Bangalore District Court
Parappana Agrahara P.S vs A1 Bhaskar on 19 October, 2024
KABC010296332022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIIII Addl. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 19th day of October, 2024
: Present :
Sri A. EARANNA, M.Com, LL.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE No. 1941/2022
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused 1. Bhaskara
S/o Shivappa Gunda,
Age 36 years,
C/o Naganna Building,
Near Petrol Bunk,
Shantipura E-City, Phase-II,
Bangalore
2. Vijay Kumar
S/o Maree Gowda,
Age 29 years,
Near Saptagiri Bar,
Kittanahalli, Belgaum
Also R/at Anand Kuppe Village,
Kunigal Taluk,
Bangalore
2 SC No.1941/2022
3. Ramesh,
S/o Late Rabindranath Tagore,
Age 32 years,
C/o Santosh Building, 1st Main,
4th Cross, Shantipura,
E-City Phase 2,
Bangalore city
Also R/at No. 131, Near Anjaneya
Temple, Huskoor, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore city
3. Kumar,
S/o Ganesh Gowda,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at C/o Naganna Rent House,
Near HP Petrol Station,
Shantipur Village,
Bangalore city
(By A1 - Sri. S.V. advocate
A2 - Sri. M.D.P. advocate,
A3 - Smt. N.P., Advocate,
A4- Sri. KAN advocate)
Date of commission of offence 18.08.2022
Date of report of offence 19.08.2022
Date of arrest of the Accused 20.08.2022
Date of release of the accused Accused No.4 released on
on bail 3.12.2022
Accused No.3 released on
04.01.2022
Accused No.1 released on
14.03.2023
Accused No.2 is in JC
Name of the complainant Budde Babu
Date of commencement of trial 13.03.2024
3 SC No.1941/2022
Date of closing of 22.08.2024
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 19.10.2024
Offences complained of U/s 504, 448, 302, 323, 324,
342 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1 to 4 are
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The I.O of Parappana Agrahara Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons of the offences punishable U/s 504, 448, 302, 323, 324, 342 r/w 34 of IPC before the learned 9th Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, who committed the case for disposal in accordance with law.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as under;
On 18.08.2022 around 20.30 hours, the CW.16 took the deceased Budde Harikrishna from his house, went to Bakery and after having tea returning back. At that time, for funny assaulted to the deceased and while running front, then the deceased took one Jelly stone and flew towards CW.16 and it was touched to the left side mirror of 4 SC No.1941/2022 the TATA-1412 LPT vehicle bearing No.MH.12.TR.DYL-746 and same was damaged. This was seen by the accused persons, illegally trespassed into the house of the deceased and started quarrel with the deceased and started to assault, then his relative Subhash were in the house, Subhash came to pacify the quarrel, all the accused persons have dragged the Budde Harikrishna and Subhash from the house and they started abusing filthy language and started to assault. Both were taken into the shop of Bhaskar, wherein both have assaulted then the complainant and other family members came and asked the accused persons not to assault, they will pay the cost of damaged mirror. Accused persons have told they will teach the lesson that the deceased and CW16 and other accused persons have caught hold the color of the deceased and they came to know on the road one concrete mix lorry bearing No.KA.51.AC.8028 was coming, then he was pushed by the accused persons, then he was hit to the rare mudguard of the said vehicle, then Budde Harikrishna was taken to hospital, in the hospital declared him as dead. Then, CW1 lodged the complaint.
5 SC No.1941/2022
3. Learned 9th ACMM, Bengaluru by its order dated 28.10.2022 sent the committal records in CC No. 32022/2022 to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru. Case register in SC No. 1941/2022 and committed to this Court. The accused No. 1 to 4 faced the trial through their counsels and thereafter, charge for the offences punishable U/s 504, 448, 302, 323, 324, 342 r/w 34 of I.P.C. has been framed against the accused, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to PW28 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P70 and M.O.1 to M.O.10 and closed it side. Thereupon, the accused No. 1 to 4 have been examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. by stating the incriminating evidence appearing against them, wherein they have denied the same and they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf and thereby, the defence evidence is taken as nil.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points for my consideration are;
1. ದಿನಾಂಕ 18.8.2022 ರಂದು ಸುಮಾರು ರಾತ್ರಿ 8.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನು ಚಾಸಾ-16 ರವರನ್ನು ಶಾಂತಿಪುರ, ವಿಎಸಎಸ್ ಸ್ಕೂ ಲ್ಹಿಂಭಾಗ ಇರುವ ತಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯಿಂದ ಶಾಂತಿಪುರ 6 SC No.1941/2022 ಮುಖ್ಯ ರಸ್ತೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಬೇಕರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಟೀ ಕುಡಿದು ವಾಪಸ್ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ತಮಾಷೆಗೆ ಚಾಸಾ-16 ರವರು ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದು ಮುಂದೆ ಓಡಿ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನು ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿದ್ದಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಜೆಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಲ ನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಚಾಸಾ- 16 ರವರ ಕಡೆ ಬೀಸಿದಾಗ ಕಲ್ಲು ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಪಕ್ಕ ಕ್ಕೆ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದ ತಾತ್ಕಾಲಿಕ ನೊಂದಣೀ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ MH-12-TR-DYL-746 ಇವರ TATA- 1412 LPT ವಾಹನದ ಎಡ ಭಾಗದ ಸೈಡ್ ಮೀರರಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದು ಜಖಂಗೊಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಚಾಸಾ-20 ರವರು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು , 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಆರೋಪಿ 2,3 ಮತ್ತು 4 ರವರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನ ಮನೆಗೆ ಏಕಾಏಕಿ ಅತಿಕ್ರಮ ಮಾಡಿ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನನ್ನು ಹೊರಗೆ ಎಳೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ಆ ಮೂಲಕ 1 ರಿಂದ 4 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ 448 ಸಹವಾಚಕ ಕಲಂ 34 ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವಾದ ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವರೆಂದು ಅಭಿಯೋಜನೆ ಸಾಬೀತುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
2. ಎರಡನೇಯದಾಗಿ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನನ್ನು ಲೋಪರ್ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನೇ ಎಂದು ಅವಾಚ್ಯ ಶಬ್ದ ಗಳಿಂದ ಬೈದಿದ್ದು ಆ ಮೂಲಕ 1 ರಿಂದ 4 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ 504 ಸಹವಾಚಕ ಕಲಂ 34 ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವಾದ ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವರೆಂದು ಅಭಿಯೋಜನೆ ಸಾಬೀತುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
3. ಮೂರನೇಯದಾಗಿ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ರೂ ಸೇರಿ ಕೈಗಳಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದು ಕಾಲಿನಿಂದ ಒದ್ದಿದ್ದು , ಇದನ್ನು ಕೇಳಲು ಬಂದ ಚಾಸಾ-13 ರವರಿಗೂ ಸಹ ಹೊಡೆದಿದ್ದು ಆ ಮೂಲಕ 1 ರಿಂದ 4 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ 323 ಸಹವಾಚಕ ಕಲಂ 34 ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವಾದ ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವರೆಂದು ಅಭಿಯೋಜನೆ ಸಾಬೀತುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
4. ನಾಲ್ಕ ನೇಯದಾಗಿ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ-13 ರವರನ್ನು ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಪರಪ್ಪ ನ ಅಗ್ರಹಾರ 7 SC No.1941/2022 ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ ಬರುವ ತಾಂತಿಪುರ ಮುಖ್ಯ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಕೂಡಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕಾಲಿನಿಂದ, ಕೈಯಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದು, 4 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಚಾಸಾ-13 ರವರಿಗೆ ಮರದ ರಿಪೀಸ್ ತುಂಡಿನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದು ರಕ್ತಗಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಆ ಮೂಲಕ 1 ರಿಂದ 4 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ 324 ಮತ್ತು 342 ಸಹವಾಚಕ ಕಲಂ 34 ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವಾದ ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವರೆಂದು ಅಭಿಯೋಜನೆ ಸಾಬೀತುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
5. ಐದನೇಯದಾಗಿ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನನ್ನ್ಬು ಮತ್ತು ಚಾಸಾ-13 ರವರನ್ನು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಕೂಡಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡು, ಚಾಸಾ-13 ರವರಿಗೆ ರಕ್ತಗಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು , ಅದನ್ನು ಬಿಡಿಸಲು ಬಂದ ಮೃತ ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನ್ನು ಕೊಲೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ, ಆರೋಪಿತರಾದ ನೀವು ಸೇರಿಕೊಂಡು ಕೈಗಳಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದು ಕಾಲಿನಿಂದ ಒದೆಯುತ್ತಾ ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಎಳೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು, 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದು ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಲಾರಿ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಸಾಯಿ ನಿನ್ನ ಮ್ಮ ನ್ಎಂದು ಬೈದು ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಚಲಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ KA-51-AC-8028 ಕಾಂಕ್ರಿಟ್ ಮಿಕ್ಸ್ ಲಾರಿಯ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಬಲವಾಗಿ ತಳ್ಳಿ ಕೊಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು , ಆ ಮೂಲಕ 1 ರಿಂದ 4 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರಾದ ನೀವು ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡ ಸಂಹಿತೆ ಕಲಂ 302 ಸಹವಾಚಕ ಕಲಂ 34 ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವಾದ ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವರೆಂದು ಅಭಿಯೋಜನೆ ಸಾಬೀತುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?
6. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
8 SC No.1941/2022
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
8. Points No. 1 to 5 : - Since these points are inter connected to each other they are taken together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
9. Inspite of issuance of summons, witness warrant CW20 not secured and issued warrant through DCP, inspite of it he was not secured. Hence CW20 dropped. CW17, CW26, 27, 29, 30, 32 to 35 are given up by the prosecution.
10. Note: - In page No.28 of evidence of PW27, due to typographical mistake it is mentioned as further chief by Learned Public Prosecutor, same is to be corrected and read as further cross by counsel for the Accused No.2.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that on 18.08.2022, CW.16 and deceased Budde Harikrishna went to have tea and after having tea returning back. At that time, for funny assaulted to the deceased and while running front, then the deceased took one Jelly stone and flew towards CW.16 and it was touched to the left side 9 SC No.1941/2022 mirror of the TATA-1412 LPT vehicle bearing and same was broken. CW22 informed the same to the accused persons. Accused persons went to the house of CW1 and asked who thrown the stone, then CW16 told he had thrown the same. All the accused persons went inside the house and assaulted and they started abusing filthy language and started to assault. Both were taken into the shop of Bhaskar. Mother of Harikrishna and Subhash, Lavanya came to the said place. Mother of the Harikrishna begged the accused persons not to assault, they will pay the cost of damaged mirror. Accused persons have told they will teach the lesson that the deceased and CW16 and other accused persons have caught hold the color of the deceased and they came to know on the road vehicle was coming, one concrete mix lorry bearing bearing No.KA.51.AC.8028 was coming, then he was pushed by the accused persons, then he was hit to the rare mudguard of the said vehicle, then Budde Harikrishna was taken to hospital, in the hospital declared him as dead and also CW16 sustained injuries. Thereafter CW1 lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, respondent police have 10 SC No.1941/2022 registered the case for the offences punishable U/s 448, 504, 323, 324, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After registering the case police have conducted the investigation and seized the vehicles, recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the material objects. Then filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. In order to prove its case prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW28. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Prosecution further argued that PW1 who is the complainant and father of the deceased Harikrishna has not supported the prosecution case. Eye witness i.e., PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15 and PW16 are all supported the prosecution case. Mahazar witnesses may not supported the prosecution case. On the other hand eye witness as well as investigating officer and Doctors have supported the prosecution case. There is minor contradiction in the evidence of Mahazar witnesses. On the other hand eye witnesses have deposed that accused persons came to the house of CW1 and assaulted CW16 and Harikrishna. In this regard all the witnesses have supported the 11 SC No.1941/2022 prosecution case. Therefore prosecution prays to convict the accused for the above said offence.
12. In support of the case of the prosecution Learned Public Prosecutor produced in all 8 citations; (1) (2019) 8 SCC 359 - Mallikarjun and others Vs State of Karnataka (2) (2007) 2 SCC 310 - Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra (3) (2018) 10 SCC 509 - Shamim Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (4) AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1920 -Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2003 - Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and others vs State of Punjab (5) (2012) 7 SCC 699 - Kashinath Mondal Vs State of West Bengal (6) (2013) 2 SCC 162 - N.V.Subba Rao Vs State Through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh (7) Criminal Appeal No. 497/2012 - Vijay Singh and others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (8) State Vs Mohammed Danish @ Aasif
13. Counsel for the accused No. 1 to 4 argued that accused persons have not at all committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. That Harikrishna was consumed alcohol, due to uncontrol he went on the road 12 SC No.1941/2022 and rare left wheel of the vehicle run over, due to it he sustained injuries. But driver of the vehicle is not having driving license. To protect the owner of the vehicle as well as driver of the vehicle, they have filed the false charge sheet against the accused persons. Accused persons have not at all committed the alleged offences. They further argued that investigating officer has not seized the Eicher vehicle. Further they have argued that all the eye witnesses deposed in their evidence, they have not seen accused persons nor they have given the further statement nor investigating officer has not conducted the TI Parade. Further they argued that on 18.08.2022 at about 10.00pm the alleged incident was taken place. That they have deposed there is no light in the said place, then in the dark they have not seen the incident. They further argued that accused persons have not given the voluntary statement. IO has created the voluntary statement of the accused persons. Moreover independent eye witness have not supported the prosecution case. PW1 who is the father of the deceased deposed in his evidence his son fell to the vehicle, due to it accident he died but not due to assault 13 SC No.1941/2022 made by the accused persons. Even though he has not stated that the accused persons have assaulted on the CW16 and Harikrishna, then Harikrishna brought to the road and pushed towards concrete mix lorry which was coming on the road, due to it he was sustained injuries. PW1 has not supported the prosecution case. Apart from relatives of Harikrishna none of the independent eye witnesses have stated accused persons have assaulted on the CW16 and Harikrishna, then Harikrishna brought to the road and pushed towards concrete mix lorry which was coming on the road, due to it he was sustained injuries. Further they have argued that investigating officer has not collected any documents belongs to Eicher vehicle, bolero vehicle nor documents belongs to the onion and coconut shop. That bolero vehicle not belongs to the accused No.2 as investigating officer PW27 himself has admitted in evidence that he has not collected the documents and documents pertains to the said shop. Even though PW11, PW12, PW14 to PW16 have stated in their evidence that they came to the said road when accident was occurred, they are not eye witnesses to the accident. They deposed 14 SC No.1941/2022 when they came to the said place number of persons gathered then they rushed to the said place. But there is no eye witness that the accused persons have assaulted on them. They further argued that PW11, he himself has stated that he was in the hospital and he was unconscious. Then he could not gave the statement before the police, same is created for the purpose of case. Lavanya deposed in her evidence that accused persons came to their house, then they have started quarrel with the CW16 and she has not informed to the police. Even though they have stated CW16 and Harikrishna were taken to the said shop but there is no eye witness that they have assaulted in the said shop. But created the false story against the accused persons. Accused persons have argued that the investigating officer has not conducted the TI parade as they have not seen the accused persons. They further deposed they have not seen the accused persons prior to the incident nor they deposed they do not know the names of the accused persons. Under such circumstances it is necessary to conduct TI parade. Prosecution has not conducted the TI parade. Therefore, there is no evidence to 15 SC No.1941/2022 bring home guilt against the accused. Therefore they prays to acquit the accused persons for the alleged offence.
14. Counsel for the accused No.1 relied on the following judgments;
(1) 2013 Crl. L.J.-2339 (S.C) Sunil Kumar another Vs state of Jarkhand (2) 2002 SCC 461 - Bhim Singh Vs State of Haryana (3) 1971(3) SCC 436 - Yudhistir Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
15. Counsel for the accused No.3 relied on the following judgments;
(1) (2021) 20 SCC 38 - Jayan Vs State of Kerala (2) Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Chanttisgarh 2023 Liel Law (SC) 239 in Criminal Appeal No.1304 of 2018.
