank
Horamavu Agara
Horamavu Post
Bengaluru-43.
2. Arjun S/o Gopalappa
Aged about 20 years
R/o No.78, Horamavu Agara
Near Vishveshwaraiah Circle
Horamavu Post
Bengaluru-43.
2 S.C. No. 968/2012
3. John S/o Nagaraj
Aged about 18 years
R/o No.126, Kacharakanahalli
Indian Campus
Near Crusade
Hennuru Main Road
Bengaluru-84.
4. Arun Kumar S/o Munirajappa
Aged about 20 years
R/o No.3, Chikka Gubbi
Dodda Gubbi Post
Bengaluru East Tq.,
5. Manjunath S/o Venkataram
Aged about 20 years
R/o No.298, Chelikere
Glass Factory Road
Kalyananagara Post
Bengaluru-43.
6. Sunil Kumar S/o Kadirapa
Aged about 23 years
R/o Ijjalahalli Grama
Jadenahalli Post
Hosakote Tq.,
Bengaluru Rural District
(A1 and A2 by Sri. C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate)
(A3 by Sri Naushad Pasha, Advocate)
(A4 by Sri V.Naga Reddy, Advocate)
(A5 and 6 by Sri M.Srinivas, Advocate)
Date of offence 04.05.2012
Date of report of offence 04.05.2012
Name of the complainant N.Kumar
Date of commencement of 04.01.2013
3 S.C. No. 968/2012
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 07.11.2015
Offences complained of Sec. 397 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by (A1 and A2 by Sri. C.R.Raghavendra
Reddy, Advocate)
(A3 by Sri Naushad Pasha, Advocate)
(A4 by Sri V.Naga Reddy, Advocate)
(A5 and 6 by Sri M.Srinivas, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 to 6 are charged and prosecuted for the offence punishable U/s.397 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-
On 4.5.2012 at about 7.30 p.m, when CW1 N.Kumar, CW2 Babu, CW3 Uma and CW4 Deepika were proceeding in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-1900 near Alpha College Cross, on Bengaluru-Chikka Gubbi Road, accused No.2 Arjun, Accused No.3 John and accused No.5 Manjunatha came in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-03-EF-3565 and parked the motor cycle in the middle of the road pretending to repair the said motor cycle 4 S.C. No. 968/2012 and when CW1 questioned the accused as to why they have parked the motor cycle in the middle of the road and asked them to shift the bike to the side of the road, at that time, A1 Muniraju and A6 Sunil Kumar came in motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-R-720 and A1 Muniraju assaulted CW1 Kumar with his hands and took knife and stabbed CW1 on his lip and caused injury and A4 Arun Kumar came to the spot and surrounded the car and A2 Arjun held CW2 Babu and assaulted with hands on his face and took knife and stabbed on the right side of nose and caused bleeding injury and snatched away the gold chain weighing 98 grams and when CW2 Babu was about to alight from the car, Accused No.4 pushed him and Accused No.1 Muniraju snatched the car key and throw away to the bushes and fled away from the spot.
3. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by CW1 Kumar, the Kothanur police registered a case in Cr.No.34/2012 and took up investigation and went to the spot of incident, drew mahazar on 5.5.2012 in the presence of mahazar witnesses and seized blood stained shirt of the 5 S.C. No. 968/2012 accused and also seized the blood stained shirt of CW1 and CW2 and thereafter they arrested accused No.1 to 5 on 9.5.2012 and they seized Samsung mobile, bike key, gold chain, knife from Accused No.1 and knife from Accused No.2, Nokia mobile from Accused No.6, Sony Ericson mobile and bike key from Accused No.3, Nokia mobile from Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 by drawing seizure mahazar on 9.5.2012 and also seized motor bikes bearing KA-03-EF-3565 and KA-04-R-720 kept near a vacant site on 3rd cross road, III stage, Atina Township, Bili Shivale Grama, Kothanuru, Bengaluru by drawing mahazar on 10.5.2012 and also obtained wound certificate of CW1 and CW2 and recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation formalities, filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 397 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the police arrested accused No.1 to 6 and produced before the Magistrate court on 10.5.2012 and they were remanded to J.C. and subsequently, CW2 Babu filed an application U/s.451 and 457 6 S.C. No. 968/2012 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of seized twin line gold chain weighing 98 grams and as per the order passed by the Magistrate, said gold chain was handed over to CW2 Babu on interim custody. Subsequently, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were released on statutory bail U/s.167(2) of Cr.P.C., as per order dt.10.7.2012. Accused No.3 was released on bail by this court on 25.7.2012 as per order passed in Crl.Misc. No.25842/2012 and accused No.5 and 6 were released on bail by this court on 25.7.2012 as per order passed in Crl.Misc. No.25834/2012 and Accused No.4 released on regular bail by this court on 3.8.2012. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned magistrate and after complying the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for trial. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.968/2012 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused by issuing summons. The matter was 7 S.C. No. 968/2012 heard before charge. As the reasonable grounds existed, charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable u/s. 397 of IPC and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses as P.w.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P1 to 16 and M.O.1 to 15 and closed its side. After conclusion of trial, statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. Accused No.1 to 6 denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence. But they have not led defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
7. The following points arise for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04.05.2012 at 7.30 p.m near Alpha College Cross 8 S.C. No. 968/2012 Road, on Bengaluru Chikka Gubbi Road, accused No.1 to 6 committed robbery or dacoity, when CW1 to 4 were proceeding in their car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-1900 and at the time of committing said robbery or dacoity, the accused were armed with deadly weapons of knives and caused grievous hurt or attempted to cause death and grievous hurt and snatched away the twin line gold chain weighing 98 grams belonging to CW2 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.
397 IPC?
2. What order?
8. My finding on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos.1:- The Kothanuru Police have initiated a criminal case against accused No.1 to 6 on the basis of 9 S.C. No. 968/2012 complaint lodged by CW1 Kumar as per Ex.P.9 dt.4.5.2012. In that complaint, he has alleged that on 4.5.2012 at about 4.00 p.m, he along with his wife Deepika, sister-in-law Suma, brother Babu, went to Raghava's Diagnostic Center, Jayanagara in his Volkswagen Polo car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-1900 and they were returning from the said diagnostic center at about 7.30 p.m via Alpha college road. At that time, three persons came in a two wheeler and parked the said two wheeler in the middle of the road and when the complainant questioned them, they told them that they are repairing the bike handle and at that time, one more two wheeler vehicle came with three persons and one among them assaulted CW1 with hands on his right eye and also assaulted with sharp weapon near his nose and caused bleeding injuries and all the accused persons surrounded the car and abused them in filthy language and one Arun came from bush and one among them assaulted his brother to his right cheek and assaulted with sharp weapon to his right nose and snatched away the two line gold chain weighing 98 grams and also snatched the car key and threw 10 S.C. No. 968/2012 away to the bushes and fled away from the spot. He has further stated that his sister Suma identified one person as Raju and another as john. So as per the contents of Ex.P.9 complaint, three persons came in a bike and thereafter again three persons came in another bike and one person Arun came from bush side. So there were seven persons at the spot.
10. Now let me go through the oral evidence adduced by the parties to see whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, CW1 Kumar has not appeared before the court, as he is no more. CW2 Babu examined as PW1. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 4.5.2012, when they were returning from Raghava's Diagnostic Center in their car at about 7.30 p.m and when they came near Alpha College, three persons were standing in the middle of the road. He has not stated that those persons parked their bike in the middle of the road. He has further deposed that CW1 Kumar questioned them. He has further deposed that those three persons parked their bike in the middle of the road. He has further deposed that after two 11 S.C. No. 968/2012 minutes, another bike came and one Muniraju assaulted Kumar by his hands and said Muniraju assaulted Kumar on his nose with an instrument and two persons came from Bush side and assaulted him and snatched his gold chain. He has not stated that three persons came in a bike and one person came from the bush side. According to this witness, two persons came from bush side and assaulted him. This witness identified one person as Arun Kumar. He has further deposed that he took treatment in Avita Hospital. He has further deposed that he has identified the gold chain in the police station. In the chief examination, he has identified accused Arun, but he has not identified Muniraju and John. During the course of cross- examination, he has deposed that the road wherein the incident occurred is a busy road and there were vehicular traffic in the said road. He has further deposed that except the name of accused No.4, the names of other accused was told by the police. He has further deposed that CW18 Purushothama was suspended in the murder case of CW1 Kumar.
