Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Lakshmipati @ Subramani on 7 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL., CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 7th Day of October 2016
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. B.S.REKHA B.A. Law., LL.M.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
SPECIAL C. NO.267/2014
COMPLAINANT:
The State of Karnataka,
By Tilak Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Rep. Public Prosecutor-Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED: 1 Lakshmipati @ Subramani,
S/o Ramanna, Age: 26 years,
R/at No.26, 1st cross,
Garebavi Palya, Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru.
{ Rep. by Sri. M.C.P -Advocate}
Dilip,
S/o Late Siddappa, 30 Years,
R/at No.143, 1st cross,
Mangammana Palya Main road,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru.
{Rep. by Sri. G. Desu Reddy-Advocate}
2 Spl.C.No.267/2014
Mohammed Gafar @ Abdul Gafar,
S/o Mohammed Saleem, 20 Years,
R/at Behind Gulshan Shadi Mohalla,
Mangammana Palya, Bommana Halli,
Bengaluru.
{Rep. by Sri. Balaji Reddy-Advocate}
1 Date of commission of offence 18-08-2008
2 Date of report of occurrence 18-08-2008
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1& 2
Date of release of Accused 1& 2
Period undergone in custody A1 & 2 are in JC
by Accused 1& 2
Date of arrest of Accused No.3 30-10-2008
Date of release of Accused 3 14-09-2011
Period undergone in custody 14days, 10months
by Accused 3 & 2 years
4 Date of commencement of 05-10-2010
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 24-01-2015
6 Name of the complainant Shivaramaiah
7 Offences complained of Section 364(A)
r/w. 34 of IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 3
are acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
3 Spl.C.No.267/2014
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector attached to the Tilak Nagar Police Station, Bangalore City, has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 18-08-2008 at 8.00 a.m. when CW.1 was taking CW.2 to Sudarshan School, the accused came in Tata Indi Cab No.KA-03-C-7583 and kidnapped them by showing the knife have taken them to Talagattapura and demanded CW.1 to give one and half Crores and to leave CW.2 for security and also threatened that they will murder CW.2 to which CW.1 said that he will bring money if they allowed them to go home and they directed to bring the amount about 5.00 p.m. near Sudarshan park and there by committed the aforesaid offence.
3. After submission of charge sheet before III ACMM, Bangalore, cognizance was taken and the learned Magistrate has committed this case to the Court of 4 Spl.C.No.267/2014 Sessions for trial. After committal, this case was made over to FTC-VII and registered as S.C.No.487/2009. Accused No.3 alone is on bail. Accused engaged counsel for their defense. The copies of the charge sheet were furnished to them. After hearing both sides charge for the above offences was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. On behalf of the prosecution Pw.1 to Pw.6 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and MO1 and MO2 are marked.
5. As per the order No. ADM-I(A)/733/14 dated 10-06-2014 this case is withdrawn from FTC-VII and transferred to this Court and registered as Spl.C.No.267/ 2014.
6. Further in this Court on behalf of the prosecution Pw.7 and Pw.9 are examined and Ex.14 is marked. Thereafter, the accused are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence, which 5 Spl.C.No.267/2014 appeared against them and they have not chosen to lead evidence on their side but got marked Ex.D1.
7. Perused the records and heard the arguments.
8. The facts and the evidence on record guided me to formulate the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that 18-08-
2008 at 8.00 a.m. when CW.1 was taking CW.2 to Sudarshan School, the accused came in Tata Indi Cab No. KA-
03-C-7583 and have kidnapped them by showing the knife have taken them to Talagattapura and demanded CW.1 to give one and half Crores and to leave CW.2 for security and also threatened that they will murder CW.2 to which CW.1 said that he will bring money if they allowed them to go home and they directed to bring the amount about 5.00 p.m. near Sudarshan park and there by committed the offence punishable under Section 364(E) r/w 34 of IPC?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 In the Negative.6 Spl.C.No.267/2014
Point No.2 As per final orders for the following REASONS
10. Point No.1:- In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses.
11. Cw.2-Divya examined as Pw.1 has categorically stated that now she is studying in Atlanta City of America in first P.U. CW.1 is her grand father. Their house was situated at 9th block, Jayanagar, house No.159. On 18.08.2008 when she and CW.1 were going to school at 8.00 a.m., by walk one person came and talk to her grand father and also he called that he is going to drop them. However, in spite of refuse he came from front and forcefully taken to the vehicle. When they have taken CW.1 inside the car she also went inside the Car.