16. PW1 Budde Babu deposed CW14 is his wife, CW16 is his daughter, deceased Harikrishna his son. On 18.08.2022 he was consumed alcohol and sleeping in the house. CW14 told that 5-6 persons came to the house and Budde Harikrishna was taken. He further deposed CW14 informed that their son Harikrishna was broken the mirror of Eicher vehicle for that his son was taken from the house. He further deposed while his son was crossing the 16 SC No.1941/2022 Shantipur road near fruits market, then one concrete mix vehicle came and hit to his son. After the accident his son fell on the said place. He further deposed he was followed the concrete mixer vehicle. He further deposed his son was sustained injuries on head and he was taken to Oak hospital where doctor declared brought dead. He further deposed Parappana Agrahara police came to the said place and thereafter came to the hospital and seen the dead body. Then he was taken to the station where police have obtained signature on one document i.e., on Ex.P1. He further deposed two days after the incident police have came to the place of incident where conducted the mahazar and obtained signature on Ex.P2. He further deposed he signed on the Ex.P.2 in the Police station and CW13 Subash is his nephew. He further deposed he do not know CW16 has also sustained injuries. He further deposed he has not seen the accused persons and deposed he has not lodged the complaint against the accused persons. He further deposed when police have seized cloths of his son which he wore at the time of accident. PW1 is father of the deceased Harikrishna who is eye witness to the incident 17 SC No.1941/2022 who lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint Parappana Agrahara police have registered the case for the above said offences and conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. Inspite of it PW1 has not supported the prosecution case. Then prosecution cross examined this witness. He denied on 18.08.2022 at about 10.00 pm., while he and his wife and his daughter and his son and CW13 were in the house, then accused No.1 and other three persons came to the said house making galata stating that your son has broken the said mirror of Eicher vehicle. Then his son was dragged from the house. He further denied accused No.1 dragged his son and CW13 to the onion and coconut shop where accused persons have started assaulting on CW13. Thereafter his son went and told leave the CW13. Thereafter accused No.1 and other accused persons have assaulted on his son. Then his son was brought from the shop main road where concrete mix vehicle was coming on the said road and his son was pushed towards the vehicle, due to it his son sustained injuries. In this regard lodged the complaint. He further denied on 19.08.2022 at 7.30am 18 SC No.1941/2022 that the Parappana Agrahara police came and conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 near of Shantipur road infront of Sankalpa Condiment. He further denied at that time one frock belonging to CW15 and one shirt belonging to CW13 were also seized. He further denied on 22.08.2022 he again taken to the Police station where he has given the further statement. He denied that CW13 were taken by the accused persons to the onion and coconut shop of accused No.1 where they have assaulted with wooden re-piece. He further denied that his son went and asked the accused persons why you are assaulting my younger brother and at that time accused persons have abused in filthy language, assaulted with hand and kicked with leg and he was dragged to the main road where lorry was coming on the said road, then accused No.2 pushed the deceased Harikrishna towards the said concrete mixer. He fell down and sustained injuries and died. He further denied he had given further statement as per Ex.P3. PW1 who is father of deceased Budde Harikrishna who is the eye witness to the incident as well as complainant and also who is spot mahazar, in his examination in chief nor in the cross 19 SC No.1941/2022 examination he has not at all stated that the accused persons were assaulted on CW13, then his son went and asked the accused persons why you are all assaulting on my younger brother, thereafter the accused persons were assaulted on his son and dragged to the main road and accused No.2 pushed to the lorry, then he was sustained injuries on head and rare mudguard hit to his head, due to it he was sustained injuries and his son was dead. Therefore from the evidence of PW1 prosecution failed to prove its case.
17. PW2 Raghu another eye witness to the incident.
He deposed he know CW1 and deceased Budde Harikrishna. Harikrishna is not alive. Since two years back at about 10.10pm Budde Harikrishna's younger sister gave phone call and stated there was galata was taking and asked to come. After receiving the phone call he went to the house of the CW1. He further deposed in house none of them were present. Then he called to Shantipura main road, he rushed to the Shantipura main road, nearby Petrol bunk. Mother of the Harikrishna came in opposite direction. He further deposed infront of him concrete lorry 20 SC No.1941/2022 was coming then the public were making hue and cry. He deposed he went and seen that Harikrishna was fell on the road. He was sustained injuries. Then the persons who were gathered in the said place, they informed that lorry rushed on him and lorry went away from the said place. He further deposed auto coming in the said road were taken Budde Harikrishna to Oak hospital and on examining him doctor declared him as brought dead. He further deposed police have conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2. He further deposed he signed on the Ex.P2 in the Police station. He has identified seven photographs. He deposed he do not know police have seized material objects in the said place. PW2 is another eye witness, material witness, he has not supported the prosecution case. Then prosecution cross examined this witness. He denied on 18.08.2022 CW15 gave phone call. He denied at 10.00pm on Shantipura main road nearby Sankalpa Candiment shop galata was going on. He denied at that place Harikrishna was laying in the pool of blood. He denied on enquiry persons who were gathered they informed Harikrishna hit to side mirror of the lorry, in this regard 21 SC No.1941/2022 accused persons have assaulted the said Harikrishna as well as CW13 with hand and leg and they have dragged to the shop of the accused No.1. Then they have assaulted Harikrishan and dragged to the road where lorry was coming on the said road knowing it, Harikrishna was pushed then he was sustained injuries as left rare wheel mudguard hit to Harikrishna. He denied he has given statement as per Ex.P11. He deposed it is true on 19.08.2022 at about 7.30am he shown place of incident where CW1 was also present and police have conducted the mahazar and collected the blood sample and he denied police have inspected the onion and coconut shop. He further deposed he do not know police have collected blood stain cloths of CW15 and blood stain T-shirt of CW13. He denied he deposing falsely. PW2 is independent eye witness to the incident as well as mahazar witness. He has not supported the prosecution case in the examination in chief nor in the cross examination.
18. PW3 Muruli is independent spot mahazar witness. He deposed in the year 2022 police have obtained his signature on one document stating that accident was 22 SC No.1941/2022 occurred to one Harikrishna due to it he is dead. He further deposed he put his signature on the said document at the Police station. He further deposed on the said place police have obtained photographs and police have collected blood stains from the said place. Apart from it police have not seized any material objects. PW3 is the mahazar witness has not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter prosecution cross examined this witness. He denied on 19.08.2022 at about 7.30am police came to the place of incident and conducted the mahazar infront of Sankalpa cafe and condiment. He denied police have shown the onion and coconut shop. He denied police have collected the blood stained mud and sample mud. He denied police have collected the blood stained cloths of CW15, so also blood stained T-shirt of CW13. He denied he has given statement as per Ex.P12. PW13 is the independent spot as well as seizer mahazar witness, in the examination in chief nor in the cross examination he has not at all supported the prosecution case stating that in his presence police have conducted the mahazar and seized said articles and 23 SC No.1941/2022 recorded the statement as per Ex.P.12. Therefore from the evidence of PW3 prosecution failed to prove its case.
19. PW4 Vidya Sagar and PW5 Abhi they are vehicle seizer mahazar witness. That they have identified their signature on the Ex.P13. They deposed about 2 years back Parappana Agrahara police have obtained their signature on Ex.P13 in the Police station. They further deposed police have called to the station stating that Harikrishna was met with accident. They further deposed they do not know contents of Ex.P13. They further deposed they have not went to the station and not show the accused persons. They further deposed from the said station they have not went to any other place and not seen any vehicle and not identified the accused persons. PW4 and PW5 are the independent Bolero vehicle seizer mahazar witnesses that they have not at all supported the prosecution case. Prosecution cross examined these witnesses. They deposed on 20.08.2022 police called to the station at 7.00pm. They denied where accused Nos.2 and 3 were in the station, they have seen the accused Nos.2 and 3. They denied in their presence police have seized the Bolero vehicle bearing 24 SC No.1941/2022 No.KA-06-AA-3611 and TATA LPT vehicle where these two vehicles nearby the Shantipura main road, infront of Sankalpa cafe. They denied in their presence conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P13. They denied they have given statement as per Ex.P14 and Ex.P15. PW4 and PW5 independent vehicle seizer mahazar witness that they have not at all stated they identified the accused Nos.2 and 3 and also mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P13. Therefore from these witnesses prosecution has failed to prove Ex.P13.
20. PW6 Venkatesh and PW17 Rajesh are the seizer mahazar witness of wooden re-piece. That they have identified their signature on Ex.P16. They deposed about 2 years back they went to the Parappana Agrahara Police station as the police told Harikrishna met with accident, in this regard they went to the station. They deposed they do not know contents of Ex.P16 and not seized any material objects in their presence. They deposed from the said station they have not taken to any other place and not gave statement before the police. Both have not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter prosecution cross examined 25 SC No.1941/2022 these witnesses. They denied on 22.08.2022 at about 10.00 am they went near Sankalpa cafe where coconut and onion shop is situated. They further denied that the accused persons after assaulting on CW13 with wooden re-piece and same was seized from the said shop as per Ex.P16. Both have deposed in their presence police have not seized any wooden re-piece from the said shop. They have denied that they have not given statement as per Ex.P17 and Ex.P41. PW6 and PW17 are the independent seizer mahazar witnesses, in their examination in chief nor in the cross examination that they have not stated in their evidence that on 22.08.2022 they went to the onion and coconut shop of accused No.1 where seized material objects i.e., M.O.10. Therefore from the evidence of PW6 and PW17 prosecution failed to prove its case.