12 S.C. No. 968/2012
11. CW3 Suma has been examined as PW2. In her evidence, she has deposed about the incident. She has further deposed that when they came near Alpha college, one bike was parked in the middle of the road and there were three persons near the bike and her brother-in-law questioned those three persons and at that time, three persons came from bush side and the three persons came in a bike and three persons came from bush side assaulted her brother-in-law Kumar and Babu. So she has not stated that another three persons came in a bike. She has categorically stated that another three persons came from bush side. She has further deposed that Arun Kumar came from bush side and snatched the gold chain from the neck of Babu. But PW1 has deposed that the gold chain was snatched by the accused. He has not specifically stated that the accused Arun snatched his gold chain. But as per the contents of Ex.P.9, gold chain was snatched by Arun. PW2 has deposed that Arun is the son of her aunt. She has deposed that the gold chain which was snatched by the accused was not recovered. But PW1 has produced the gold chain before the 13 S.C. No. 968/2012 court. She has not identified the chain produced by PW1. She has admitted that there is civil litigation pending between her mother and aunt Ravi Kumari in respect of the property of Chennasandra. PW2 has deposed that since there was dark, she could not identify the accused persons who assaulted CW1 and CW2. Since PW2 has not identified the accused, how the PW1 has identified the accused is not explained by the prosecution.
12. CW4 Deepika has been examined as PW3, who is the wife of complainant Kumar. She has deposed about the incident and she has deposed that when they came near Alpha College, three persons parked their bike in the middle of the road and there was no space to move the car and her husband asked those persons as to why they parked their bike in the middle of the road and at that time, another bike came and there were two persons in the said bike and they assaulted CW1 Kumar. This witness has made different version that another bike came with two persons. During the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that she was residing with 14 S.C. No. 968/2012 her husband in a rented house and accused No.4 Arun Kumar was running a hotel in the said building. She has also deposed that there is a litigation pending between her mother and aunt Ravikumari in respect of the property of Channasandra. She has admitted that she and PW1 Babu are accused in the murder of case of her husband. She has denied the suggestion that the accused Muniraju and her sister Suma had love affair. But she has admitted that her sister knows the accused and she has admitted that her husband Kumar warned accused Muniraju not to talk about the love affair with her sister Suma. She has admitted that Babu has political influence. She has further deposed that she has no document to show that they went to Raghava's Hospital on the date of incident. So, in the evidence of PW1 to PW3, there are so many contradictions and the presence of accused at the spot and arrival of accused to the spot are also doubtful.
13. CW11 Dr.Nadir Mohan Desi has been examined as PW4 and he has deposed that he had examined Kumar on 4.5.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. He has stated about the injuries 15 S.C. No. 968/2012 sustained by Kumar. He has deposed that he gave wound certificate as per Ex.P.1 and he has also deposed that he examined Babu and stated about the injuries sustained by Babu.
14. The prosecution has examined CW12 Bairappa as PW5, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Kothanuru police station and he has deposed that on 9.5.2012, he and his staff were entrusted with duty to arrest of the accused and when they came near Hotel of Bande Bommasandra road and they found accused and they arrested accused No.1 to 6, when they tried to run away from the spot. He has further deposed that he came to the police station along with his report and accused and submitted the same as per Ex.P.3.
15. CW5 Nagaraj has been examined as PW6 and he is witness to spot mahazar Ex.P.4. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He has also deposed that Kumar produced the clothes before the police and the police drew mahazar in his presence and he signed the mahazar and the police packed the 16 S.C. No. 968/2012 clothes and seized in his presence. He has also identified the clothes seized by the police marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is working as driver under CW2 Babu. He has further deposed that he cannot say the contents of the mahazar and deposed that the police put all the clothes in a cover and came to the police station.