12. Thereafter one minute journey two other persons joined and one person sat in front seat and the other person sat by the side of CW.1. They did not stop the vehicle when they reached the school. They closed the mouth of CW.1 and 2 and caused life threat. She 7 Spl.C.No.267/2014 had stated that as the windows of the Car are of white colour, she did not noticed in which road they are going.
13. One of the person in that car demanded to pay one and half Crores by leaving PW.1 and to bring the amount to a park at 5.00 p.m., and also they threatened with dire consequences. She told that she want to go with her grand father. They told that they will leave them and they should not intimate to the police. They left them at Meenakshi Temple. She came to know that after two months of the incident the first accused kidnapped her mother. They came in Auto to the house and intimated the same to her grand mother who in turn intimated to her daughter. She identified accused No.3. Thereafter, they lodged complaint wherein they have shown the photographs of the accused in police station. She identified the photographs of the vehicle. Accused No.1 was their Car driver. She was called to Parappana Agrahara, wherein she identified the accused. She identified Ex.P.4 & 5.
8 Spl.C.No.267/2014
14. During the course of cross examination she had stated that at the time of incident she was studying in 1st standard. She was going in Auto to the school from 1st standard to 6th standard. Her grandfather was in the house when she was studying in the 7th standard. He used to take her to the school. Her brother is studying in college. The distance between the school and the house is about 1 K.M., which is walkable. She admits that the area wherein her house is situated is commercial. She had five classmates from her area. She used to go with her friend Rajani by walk. She is having idea that she should not take drop from unknown persons.
15. Her mother used to go to work at 7.30 a.m. and come back at 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. Her mother was going by Car. She was not going by cycle to the school. Their family is of middle class and they have not kept Lakhs or Crores of money. Her parents are divorced. She admits that it is a busy area from where they were kidnapped. She denied that on that day as she was late 9 Spl.C.No.267/2014 to the school she was requesting for drop and some persons have dropped them. According to her due to the force of the driver, her grand father went inside the Car. She admits that she followed her grand father. She did not observe the Car number and colour. Nobody have witnessed about the alleged kidnap. They did not shout. The car driver was aged 30 years and was wearing white clothes. She did not enquire as to why those two persons were allowed to the Car. She shouted when the Car was not stopped near her school, she did not observe that there are so many people near the school.
16. According to her except the button knife the accused have not shown any article. The third accused came to back seat and closed her mouth. They have roamed for one hour. She had no idea of the amount with PW.2. Second accused forced for money. They demanded to pay the amount at one shot. They did not demand for part by part payment. They did not call any body to pay the amount. There were many public moving in the place where they dropped from the Car. 10 Spl.C.No.267/2014 Her grandfather sustained injuries. She did not noted the Car number. They reached the house at 11.30 a.m. Then they went to police station to lodge the complaint.
17. She went to the police station after 15 days of the incident. She accompanied her mother and grand father to the police station. They identified the accused before court. She was taken to Parappana Agrahara for identification parade as per the instruction of Tilak Nagar police at 11.00 a.m. The identification parade was commenced at 2.00 p.m. the accused were shown to her. Some other persons were also standing with the accused. In that IP some persons of different height and size were also made to stand.
18. The photographs of the accused were not to shown. She did not notice that all those persons were wearing shoe or not. After one month her mother was kidnapped. There are omissions suggested to her. She showed ignorance as to why there was divorce between 11 Spl.C.No.267/2014 her parents. Her mother never complained of assault made by her father.