21. PW7 Naveen is the cement mixer vehicle seizer mahazar witness, he deposed he went to the Parappana Agrahara Police station where police have taken his signature on one document i.e., on Ex.P18. He deposed he do not know contents of Ex.P18. He further deposed apart from this he do not know anything about the case and not 26 SC No.1941/2022 gave statement before the police. PW7 has not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter prosecution cross examined this witness. He denied on 19.08.2022 at about 10.00 am he was called to the Parappana Agrahara Police station and seized cement concrete mixer vehicle bearing No.KA51-AC-8028 as per Ex.P18. He denied he is deposing falsely to help the accused persons. Therefore from the evidence of PW7 prosecution failed to prove its case.
22. PW8 Seva Narasimha is inquest mahazar witness. He deposed deceased Harikrishna is his cousin. He died in the year 2022. He further deposed he came to know someone assaulted on Harikrishna and pushed towards the vehicle, due to it he died. He further deposed same is intimated by the CW14. Thereafter they went to St. John hospital where he has seen the dead body of Harikrishna. He further deposed in his presence police have conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P20 and he identified the photographs of deceased Harikrishna. He deposed in the cross examination he do not know contents of Ex.P20.
23. PW9 Y. Shiva deposed deceased Harikrishna is his brother-in-law, on 18.08.2022 he died as he was assaulted 27 SC No.1941/2022 and fell down in the vehicle and same is intimated by CW14. He further deposed on 19.08.2022 CW10 and CW12 and others went to the St. John hospital in Bengaluru where he has seen the dead body. Harikrishna was sustained injuries on head, backside and forehead and backside of the head. He deposed in his presence police have conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P20. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. He deposed he do not know contents of Ex.P20. He further deposed it is true he has signed on the Ex.P20 in the Police station. He further deposed it is true that the father of the deceased, CW10 and CW12 were also put their signature at the Police station.
24. PW10 D. Eshwar deposed deceased Harikrishna was his younger sister son, he died on 19.08.2022, same is informed by CW14. On 19.08.2022 he, CW10, CW11 and other persons went to St. John hospital in Bengaluru where he has seen the dead body. Harikrishna was sustained injuries on head and injuries on right side of the body. He deposed in his presence police have conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P20. He has identified the 28 SC No.1941/2022 photographs of deceased Harikrishna. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. He deposed he do not know contents of Ex.P20. He further deposed he has signed on the Ex.P20 in the hospital.
25. PW11 Subhash who is eye witness he deposed CW1 is his paternal uncle, CW14 is maternal aunt, CW15 daughter of CW1 and CW14, deceased Budde Harikrishna is son of CW1 and CW14. He deposed on 18.08.2022 Harikrishn a went to have tea at 7.00pm along with CW16. That Harikrishna has thrown Jelly stone towards CW16 Mallikarjun, CW16 avoided the same and said stone hit to left side mirror of lorry. Then said mirror was broken. Then CW16 and Harikrishana came to the house. When they were in the house 4 persons came inside the house and shouted to come outside and asked who thrown stone towards the mirror, then Harikrishan told he thrown the stone. Then said persons came inside the house and dragged Harikrishna and assaulted. Then he and CW14 to CW16 came and asked why you are assaulting and try to pacify the same. He further deposed accused persons assaulted him with hands. Then they told we will bear the 29 SC No.1941/2022 said mirror expenses, inspite of it they not heard the words and dragged them inside coconut and onion shop. Then Harikrishna came and stated why you are assaulting on my younger brother, then out of said four persons one person kicked on Harikrishan and he was dragged outside and pushed, he was fell down below lorry and Harikrishna sustained injuries on head and Harikrishna was taken to the hospital. He deposed he do not know name of the hospital and who taken Harikrishna to hospital. He deposed he was unconscious, next day his father came and he woke up and his father informed Harikrishna was dead. He deposed he do not know to which hospital he was taken. He deposed he know the Accused No.1 but he do not know Accused No.4. He identified the Accused No.2. On going through the evidence of PW11 he was not residing in Bengaluru, he was resided Histopalli village of Andra Pradesh and he was working in Petrol bunk and he was studied upto 10th Standard. Deceased Harikrishna studied ITI. He further deposed on that day he and Harikrishna were taken alcohol. He further deposed whenever he and Harikrishna were in their village often and often taken the 30 SC No.1941/2022 small quantum of alcohol. He further deposed "ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟ ದಿನ ಕಂಠ ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಮದ್ಯ ಸೇವನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನಾನು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ". Even though on perusal of the evidence of PW11 he has not denied he and Harikrishna were taking alcohol. Even he has not denied Harikrishna had fully intoxicated. At the same time counsel for the Accused have taken the defence that deceased Harikrishna was consumed maximum alcohol, due to uncontrol he himself fell before vehicle and he sustained injuries and died. Even though PW1 has not denied Harikrishna had fully intoxicated. He further deposed he has not seen the vehicle which was mirror broken. He further deposed he has not seen where the said vehicle was parked, as no one has shown the said vehicle. Therefore he does not know the said vehicle. As per evidence of PW11 he has not made any efforts to know said lorry belongs to whom. Even he has not asked in the station to show the said vehicle. Therefore from the evidence of PW11 it is clear that he has not seen the vehicle which Harikrishna has thrown the Jelly stone, due to front left side mirror was broken. He further deposed deceased Harikrishna was driver of the bolero 31 SC No.1941/2022 vehicle and he was doing driver work at Shantinagar. At the same time PW1 nor PW12, PW14, PW15 and PW16 have not at all stated in their evidence Harikrishna was driving Bolero vehicle in the said area. He further deposed "ಆ ಲಾರಿಯ ಹಿಂದೆ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗ ಒಡೆದು ಹೋಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". Prosecution case itself is that due to broke front left side mirror then the said incident was taken. Inspite of it PW11 has not stated Harikrishna had broke the front side mirror. As per evidence of PW11 that nearby tea stall other commercial shops are situated. He deposed he do not know the names of those shops. He deposed he has not stated on 18.08.2022 Harikrishna went at 7.00pm to take tea. Said Tea stall is situated infront of house of CW14, same is denied by the PW11. As per prosecution case that Harikrishna and CW16 went to take Tea, then they returned, Harikrishna thrown Jelly stone, side mirror of the vehicles broken, then Accused persons came and assaulted on PW11 and deceased Harikrishna. As per evidence that the accused persons have also assaulted on him. After assaulted he had got unconscious and he woke up in the hospital. When he got unconscious then he may 32 SC No.1941/2022 not see the incident that the Accused No.2 has pushed Harikrishna and hit the backside mudguard of the lorry, it touches to Harikrishna and suffered the injuries. The evidence of PW11 itself shows that he was assaulted in onion and coconut shop then he got unconscious, on the next day his father came to the hospital, then only he got conscious. Under such circumstances he may not see that the Accused No.2 pushed Harikrishna. As per evidence of PW11, after the incident they went to their native place. After four days they returned to Bengaluru but during said four days he has not given statement before the police. However on 22.08.2022 he has given the statement. Inspite of it he has stated he had went to village for four days and they came to Bengaluru. He further deposed "2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಹೆಸರು ಇಂದಿಗೂ ಸಹ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಪೊಲೀಸರ ಮುಂದೆ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಾಗಲೂ ಸಹ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಹೆಸರು ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". The evidence of PW11 reveals that he do not know the names of Accused person nor their identification. He further deposed "ನನನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಗೆ ಕರೆಯಿಸಿ 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ನಾವು ಕೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ". Evidence of PW11 reveals that he has 33 SC No.1941/2022 not seen the Accused No.2 and police have not shown the Accused No.2. On going through the evidence of PW11 he deposed "ನನ್ನ ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಮ್ಮ , ಲಾವಣ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಮಲ್ಲಿಕಾರ್ಜುನ ಈ ಮೂರು ಜನ ಯಾರು ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನನ್ನು ಮನೆಯಿಂದ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದ ನಂತರ ಏಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋದರು, ಏನು ಮಾಡಿದರು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". The evidence of PW11 clearly reveals that he was not present on the said date. As per the prosecution case above said accused persons came to the house of CW1 and asked who broke the side mirror, then Harikrishna told he thrown the stone, then they have started quarrel and assaulted on PW11 and he was dragged to onion and coconut shop. Then Harikrishna came to the said shop and asked why you are assaulting on my brother, then they have started assaulting on Harikrishna, Harikrishna was pushed towards cement mixer vehicle. Even he deposed different version in his evidence. Even though he has not stated who is the owner of said shop. He deposed he do not know names of the persons who were having shops by the side of said coconut shop. He deposed while he was in the coconut shop he got unconscious. He further deposed after he got unconscious he do not know "ನನಗೆ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆ ತಪ್ಪಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಆ ತಂಗಿನ 34 SC No.1941/2022 ಕಾಯಿ ಅಂಗಡಿ ಹೊರಗಡೆ ಯಾರಾರು ಇದ್ದ ರು, ಏನೇನು ನಡೆಯಿತು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". Evidence of PW11 it is clear that he do not know what happened out side coconut shop. Even he has not stated from the said coconut shop Harikrishna was assaulted and dragged and pushed towards cement mixer lorry. Inspite of it prosecution has stated PW11 eye witness, injured to the incident. PW11 deposed on the petrol bunk there is CCTV camera is situated. After the accident cement lorry was not stopped, same is went away from the said place. He further deposed at the time of quarrel it was dark. The evidence of PW11 it is clear that incident was taken in the dark. Then no person can say what would happened in dark. However other witnesses have deposed that the said house is not having electricity and it was dark. Under such circumstances presence of PW11 and also he sustained injuries is creates suspicious. PW11 deposed he do not know at what time galata was taken in the house of Harikrishna and in the house of Harikrishna it was dark. By the side of house of Harikrishna other houses are situated. Then prosecution has not examined the persons who were residing nearby 35 SC No.1941/2022 the house of CW1. As per the evidence of PW27 they have shown the photos of Accused persons then the witnesses have identified the Accused persons. On the other hand PW11 deposed police have not shown the accused persons. Even he has not stated police shown the photos of accused persons and he has identified the Accused persons. As per evidence of PW16, PW11 sustained simple injuries, inspite of PW11 deposed he has got unconscious and he could not see what was happened infront of coconut and onion shop. Therefore from the evidence of PW11 prosecution has not proved that the Accused persons have committed the alleged offence.