16. CW7 Ravi Kumar has been examined as PW7 and he is witness to Ex.P.5 seizure mahazar. In his evidence, he has deposed that he went to the police station along with his brother-in-law Sridhar. But he has deposed that he had not seen the accused in the police station and he had not seen any M.O.s in the police station. But he has identified his signature in Ex.P.5.
17. CW8 Sridhar has been examined as PW8, who is witness to Ex.P.5 seizure mahazar. Though he has identified his signature in Ex.P.5, he has deposed that he had not seen the accused in the police station and the police not seized any property in his presence. Since PW7 and PW8 have turned 17 S.C. No. 968/2012 hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, learned Public Prosecutor treated them as hostile witness and cross- examined them, but nothing has been elicited from their mouth regarding seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 and seizure of material objects.
18. CW9 Vismay has been examined as PW9. In his evidence, he has deposed that police called him to Atina Township, Bili Shivale Grama and seized Discover motor cycle and Suzuki Fiero motor cycle by drawing mahazar Ex.P.6. In his chief examination, he has deposed that he cannot identify the vehicles. His chief examination was deferred. Subsequently, he has not turned up and hence he was not available for cross- examination.
19. CW18 Purushotham, the then Police Inspector of Kothanuru police station is the investigation officer, has been examined as PW10. He has deposed about his duty and investigation. He has also deposed about drawing of seizure mahazar Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, regarding seizure of material 18 S.C. No. 968/2012 objects. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that if any known person commits robbery or dacoity, they put mask on their face at the time of commission of offence. He has further deposed that at the time of arresting the accused, they have to make search on the body of accused. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that a criminal case is registered in their police station regarding the death of Kumar as he has died by consuming acid and they interrogated Deepika and Babu in the said case. He has admitted that there is a love affair between accused No.5 and CW3.
20. In this case, the prosecution has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P.1 and 2. Ex.P.1 is the wound certificate of Kumar. Ex.P.2 is wound certificate of Babu. On perusal these two wound certificates, it is clear that Kumar and Babu have sustained simple injuries and not grevious injuries. Ex.P.3 is the report submitted by PSI Bairappa to the Kothanuru police station that he has produced A1 to A6 on 9.5.2012. Ex.P.4 is spot mahazar. Ex.P.5 is seizure mahazar, 19 S.C. No. 968/2012 Ex.P.6 is also seizure mahazar of bikes; Ex.P.8 is the test identification parade report submitted by Tahasildar; Ex.P.7 is the photographs of the gold chain; Ex.P.9 is the complaint, Ex.P.10 is FIR and Ex.P.11 is voluntary statement of Arjun, Ex.P.12 is voluntary statement of John, Ex.P.13 is voluntary statement of Arun Kumar, Ex.P.14 is voluntary statement of Sunil Kumar, Ex.P.15 is voluntary statement of Muniraju, Ex.P.16 is voluntary statement of Manjunath.