19. CW.1 Shivaramaiah, the complainant examined as PW.2 had stated that first accused was their car driver for two years. PW.1 is his grand daughter. In the year 2008 PW.1 was studying in Sudarshan School up to 9th standard. There is a distance of 1 k.m. from her house to the school. He used to drop her by walk. On 18.08.2008 at 8.00 a.m. as usual he wanted to drop PW.1 but at 38th cross there was one Indica Car where in they forced them to be inside the Car. Due to their force they went inside the Car. After sometime the other two accused persons entered the Car. Second accused did not stop the vehicle when it came near school. PW.1 was crying. 3rd accused was sitting by his side with knife. They went to Talagattapura and stopped the vehicle and demanded the payment of one and half Crores. Second accused also instructed that they will keep PW.1 but when PW.1 12 Spl.C.No.267/2014 was crying he said that if PW.1 was sent with him only he will get the amount.
20. Thereafter they dropped near Meenakshi temple and also caused life threat. The police have taken him to the place of incident and after two days he was taken to identification parade. He identified accused NO.1 to 3. In December 2009 he and PW.1 were requested to attend the identification parade.
21. During the course of cross examination, he had stated that he was having salary of Rs.50,000/- before retirement. He used to wake up at 4.00 a.m. and he will not wear jewels. They use to take Tiffin at 7.30 a.m. As the school is near he used to drop the grand daughter. He admits that the autos will be in the main road. It is residential area. There are many houses near by the school. He did not observe any children belong to this school from that area. Generally he will not accept drop but some times if known person request then they used to take drop.
13 Spl.C.No.267/2014
22. They saw the Car from a distance of 100 feet. He denied that as his grand daughter became late and they requested for drop. The Car driver requested them to sit in the Car. By looking this PW.2, PW.1 went inside the Car. They have not taken Car number. Though he attempted to shout it was not audible. They were not wearing jewels on that day. They did not snatch any other things. The accused were not holding any weapons.
23. They were in the Car for two hours. The second accused was demanding more. However, he told that Monday is Bank holiday. He had no capacity to pay that much amount but he was ready to pay the amount by selling his house. The accused did not make him to call to the house and to demand for money. However they called at 5.00 p.m. and demanded for money. They have not caused any injuries. They left them at 10.15 a.m., and went away immediately. Their house is situated 5.0 k.m. away from that spot. They were unable to note the Car number as they were afraid. They have not shouted immediately and not sought for help. He 14 Spl.C.No.267/2014 alone went to lodge complaint. He does not remember the timings of mahazar. The police called him to Parappana Agrahara for identification of the accused and he was called to police station to identify the weapons. The accused were shown in Parappana Agrahara police station. He went to Parappana Agrahara jail at 11.30 a.m. for identification parade. There were 10 to 15 persons were standing in lane. He identified the accused.
24. Himself and his grand daughter have identified them. They were allowed to identify individually. He cannot say the colour of dress worn by the accused in the jail. He was aware of the first accused. He saw all the persons standing for IP. He cannot say how many persons were short and how many persons were tall. He cannot say in which serial number the accused were standing. They have not seen the photographs of the accused. He admits that after two months of the incident their photos were published in newspaper.
15 Spl.C.No.267/2014
25. He denied that based on that he identified the accused. He admits that after two months his daughter was kidnapped and that case was disposed off. He was one of the witnesses in that case. He admits that the husband of Vijayalakshmi used to visit their house to see his daughter. He denied that on the date of incident his son in law sent a car and they went in that Car. He denied that these accused were made as accused in the kidnapping case of his daughter who arrayed as accused in this case. There are omissions suggested to this witness.
26. CW.3-Rajendra Gupta examined as PW.3 who is a witness to Ex.P.7 spot mahazar stated that the police have prepared mahazar near the house of one Keshava Murthy.