26. PW12 Nagamallu who is mother of deceased Harikrishna and CW15. She is wife of CW1. She deposed CW13 and CW16 are sons of her elder sister. She deposed on 18th at about 8.00pm Harikrishna went to bring milk. Then CW16 and Harikrishna while coming in the said road after taking milk, then Harikrishna taken Jelly stone thrown to CW16 and said stone went and hit to the side mirror of the tempo, due to it small portion of the tempo was broken. Harikrishna and CW16 came to her house. 36 SC No.1941/2022 Then four persons came to the house and asked why you have broke the mirror of the said vehicle and they have assaulted Harikrishan. She deposed she begged the accused persons not to assault they will pay the cost of the mirror. Inspite of it they have assaulted with hands. She deposed she do not know the names of the said persons. CW13 was taken to coconut and onion shop where ್ಚ W13 was assaulted with leg and one wooden re-piece. Then Harikrishna went to the said place where the accused persons kicked Harikrishna, when cement mixer lorry was proceeding on the road, then Harikrishna was kicked towards cement mixer lorry, he fell down and sustained injuries on head, forehead and back portion. After the incident he was taken to hospital in an auto. After examining doctor told Harikrishna was dead. She further deposed accused persons were assaulted Harikrishna. She further deposed accused No.1 assaulted with hand and with club on Harikrishna. She further deposed accused No.2 kicked Harikrishna on road. Dead body was shifted to the St. John hospital. In the cross examination she deposed that she do not know accused No.2. She deposed 37 SC No.1941/2022 she do not know name of the accused No.2 and address of the accused No.2 and not seen accused in the police station. She deposed she has seen the accused No.2 on Television and also in the news papers. Then she came to know accused No.2 involved in the case. She further deposed "2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒದ್ದ ಎಂದು ಪೋಲೀಸರ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". Evidence of PW12 it is clear that she has not said before the police that accused No.2 kicked deceased Harikrishan. She deposed Harikrishan was studying in diploma and her son was resided in their native place. He came to the said place about 2 days back. Her son was studying in Madanapalli, Andra Pradesh. As per prosecution as well as statement of witnesses Harikrishna was driver of Bolero vehicle at Shantipur. Inspite of it PW12 deposed he was studying at Madanapalli and he came to the said place two days back. She further deposed "2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಹೆಸರು ನನಗೆ ಇಂದಿಗೂ ಸಹ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಇಂದಿಗೂ ಸಹ 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಹೆಸರು ಪೋಲೀಸರ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನನಗೆ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ನೋಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಟಿ.ವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪೇಪರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದ ಮೇಲೆ 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ 38 SC No.1941/2022 ಗಲಾಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಗಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". As per her evidence 4-5 days of the incident that said incident came in TV and police have shown photos of accused persons. As per the evidence of PW12 that her son was assaulted by the accused persons, even though she has not stated that CW13 was assaulted and he was taken to Onion and coconut shop where accused persons are assaulting on the PW11. Then Harikrishna went to the said shop and asked do not assault my younger brother. Then accused persons started assaulting on the Harikrishna with hand and kicked with leg. Then he was dragged to Shantipura road and pushed, he trapped between mudguard of the above said vehicle. Inspite of it PW12 has not stated in her evidence that her son was working as driver of bolero vehicle in Shantipura. She further deposed after they came from Andra Pradesh on next day, they went to Police station and in between they have not given statement before police. She further deposed they have given complaint stating that four persons came to their house then in her evidence she has not stated name of the accused persons, address of the accused persons and they 39 SC No.1941/2022 have identified the accused persons. On the other hand she deposed the accused persons came in TV and police told on the basis of it she has stated accused persons came to their house. She deposed in her evidence she has not gave identification of the accused persons. She further deposed "ಪೋಲಿಸರ ಮುಂದೆ ನೀವು 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಚಹರೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೇಳಿ ಈ ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿ ಹೊಡೆದ ಹಾಗೂ ಒದ್ದ ಎಂದು ನೀವು ಪೋಲೀಸರ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಅವರು ಕೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದ್ಲಿ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ". The evidence of PW12 itself clear that she has not stated that accused No.2 has assaulted and kicked her son. She further deposed "ಆ ದಿನ ನಿಮಗೆ 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ನಾನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ದೃಶ್ಯ ಮಾಧ್ಯ ಮದ ಮುಂದೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಆರೋಪಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ".