21. In this case, the alleged incident took place on 4.5.2012. The police arrested the accused No.1 to 6 on 9.5.2012 at about 4.00 p.m. When the PSI produced accused No.1 to 6 before the police station on 9.5.2012, the police drew mahazar as per Ex.P.5. As per Ex.P.5 the police made search of the body of accused No.1 to 6 and seized one Samsung mobile, bike key, gold chain weighing 98 gram and knife kept in the waist of Muniraju and police seized one knife which was kept in the waist of Arjun and they seized one Nokia mobile from Sunil Kumar and Sony Erricson mobile and bike key from John and one Nokia mobile from Arun Kumar and another 20 S.C. No. 968/2012 mobile from Manjunath. If really the accused No.1 to 6 assaulted CW1 and 2 on 4.5.2012 with knives, we cannot expect that the accused Muniraju and Arjun by keeping the knives in their waist and wandering till the police arrest them on 9.5.2012. If really they used the knives for the commission of offence, they would not have kept the knives in their waist for five days. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that they checked Muniraju and Arjun and found knives in their waist cannot be believed. Further in the Ex.P.5 seizure mahazar, it is not mentioned whether Muniraju kept mobile, bike key and gold chain in his pant pocket or shirt pockets. If really the accused no.1 Muniraju snatched away the gold chain weighing 98 grams, we can expect that he keeps the said gold chain in his pant packet for five days till the police arrest him. Therefore, drawing of Ex.P.5 seizure mahazar and seizure of knives and gold chain and bike key is unbelievable. Another important aspect is that according to the prosecution, PW5 Bairappa arrested accused No.1 to 6 near hotel situated on Bande Bommasandra road. But PW5 has not drawn any 21 S.C. No. 968/2012 mahazar at the place of arrest of Accused No.1 to 6 to show proof of arrest of A1 to A6. He has not made any search on the body of accused persons in the presence of independent mahazar witnesses. Immediately after the arrest, they straight away brought the accused to the police station and in the police station, they have seized the above said items including the knives, bike key and gold chain. To prove Ex.P.5 seizure mahazar, the prosecution has examined PW7 Ravi Kumar and PW8 Sridhar. But both these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, Ex.P.5 is not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, seizure of knives, bike key, mobile phones, gold chain are not proved by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence.
22. According to prosecution, the police drew mahazar at the spot on 5.5.2012. Incident occurred on 4.5.2012. While drawing the mahazar, the police seized blood stained shirt of one of the accused, which was produced by CW1 Kumar. He has also produced two shirts belongs to him and his brother Babu. As per the contents of Ex.P.4, the complainant snatched 22 S.C. No. 968/2012 the shirt of one of the accused on the date of occurrence and he washed his blood in the said shirt and produced on the next day while drawing the mahazar. This aspect is not forthcoming in the complaint Ex.P.9. What made the complainant to produce the said shirts on 5.5.2012 on spot of occurrence. He could have produced the said shirts in the police station itself or in the hospital. So this aspect is also raises doubt about the incident. Even according to the prosecution, the Tahasildar went to the Jail and did test identification parade. But in Ex.P.8, there is no mention of place of conducting test identification parade. In which place, the Tahsildar conducted the test identification parade is not mentioned in Ex.P.8. The date of test identification parade is also not mentioned in Ex.P8. PW10 N.Purushothama has deposed that the test identification parade was conducted on 13.7.2012, which means that the said test identification parade was conducted in the jail itself, but there is no reference in Ex.P8. According to prosecution witnesses, some of the accused are known to CW1 to 3. If that is so, question of conducting test identification 23 S.C. No. 968/2012 parade does not arise. Under these circumstances, Ex.P.8 test identification parade is also doubtful document. All the prosecution material witnesses have deposed that there is civil litigation pending between some of the accused and mother of PW2 and PW3 and further there is love affair between PW2 Suma and Accused No.1 Muniraju. PW3 has also admitted that her husband Kumar warned Accused No.1 regarding the love affair. Thus all these aspects clearly establishes that there is enmity between accused and prosecution witnesses-CW1 to 4. The prosecution has failed to prove the incident. The prosecution has failed to prove the spot mahazar, seizure mahazar and test identification parade conducted by the Tahasildar. Further as per the ingredients of Sec.397 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused committed robbery or dacoity and while committing said offence, the accused must use any deadly weapon or cause grievous hurt on the person or attempt to cause death or grevious hurt to any person. In this case, the use of knives by the accused is doubtful and the prosecution has not proved that the knives are 24 S.C. No. 968/2012 the deadly weapons and the injuries caused to CW1 and 2 are grievous injuries. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable U/Sec. 397 of IPC.
23. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the investigation officer cited 18 witnesses and prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, Complainant is no more, CW2 to 4 are the eye witnesses and they have categorically deposed about the incident and involvement of Accused No.1 to 6 in the commission of offence and there is no delay in lodging the complaint. He has further argued that the incident occurred on 4.5.2012 and the accused were arrested on 9.5.2012 and the police have recovered gold chain at the instance of the accused and the accused have not claimed the gold chain and accused caused injuries to CW1 and CW2 and the police have conducted test identification parade in central jail and accused have not been falsely implicated in the above case and the evidence of prosecution does not suffer any irregularity and prosecution is able to produce convincing evidence to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 397 of IPC and police have 25 S.C. No. 968/2012 seized two knives from the accused, which were used for the commission of offence and though PW7 and PW8 have turned hostile, the bike seized by the police are not subject matter of the case and not fatal to the case of prosecution and hence, prayed for convicting the accused for the alleged offence.