27. CW.8 Raja examined as PW.4 had stated that he is not aware of the complainant and the victim and the accused. The police have taken his signature on Ex.P.10 when he went to the hotel for breakfast. The 16 Spl.C.No.267/2014 vehicle was not seized in his presence. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
28. CW.16-C. Manjunath, Tahasildar examined as PW.5 had stated that as per the request of Tilak Nagar Police to conduct identification parade on 05.12.2008 he issued notice to PW.1 and PW.2 and made arrangements to conduct IP in Bangalore Central Jail. He made 18 persons to stand in a lane. The victim and her grand father have identified the accused and he followed the procedure as contemplated. He identified the accused.
29. During the course of cross-examination, he had stated that he alone went to the jail on that day. He was there for two hours. The CW.1 and 2 were already come near the jail. The jail staffs have made arrangements. The witnesses have not met the accused earlier. The IP was conducted in corridor in daylight. He called CW.1 and 2 individually. They have conducted two rounds of parade. He denied that Tilak Nagar police were present and assisted the witnesses in identification. On both occasions they have identified the accused 17 Spl.C.No.267/2014 properly. He denied that they have displayed the number on the accused and hence they identified them. He was not aware of the display of the photos of the accused in newspapers. After identification in first round he made alteration in the serial number.
30. CW.15-C.Gangadhar, HC 3662 deposed as PW.6 had stated that on 23.10.2008 he was deputed to arrest the accused. Then he arrested accused No.3 & 4 who were in Sarjapur Road and produced along with report. He had not prepared mahazar at place of arrest. No information regarding identification of the accused was given to him.
31. CW.6-Manohar, examined as PW.7 had stated that first accused is his friend. CW.11 is the owner of Tata Indica Car No.KA-03-C-7583. In the year 2008 after his work he went to the house of first accused and stayed there. On that day first accused had taken the Car from owner at 7.00 a.m. and handed over at 10.45 a.m. Thereafter, he took the Car and went to work. 18 Spl.C.No.267/2014 After two months the police came and told that the First accused had committed kidnap in that Car and seized the Car. He identified his signature in Ex.P.10. Usually he used to leave the Car to the house of owner on Saturday and Sunday and also when he was on leave. In the remaining time it will be with him. He had not shown the place from where the accused had taken the Car. He had given the Car because the first accused is his friend.
32. CW.11 Venkataramaiah examined as PW.8 who is the owner of Car number KA-03-C-7583 which is attached to Annaporna Travels and PW.7 was the driver. That vehicle was given to AGSA Company. He came to know that the first accused has taken the Car in 2008 from PW.7 for kidnapping. He identified the photograph. He admits that only if they are close friends then only they will give the vehicle. His known driver introduced PW.7. Usually the vehicle was given to night duty to PW.7 and after his work he will leave the vehicle near his 19 Spl.C.No.267/2014 house. He did not enquired PW.7 about giving the vehicle to anybody because he was not aware of it earlier.
33. CW.18 PSI Janardhan Rao, examined as PW.9 had stated that on 18.08.2008 when he was SHO he received oral complaint from PW.2 as per Ex.P.6. He registered the case and submitted FIR to the court. He prepared mahazar on the same day and handed over further investigation to police inspector. According to him the writer has written the complaint as stated by the complainant. PW.1 and 2 came to the police station and he had not taken the signature of the grand daughter of CW.1. PW.1 came in uniform. It is a busy area. They have not given description about the persons, their cloths and the particulars of knife. He had prepared one mahazar.
34. The documents relied upon by the prosecution are Ex.P.1 to 3 photographs, Ex.P4 certification of IP, Ex.P5 is the name of the persons present to the IP, Ex.P.6 the complaint, Ex.P.7 Mahazar, Ex.P8 20 Spl.C.No.267/2014 certification of IP, Ex.P.9 is the name of the persons present to the IP, Ex.P.10 mahazar, Ex.P.11 statement of Witness Raja, Ex.P.12 the requisition for IP, Ex.P13 the IP report, Ex.P.14 FIR.