27. As per evidence of PW12 after the incident Harikrishna was taken by Lavanya, Subash to the hospital. She further deposed Subash also accompanied with them till they went to their village. She further deposed they came from their village from Bengaluru then also Subhash and Mallikarjun accompanied with them. She further deposed now Subhash and Mallikarjuna resided in their 40 SC No.1941/2022 village. She further deposed "ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಬಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಮೇಲೆ ಸುಭಾಷ್ಮತ್ತು ಮಲ್ಲಿಕಾರ್ಜುನ್ಇವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಊರಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ". The evidence of PW12 reveals that police have obtained signature of Mallikarjun and Subhash. Thereafter Mallikarjun and Subhash went to their respective village. However PW12 deposed when Harikrishan was taken to the hospital then Subhash is also accompanied with them. When they went to their village Subhash was also accompanied with them, when they returned to Bengaluru Subhash accompanied with them. The evidence of PW12 is clear that Subhash was not admitted in the said hospital. She has not stated Subhash was taken treatment in the hospital and Harikrishna and Subhash were taken to the hospital, Subhash was inpatient in the hospital, on next day he got conscious and gave treatment, in this regard evidence of PW12 does not reveals. As per evidence of PW12 that till today she do not know names and address of the accused persons and also name of the hospital where they were taken deceased Harikrishna. She further deposed after accident she has not try to get names and address of the accused persons. As per evidence of PW12 41 SC No.1941/2022 they have not given complaint at morning hours. She deposed night police came to the hospital and in the hospital police have written and they went from the hospital. She further deposed " ನಾವು ಹೇಳಿದ ಹಾಗೇ ಈ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಕೈಯಿಂದ ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ". The evidence of PW12 that they have lodged the oral complaint, same is written by the police and they signed on the said document. However on perusal of the Ex.P1 it is computer typed complaint. Inspite of PW12 deposed police have handwritten the complaint. Even it does not reveals that PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW16 were also went to the station while lodging the complaint. Inspite of it PW12 deposed they went to the station and they lodged the complaint. On the other hand PW1 has not stated while he was lodging the complaint his wife, his daughter, Subhash and Mallikarjun were also present. Therefore the evidence of PW12, PW1 and PW11 is not corroborated with each other. She deposed there is no electricity in their house. She further deposed she do not know name of the owner of the said house. As per evidence of PW12 by the side of her house there are two other houses. Apart from it companies 42 SC No.1941/2022 are situated. Inspite of it prosecution has not secured neighbours of house of PW12 to come to conclusion that above said accused persons were went to the house of PW1 and they asked why you have broken the side mirror of the vehicle and assaulted and kicked towards road. She further deposed she do not know name so the accused persons who came on the said date. She further deposed where her son was died at that place number of persons were gathered. She deposed "ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟಂತಹ ಸ್ಥ ಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗುವಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿದಂತಹ ಸುಮಾರು ಜನ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನಿಗೆ ಉಪಚಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". The evidence of PW12 is clear that by the time she went to the said place, already incident was taken place and public who gathered were treating her son. She further deposed she do not know the hospital name and name of the person assaulted on her son. She further depose "ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಅಪಘಾತದಿಂದಾಗಿ ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಇದು ಯಾವುದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳ ಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಪಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಮೃತ ಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ನನಗೆ ಬೇಸರವಾಗಿದ್ದು , ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳ ಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಪಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ". On perusal of the evidence of PW12 it shows that her son was died due to accident. Therefore the evidence of PW12 reveals that her son was met with 43 SC No.1941/2022 accident. She further deposed " ಲಾರಿಯ ಯಾವ ಭಾಗ ಟಚ್ಆಗಿತ್ತು ಎನ್ನು ವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ". Evidence of PW12 reveals that she does not know which part of the cement mixer vehicle touched to deceased Harikrishna. As per the prosecution case Accused persons have assaulted on PW11 and deceased Harikrishna in the onion and coconut shop, thereafter Harikrishna was dragged to the road and pushed towards road, then said vehicle proceeding on the road, said vehicle's rare mudguard touches to Harikrishna, due to it he sustained injuries. Inspite of PW12 deposed she do not know which portion of the said lorry touched to Harikrishna. Therefore the evidence of PW12 is not clear that the Accused No.2 has pushed/kicked Harikrishan, due to it, said vehicle's rare mudguard touches to Harikrishna, due to it he sustained injuries.
28. PW13 Subhendra Barman who is driver of cement concrete lorry bearing No.KA-51-AC-8028. He deposed on 18.08.2022 he was proceeding from Electronic city from Sulakunte on Shantipura road. At that time no incident was taken. He further deposed he went to Parappana 44 SC No.1941/2022 Agrahara Police station, he do not remember the date. He further deposed police have called to the station asking any galata was taken, he told no galata was taken. Then he and owner of the vehicle Shivashankar Pillareddy were went to the station along with said cement concrete lorry. Learned Public Prosecutor has shown two photographs, counsel for the accused persons objected for marking the same. With objection said photographs are marked as Ex.P37 and Ex.P38. He further deposed police have taken the RC card, license. Apart from it they have not taken any other documents. He deposed he do not know police have obtained the signature on the said document or not. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed it is true he do not know Kannada language. He further deposed it is true he do not know what police have written. He further deposed about 3 years back he was taken the above said vehicle on Shantipura main road. He deposed he do not know width of said road. While he was proceeding on the Shantipura main road then there was less traffic. At no point of time public were gathered. He further deposed while he was proceeding on the 45 SC No.1941/2022 Shantipura main road one person after taking alcohol proceeding on the said road, he deposed he do not seen the same. He further deposed his father name is Jarman Varma but not Burman. As per evidence of PW13 when he was proceeding on the said road no incident was taken. No public were gathered. He has not stated that 3-4 persons assaulted and pushed one person towards his vehicle and said person fell on the left rare wheel mudguard, due to it he sustained injuries and he went away from the said place. Evidence of PW13 is clear that on 18.08.2022 at about 10.00pm to 11.00pm while he was proceeding on the said road no incident was taken. He denied in the cross examination that owner of the vehicle and inspector were talking with each other. He further denied owner of the vehicle were met with Inspector or not.
29. PW14 Lavanya deposed she is the daughter of CW1 and CW14, deceased Harikrishna is her elder brother, CW13 and CW16 are cousins. On 18.08.2022 Harikrishna was died. In this regard CW1 lodged the complaint on 18.08.2022. On 18.08.2022 Harikrishanad and CW16 left the house at 8.30pm to bring milk. Harikrishna and 46 SC No.1941/2022 Mallikarjun while coming on the said road, Harikrishna has taken Jelly stone and hit to CW16, same is hit to left side mirror of the Eicher vehicle, then four persons came to her house and asked Harikrishna who broke the side mirror of the Eicher vehicle. Said four persons have assaulted the Harikrishna. Then her mother begged Accused persons stating that not to assault, they will pay cost of mirror. Thereafter Accused persons have taken Subhash to the said vehicle, Harikrishna followed them to pacify the quarrel. Accused persons have assaulted on Harikrishna and he was taken to main road where lorry was coming in the said road. Harikrishna was pushed towards said lorry. Then Harikrishna was sustained injuries on head and on eyes, blood was oozing from mouth. She further deposed herself and her mother, Subhash have taken Harikrishna in auto to Electronic city hospital. After 2-3 minutes Harikrishna was died. His dead body was shifted to St. John hospital. As per evidence of PW14 in the said house herself, her mother, her father, her brother, Subhash and Mallikarjun were residing in the said house. Subhash and Mallikarjun came to the said house 47 SC No.1941/2022 before one month of the incident. She deposed it is true that she cannot say who assaulted on Harikrishna with which hand. She further deposed she has not stated name of the Accused No.2 or identified the Accused No.2. She also deposed their house is not having electricity supply. She deposed she do not know her brother had consumed alcohol. In another stretch she deposed she do not know her brother and Subhash were taking alcohol or not. On the other hand PW11 deposed he and Harikrishna were taken alcohol. Even though PW13 has stated she do not know her brother has consumed alcohol or not. As per statement of PW14 that in their house after discussing they have gave the complaint, same is denied by the witness. On the other hand her statement reveals that they have discussed in the house, then they gave statement before police, same statement is marked Ex.D1. Accused produced the Ex.P37 and Ex.P38 i.e., photos of place of accident, same is admitted by the witness. On the other hand prosecution objected for marking those photos. When the witness herself admitted the place of incident then said documents were considered in this case. As per evidence of 48 SC No.1941/2022 PW14 when galata was taken there was no electricity and at the time of incident about 9-10 persons were gathered. On going through the evidence of PW14, she deposed it is true that she do not know from which place Subhash was taken to which place. She has not gave phone call to anyone stating that galata was taken on the other hand Harikrishna gave phone call to CW2 Raghu and he talked with said Raghu. She deposed she not gave phone call to Raghu. As per prosecution case when galata was taken she gave phone call to one Raghu, Raghu told he will come and he will lookafter the same. At no point of time Harikrishna had not gave phone call to PW2. Inspite of it PW14 deposed she has not gave phone call PW2 Raghu. Therefore the evidence of PW14 itself contradicts. She deposed after the accident more number of persons were gathered. She deposed she is not eye witness to Harikrishna thrown the Jelly stone towards Mallikarjun. She deposed above said four persons assaulted on Harikrishna and came near main road, on seeing that the said lorry was coming and Harikrishna was pushed towards road, he got injuries. However she deposed she has given statement as above. 