24. Learned counsel for accused has relied upon the decisions reported in:-
1) AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3234 (Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi) In this case, the Hon Supreme Court has discussed the essential ingredients of Sec.397 of IPC. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sec.397 of IPC.
2) 1992 CRI.L.J. 3819 ( Rahimal Vs. State of U.P.) In this decision, Hon Allahabad High Court held as follows:-
(c) Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 - Dacoity -
Identification parade-Reliability - Incident occurring at night - Insufficient source of light - Unexplained 26 S.C. No. 968/2012 delay of 02 months in holding identification parade- Five witnesses identifying accused-Failure of victims to identify accused - Identification parade, unreliable - Accused acquitted.
25. In this case also, PW2 Suma has deposed that there was dark in the place of incident and she has not identified the accused at the spot, which means that there was insufficient source of light in the place of incident and there was delay of 02 months in conducting the test identification parade. According to PW10, the test identification parade was conducted on 13.7.2012, though the incident occurred on 4.5.2012 and accused were arrested on 9.5.2012. Therefore, failure of victims to identify the accused, the test identification parade conducted by Tahasildar is unreliable and therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not produced convincing and cogent evidence to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 397 of IPC. With these observations, I hold that Accused No.1 to 6 are liable for acquittal and accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Negative. 27 S.C. No. 968/2012
26. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 6 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by Accused No.1 to 6 during the course of trial stand cancelled.
M.O.1 T-shirt, M.O.2 full shirt, M.O.3 Banian, M.O.4 full shirt, M.O.5 jeans pant are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over. Interim order passed by this court to give interim custody of M.O.6 gold chain to CW2 Babu dt.7.6.2012 is hereby made absolute. M.O.7, 12, 13, 14 and 15 mobiles phones are ordered to be confiscated to the government after the appeal period is over and M.O.10 and 11 two knives are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over and M.O.8 and 9 keys are ordered to be 28 S.C. No. 968/2012 returned to the R.C. owners of the concerned vehicles after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to Judgment writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of December 2015) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Babu P.W.2 Kum.Suma P.W.3 Deepika P.w.4 Dr.Nadir Mohan Desai P.w.5 Nagaraj P.w.7 Ravikumar P.w.8 R.Shridhar P.w.9 Vismaya P.w.10 N.Purushotham
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Wound certificate
Ex.P1 (a) Signature of P.w.4
Ex.P1 (b) Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P2 Wound certificate
Ex.P2 (a) Signature of P.w.4
29 S.C. No. 968/2012
Ex.P2 (b) Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P3 Report
Ex.P3 (a) Signature of P.w.5
Ex.P4 Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 (a) Signature of P.w.6
Ex.P4 (b) Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P5 Mahazar
Ex.P5 (a) Signature of P.w.7
Ex.P5 (b) Signature of P.w.8
Ex.P5 (c ) Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P6 Mahazar
Ex.P6 (a) Signature of P.w.9
Ex.P6 (b) Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P7 Photo
Ex.P 7(a) Chain position
Ex.P8 report
Ex.P8 (a) signature of P.w.1
Ex.P9 Complaint
Ex.P 9(a) Signature of P.w.1
Ex.P10 FIR
Ex.P 10(a) Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P11 to 16 Voluntary statements of Accused
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
M.O1 T-shirt
M.O2 checks full shirt
M.O3 half sleeves banian
M.O4 full shirt blak colour
M.O5 jeans pant
30 S.C. No. 968/2012
M.O6 gold chain ( two rows)
M.O7 Samsung mobile
M.O8 -9 two bike keys
M.O10 -11 two knives
M.O12 -13 two Sony Erricson mobiles
M.O14 -15 two Nokia mobiles
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.