35. In this case on perusal of the contention of the prosecution it could be seen that the PW.1 and PW.2 as usual were going to school by walk. The accused came in front of them and talk to PW.2 and requested to take drop to the school. However, when he refused, he pressurized and inevitably get inside the Car. Then his grand daughter get inside the car voluntarily because PW.2 was in the Car. Thereafter, though the car came near her school they did not stopped. They have taken to different areas but they cannot say the places to where they were taken. Then the accused demanded the complainant to pay rupees one and half Crores and directed him to bring the amount and till then they will keep his grand daughter in their custody.
36. However, it is contended that the accused have left both of them by saying that he has to bring 21 Spl.C.No.267/2014 amount at 5.00 p.m. to a park. It is also contended that they went to the house by auto and informed the same to the wife of the complainant who in turn intimated to the daughter. Thereafter they lodged complaint.
37. It is also pertinent to note that after two months of the incident daughter of the complainant was kidnapped and the allegation was made against the accused. Further it is contended that the said case was ended in acquittal. It is the specific contention of the defense that after publishing of the information of kidnap of daughter of the complainant they have attended identification parade and identified these accused as the persons who kidnapped them.
38. It is also an important aspect that the daughter of the complainant is divorcee and father of the child used to meet the child. It is suggested that on that day also father of the child requested to meet the child and the child went in the Car of some other person and came back. However, that suggestion was denied. 22 Spl.C.No.267/2014
39. Though it is alleged as a case of kidnapping for ransom the facts of the case have to be carefully considered. In this case the first accused was the car driver in their house. Naturally he had the information regarding the financial capacity of the complainant. The complainant had specifically stated that their financial condition is not so high but if at all it was needed he would have sold the house and paid the amount.
40. It is also pertinent to note that the accused have not caused any type of injury to the complainant and his grand daughter. Further a person who is known to the family will not take such a risk because the identification will be easier. Further if at all they were kidnapped for ransom and also they have not made any attempt to cause alarm there was no necessity to leave them without getting the ransom. This shows that there is a doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further what was the assurance given by the complainant which made the accused to leave them is a matter which is not properly explained.
23 Spl.C.No.267/2014
41. In this case except the evidence of PW.1 and 2 there is no evidence which supports the case of the prosecution about kidnapping for ransom. PW.3 had admitted about the signature to mahazar. PW.4 is a signatory to seizure mahazar of the Car had not supported the contents of mahazar. PW.5 is the Tahasildar who had stated about conducting of IP. However, he had stated that after two to three months of the incident he was called for identification parade.
42. In this case according to PW.1 when the incident occurred she was studying in first standard. But her evidence is recorded when she is aged 16 years. Then chances of her statement which is now recorded and her capacity to grasp the things at her age when she was in first standard have to be considered by the court. She has specifically stated that they are not having Lakhs together amount. Further even according to her evidence and the evidence of PW.2 she was not forced to sit in the Car. She voluntarily went inside the car 24 Spl.C.No.267/2014 because her grandfather entered the car. Even according to them the accused have taken them in the Car to drop to the school. Further it could be seen that the accused have not attempted to hide their identity. They have not caused any injuries to anybody. There was every possibility for them to seek help.
43. PW.6 is the HC who arrested accused NO.3 and 4, PW.7 is friend of first accused had stated that one day when he came to the house of the accused the accused had taken the Car by telling that he is going to the house of owner at 7.00 a.m. and brought the Car at 10.45 a.m. He is only a circumstantial witness regarding the taking of Car by the accused. However he has stated that generally he will leave the Car to the owner's house. PW.8 is the owner of the Car has stated that PW.7 is the driver who told that first accused had taken the car from him. PW.9 is the Investigation Officer.
44. In this case on perusal of the evidence available on record it could be seen that if at all the 25 Spl.C.No.267/2014 kidnapping for ransom without getting the amount why they have safely left this PW.1 and 2 is a crucial point. Further if at all it is a case of kidnap for ransom why the accused have not attempted to hide their identification is also an important point. After this incident there is another kidnapping incident of daughter of the complainant which is occurred after two months which is ended in acquittal.