49 SC No.1941/2022 On going through the evidence of PW14 that there are two companies situated in 100feet distance from their house and also one company situated behind their house. As per her evidence that said companies working in day hours if work load is heavy then they may work at night hours. There is security guard to the said companies. Apart from those companies residential houses are situated. PW14 deposed by the side of their house at a little distance houses are situated and same is not intimated to the neighbors. Normally if the quarrel was taken in between more than four-five persons then neighbors may come and pacify the quarrel. In this case no such neighbors were examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident. She deposed after the accident her brother was taken to the hospital situated on the main road of electronic city. PW14 deposed before the accident was commenced Subhash came to their house and Subhash was not working in the petrol bunk. As per records that the Subhash was working in the petrol bunk. On going through the evidence of PW14 that nearby the said place shops are situated, shops are having registered number. 50 SC No.1941/2022 She deposed she do not know the said numbers. As per evidence of PW14 she do not know the name of the owner of coconut and onion shop. At the time of incident by the side of cement mixer lorry other vehicles were running and said cement mixer lorry was not stopped and went away. Under such circumstances other vehicles were moving here and there on the said road. If incident like a person sustained grievous injuries then other vehicles may not move here and there. Even petrol bunk is having CCTV camera. Prosecution has not secured said CCTV camera footage to come to conclusion that the accused No.2 pushed Harikrishna towards cement mixer lorry. She deposed in her evidence accused No.2 kicked Harikrishna. She further deposed accused No.2 is not resident of said area and she do not know occupation of accused No.2. She deposed she do not know accused No.2 is owner of Eicher vehicle nor driver nor cleaner. She denied they have discussed in their house and gave statement before the police. On the other hand on going through the statement of PW14 it reveals that after assault made by the accused persons, they have discussed in their house and gave 51 SC No.1941/2022 statement before police. Inspite of it she deposed contrary to her statement. She further deposed she do not know name, address and residence of the accused No.4. She further deposed incident was taken at 9.00pm to 9.30pm. On the other hand prosecution case reveals that at 10.00pm the alleged incident was taken. She has not stated in her evidence at 10.00pm alleged incident was taken. Counsel for the accused questioned the witness that ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಃ ಅಪಘಾತ ಆದ ತಕ್ಷಣ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅಣ್ಣ ಕಿರುಚಿಕೊಂಡ ಶಬ್ಧ ಕೇಳಿತ ಅಥವಾ ಅಪಘಾತ ಆದ ಶಬ್ಧ ಜೋರಾಗಿ ಕೇಳಿತ?, Witness answered that ವಾಹನಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಬಿಳುವ ಶಬ್ಧ ಕೇಳಿತು. She was further questioned that ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಃ ನಂತರ ಅಪಘಾತ ಆದಮೇಲೆ ಅಥವಾ ಆಂಧ್ರದಿಂದ ಬಂದಮೇಲೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನಿಮಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ? Witness answered that ಉತ್ತರಃತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . As per evidence of PW14 that her brother was fell on the vehicle, she has seen the same. The evidence of PW14 shows that her brother was died due to vehicle was hit to him. Even though after the incident nor after they came from Andra Pradesh police have not shown accused persons. At the same time she deposed PW2 was not came to the said place. As per prosecution case PW14 gave phone call to PW2 stating that galata was going on, 52 SC No.1941/2022 then PW2 replied he will come and he will lookafter the same and he came to the said house that there were no one present in the house and he went to Shantipura main road where public were gathered, on inquiry he came to know accused persons assaulted on Harikrishna. The evidence of PW2 and PW14 is not corroborated. She was questioned as "ಇದೇ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅಣ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಅಪಘಾತವಾಗಿದ್ದು ? Witness replies as ಹೌದು. On perusal of the evidence of PW14 accident was occurred on the road. PW2 deposed in his evidence, after the accident "ಸದರಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಆಟೋದಲ್ಲಿ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನನ್ನು ಕುರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಓಕ್ ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ". On the other hand she deposed PW2 came to the said place and he helped them to proceed in the auto to the hospital and he came directly to the hospital. On the other hand PW2 deposed he had taken injured Harikrishna to the hospital. Therefore there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW2 and PW14. PW14 admitted in the evidence when the accused persons came to the house and started assaulting on Subhash PW11, she has not gave phone call to the police station. She has deposed at that point of time there was no light in the said house. However PW1 who is eye 53 SC No.1941/2022 witness, complainant and father of PW14, he deposed entire different manner. While his son Harikrishna crossing the road then accident was occurred but accused persons have not assaulted and not pushed Harikrishna nor assaulted on PW11. PW1 is the complainant, eye witness and father of PW14, the evidence of PW1 and PW14 is contradict to each other. Even though on perusal of the evidence of PW14 she has not seen the accused persons nor she knows the address, residence and occupation of the accused persons. In the Ex.P1 it has mentioned Bhaskar and Pavan. In the inquest report PW12 and PW14 have stated Bhaskar and Pavan. Regarding deletion of Pavan, there is no statement of PW14 recorded by the PW27. Therefore there is contradiction in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW14 and PW22. Therefore the evidence of PW14 creates doubt that above said accused persons are causes of death of Harikrishna.
30. PW15 Mallikarjun deposed in his evidence CW1 is his paternal uncle, CW14 is maternal aunt, CW15 and deceased Harikrishna are daughter and son of CW1 and CW14. He deposed about 1 month back, he came to 54 SC No.1941/2022 Bengaluru and resided in house of CW1. He deposed he and Harikrishna were went to take Tea at 8.00pm. After having tea they came towards house. Harikrishna had taken Jelly stone and hit towards him and said stone hit to the side mirror of vehicle which was stopped on the road. Then four persons came to the house and started assaulting on the Harikrishna stating that you have broken the side mirror of the vehicle and he was dragged by assaulting with hand and kicked with leg, then CW1 and CW14 begged the accused persons not to assault, then Subhash came and asked what happened then four persons have assaulted on Subhash and he was taken to onion and coconut shop and assaulted with one club. Then Harikrishna went and asked why you are all assaulting on my younger brother, then said four persons assaulted and dragged up to the road, when cement mixer lorry was coming on the said road then said lorry rod was hit to the Harikrishna and due to it Harikrishna fell down. He sustained injuries on his head and back portion. Then Nagamallu, Lavanya, Subhas were taken Harikrishna to the hospital. Then CW14 gave information that Harikrishna 55 SC No.1941/2022 was dead. He deposed above said four persons are cause for death of Harikrishna. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. He deposed he was studied up to 10th standard and he was not passed the 10 th standard, he came to Bengaluru for not doing any work. Subhash came one month back to the incident to Bengaluru. He further deposed Harikrishna was resided in Bengaluru. He was studied ITI and he was going to the work. He further deposed he do not know were the Harikrishna was studying in Andra Pradesh. He further deposed Harikrishna was working in Bengaluru. He deposed he do not know name of the accused No.2 nor address. He further deposed "ಪೋಲೀಸರು 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಕರೆದು ನನಗೆ ಯಾವತ್ತು ತೋರಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ನೋಡಿದ್ದ ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ನೋಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". As per evidence of PW15 that he has not seen the accused before the incident. Even the police have not shown the accused No.2. He deposed he has not seen the accused No.2 in the Court. As per prosecution case that the accused No.2 pushed Harikrishna when cement mixer lorry was coming on the 56 SC No.1941/2022 said road and he fell on rare mudguard, due to it he sustained injuries and he died. Inspite of it PW15 who is material witness has stated that he has not seen accused No.2 nor police have shown accused No.2. At the same time he deposed he has seen accused No.2 in Court only. Therefore the evidence of PW15 reveals that before the incident nor at the time of incident he has not seen the accused No.2. He deposed in the said house, Harikrishna, CW1, CW14 and Lavanya, another paternal uncle and grandmother and himself were resided in the said house. He deposed there was no electricity in the said house. Apart from said house other buildings are situated and in the said buildings no persons were resided. He further deposed that factories are situated. He deposed he do not know name of the company of the vehicle which glass was broken. He further deposed he do not know said lorry belongs to whom, who is owner of the said lorry. He deposed he has shown the said lorry to the police on the same day at night. As per evidence of PW27 that he was seized the said vehicle on the next day but it was not seized on the same day. PW15 deposed on the same day at night 57 SC No.1941/2022 he had shown the said lorry. Inspite of it police have not seized the said lorry on the said date. He further deposed after four days of the incident he went to the Police station. He further deposed Subhash, Lavanya, Nagamalluy and Budde Babu are maternal uncle Ishwar and himself went to the Police station to lodge the complaint. On the other hand PW25 has not stated while lodging the complaint above said persons were present. He deposed he do not know Harikrishna was consumed alcohol. On the other hand Subhash has stated himself and Harikrishna were consumed alcohol. Inspite of it PW15 has stated he do not know Harikrishna was consumed alcohol. He deposed he do not know where accused No.2 was residing, where he was working. At the same time he deposed at the factory there are lights situated, from the said lights they were getting light. He denied