45. The learned Counsel for accused No.1 relied upon following decisions reported in:
1. AIR 2008 SC 1813-between Md.Kalam @ Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan.
2. AIR 1998 SC 3031- between Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi Gohar Vs. State of Maharashtra.
3. (2007) 3 SCC 755- between State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Another.
46. The learned Counsel for accused No.3 relied upon following decisions reported in:
1. 2011 Cri.L.J.535-Molhay & Another Vs. State of U.P.
2. AIR 2010 SC 762- between Musheer Khan @ Badsha Khan & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.26 Spl.C.No.267/2014
3. AIR 2010 SC 942- between Mulla & Another Vs. State of U.P.
4. 2012 AIR SCW 425- between Girdhari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
5. AIR 1976 SC 1569- between Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by Lrs & Others Vs. Mohd.Hanifa (Dead) by Lrs & Others.
6. AIR 1967 SC 341- between Basant Sing Vs. Janki Singh & Others.
These citations are aptly applicable to the case on hand.
47. That case was filed against these accused. After lodging of that complaint the identification parade was conducted. What was the intention of this kidnap is not forth coming. It cannot be expected that a child which was going to first standard had all the information in its mind and reiterated the same now who is aged 16 years also shows that it is a case of serious vengeance. In this case the self serving testimony of PW.1 and 2 is not supported by any independent witness. The evidence of owner of the car and the friend of the first accused will not support the case of the prosecution. 27 Spl.C.No.267/2014
48. Then remains the mahazar witnesses and the IO which is also will not prove the case. Hence in my opinion there is a serious discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution which throws doubts on the case of prosecution. Further neither the complaint nor the mahazar are proved as per law. In this case the contention of the prosecution is not established. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt on the part of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence by giving benefit of doubt I answer this point in the Negative.
49. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of I.P.C.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.3 stands cancelled.
The accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty if they are not required in any other case.28 Spl.C.No.267/2014
The accused are directed to furnish surety as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th Day of October 2016.) (B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW 1 Divya Cw.2 05-10-2010 PW 2 Shivaramaiah Cw.1 08-10-2010 PW 3 B.K.R Gupta Cw.3 12-04-2011 PW 4 Raja Cw.8 11-08-2011 PW 5 Manjunatha C. Cw.16 12-06-2012 PW 6 C. Gangadhara Cw.15 17-04-2013 PW 7 Manohara Cw.6 23-01-2015 PW 8 Venkataramaiah Cw.11 23-01-2015 PW 9 Janardhana Rao Cw.18 24-01-2015 29 Spl.C.No.267/2014 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 to 3 Photographs of the Pw.1 08-10-2010 vehicle Ex.P 4 Parade witness list Pw.1 08-10-2010 Ex.P 5 Identification list of Pw.1 08-10-2010 parade Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 08-10-2010 Ex.P 5a Signature of PW.1 Pw.1 08-10-2010 Ex.P 6 Complaint Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 6a Signature of PW.2 Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 7 Mahazar Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 7a Signature of PW.2 Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 8 Parade witness list Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 9 Identification list of Pw.2 08-10-2010 parade Ex.P 8a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 9a Signature of PW.2 Pw.2 08-10-2010 Ex.P 10 Mahazar Pw.6 24-06-2016 Ex.P 9a Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 24-06-2016 Ex.P 9b Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 24-06-2016 Ex.P 10 Statement of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-09-2016 Ex.P 11 Statement of Pw.9 Pw.9 06-09-2016 Ex.P 12 Requisition Pw.5 12-06-2012 Ex.P 13 Copy of Notice Pw.5 12-06-2012 Ex.P 13a Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 12-06-2012 Ex.P 14 FIR Pw.9 24-01-2015 Ex.P 14a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 24-01-2015 30 Spl.C.No.267/2014 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED MO1 & 2 Two Knives Pw.1 08-10-2010 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED Ex.D1 Further statement Pw.1 08-10-2010 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
-NIL-
(B.S.REKHA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE 31 Spl.C.No.267/2014