accused persons were not kicked Subhash nor Harikrishna. As per evidence of PW15 on the said road more number of persons moving here and there, so also more number of vehicle moving here and there in the said road. He denied he and Harikrishna were not went on the said date to have tea. He deposed left side mirror 58 SC No.1941/2022 broken vehicle were belongs to accused No.2. He deposed he has not stated before the police that said vehicle belongs to the accused No.2. At the same time he deposed "2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಬಂದಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಅವರದೇ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಅಂದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ" He further deposed "ಆ ಲಾರಿ ಯಾರದೆಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ". The evidence of PW15 reveals that he has deposed in one stretch the said vehicle belongs to accused No.2, in another stretch he has stated he do not know said vehicle was belongs to the accused No.2. the presence of PW15 itself creates doubt he was present on the said date or not. He deposed he do not know habits of Harikrishna and Subhash. He further deposed he do not know name of the shop of tea stall where himself and Harikrishna went to have tea. He deposed after having tea paid Rs.20/-. He further deposed said house is not having electricity. He further deposed "ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಏಟಾಯಿತು ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾದ ಮೇಲೇ ನಾನು, ಲಾವಣ್ಯ , ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಮ್ಮ ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾವು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋದಾಗ ಸುಮಾರು ಜನರು ಸೇರಿದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". He further deposed "ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿದಂತಹ ಜನ ಆಟೋ ಮಾಡಿ ನಾಗಮಲ್ಲು , ಲಾವಣ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಸುಭಷ್, ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಆಟೋದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕಿ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". The evidence of PW15 reveals that they were not present at the time of 59 SC No.1941/2022 incident on the Shantipura main road. As per evidence of PW15 that after cement mixer lorry went on the said road then public were gathered and public in the auto injured Harikrishna along with Nagamallu, Lavanya and Subhash were sent to the hospital. As per evidence of PW15 he was not accompanied with the injured person. He further deposed "ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ನಿಗೆ ಆಂಕ್ಸಿ ಡೆಂಟ್ಆದ ದಿನ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಆ ಜಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಾಗ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಈ ಘಟನೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿರುತ್ತರೆ". The evidence of PW15 reveals that after the incident police came to the said place and inquired about it. He further deposed " ಈ ಘಟನೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದೆಲ್ಲ ವನ್ನು ಪೋಲೀಸರಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದನೆಲ್ಲ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ". As per evidence of PW15 what he has narrated the same is not written by the police, itself shows that police have not written the statement which was given by the PW15. But police have created the statement. As per evidence of PW15 after sometime of the accident police came to the said place. On the other hand PW25 deposed after he getting MLC from the hospital, at about 1.00 am received the complainant, then PW25 came to know about the alleged incident. On the other hand PW15 deposed little time after the incident, police came to 60 SC No.1941/2022 the said place. Inspite of it PW25 and PW27 have not stated after the incident they rushed to the said place. PW27 clearly deposed that in the heinous offence he must visit the place of incident, inspite of it PW25 nor PW27 not went to the said place. Inspite of it PW15 deposed after little time police came to the said place. Therefore the evidence of PW15 clearly reveals that he was not present in the place of incident. He further deposed before the incident he do not know the above said persons. He further deposed police have shown the photos of said persons. He further deposed "ಪೋಲೀಸರು ನಮಗೆ ಪೋಟೋ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಇವರೇ ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿದ್ದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". As per evidence of PW15 after photos shown by the police then they came to know the said persons. Even though at the time of incident there was no electricity. Even though PW25 or PW27 have not taken any documents from Bescom to prove that at that time there was electricity, so also in the house. Inspite of it PW15 deposed when police have shown the photos then they came to know the said persons. He further deposed he do not know on the said date Harikrishna after fully intoxicated, due to uncontrol he fell on the road. If 61 SC No.1941/2022 Harikrishna had not taken alcohol on the said date then he may deposed Harikrishna had not taken alcohol. At the same time he deposed he do not know after taking alcohol Harikrishna due to uncontrol he went on the road and fell on the said road. Therefore from the evidence of PW15 it is clear that on that day Harikrishna was taken alcohol. He further deposed he do not know where the Sankalpa cafe and condiment situated on the said Shantipura road. He deposed he had not seen the said Sankalpa Cafe and condiment. As per the prosecution case infront of Sankalpa cafe and condiment the incident was taken. Inspite of it he deposed he do not know said Sankalpa cafe and condiment situated in the said road. He deposed on 18 th accident was taken but he do not know month and year. He further deposed he do not know date, month and year when the four persons came to the house of PW12. He further deposed there is no enmity between PW12 or her family members with the accused Nos.1 to 4. He further deposed before the incident no quarrel was taken between the PW12 and her family members along with accused person. He deposed where concrete mixer lorry was hit to Harikrishna, 62 SC No.1941/2022 said place is visible in the Ex.P38. He further deposed rare wheel touched to Harikrishna. He deposed he has not seen the accused No.3 in the station. He further deposed he has seen the accused No.3 apart from Court. Therefore he came to know accused No.3 in this case. He deposed he do not know accused No.4 is owner of lorry which side mirror was broken. He do not know accused No.4 is the owner of onion and coconut shop. He further deposed he has seen the accused No.4 at the station. He deposed he has not stated his name in the Police station nor his identification. He further deposed he do not know on which date, month and year he went to the Police station. PW15 is the material witness as he has stated that PW11 was residing a in Tambalapalli of Andra Pradesh and he was residing Reddykota village. He further deposed "ಸುಭಾಷನು ಊರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಮೀನಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ನು". On the other hand PW11 deposed he was working in Bengaluru, so also PW12 and PW14 deposed Subhash was working in Bengaluru. At the same time PW15 deposed in different manner. He deposed when he came to Court he was accompanied with PW11, 12 and PW14. He further deposed on 18.08.2022 Subhash 63 SC No.1941/2022 and Harikrishna were not with him. As per evidence of PW15 it is clear that on 18.08.2022 he was not with Subhash and Harikrishna. As per prosecution case on 18.08.02022 at about 10.00pm that the accused persons came to the house of PW12 and assaulted Subhash and Harikrishna and Harikrishna was pushed towards cement mixer lorry, then PW11, PW12 and PW14 are alleged to be eye witnesses to the incident, inspite of it PW15 has deposed on 18.08.2022 he was not with them. On that day PW1 was working as house keeping in Amazon company, at the same time PW1, PW11, PW12 and PW14 have deposed in different manner. He further deposed "ಮನೆಯಿಂದ ಅಪಘಾತವಾದಂತ ಸ್ಥ ಳ ಸ್ವ ಲ್ಪ ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ". As per evidence of PW15 accident place is situated at few distance from the house. He further deposed he has not seen the concrete mixer cement lorry driver. As per his evidence after hit to Harikrishna said cement mixer lorry was not stopped and went away from the said place. He further deposed he was in the said place at 9.00pm, 10.00pm, at about 9.45pm police came to the said place, at that time he and PW1 were in the said place. He deposed he had not gave phone call to 64 SC No.1941/2022 the Police. He further deposed he and PW1 went to the hospital. As per the evidence of PW15 he do not know names, address nor identification of the accused persons. He denied he has not given statement before the police regarding he identified the accused persons on photos. PW15 is the material witness as he and Harikrishna went to have Tea. After having tea they came towards house. Harikrishna had taken Jelly stone and hit towards him and said stone hit to the side mirror of vehicle which was stopped on the road. Then four persons came to the house and started assaulting on the Harikrishna and Subhash and he was taken to onion and coconut shop and assaulted with one club. Then Harikrishna went and asked why you are all assaulting on my younger brother, then said four persons assaulted and dragged up to the road, when cement mixer lorry was coming on the said road then said lorry rod was hit to the Harikrishna and due to it Harikrishna fell down. He sustained injuries on his head and back portion, he denied same is not stated before the police. PW15 is present when the accused persons came to the house of PW12 and assaulted the Harikrishna and 65 SC No.1941/2022 Subhash. Inspite of it he deposed he has not seen the accused persons nor name and address or occupation of the accused persons. As per evidence of PW27 he has not conducted identification parade. Under such circumstances PW15 may not seen the accused persons. Even though he deposed he has seen the accused No.2 in the Court. Therefore the evidence of PW15 is seems to be not present at the point of the time in the said place.
31. PW16 Dr. Sudeep Kumar D, he deposed he was working as medical officer at Sacred Oak Multi-specialty Hospital, Bengaluru. He deposed on 18.08.2022 at 10.20pm one Haribabu was brought in auto and was taken to causality. After examining him he was sustained injuries on head and blooding was oozing from nose and mouth. He deposed he has issued intimation to the police as per Ex.P40
32. He further deposed on the same day at 10.20pm., CW13 came with history of assault. On examining him he was sustained injuries on Left partial side of head cut lacerated wound. He further deposed he issued wound certificate as per Ex.P41. He further deposed CW13 66 SC No.1941/2022 sustained simple injuries. As per evidence of PW16 that Harikrishna was taken to the hospital, on examining him he was not alive but he sustained injuries on head and blood was oozing from mouth and nose. At the same time he deposed on examining CW13 he was sustained simple injuries.
33. As per evidence of PW16 that CW13 was sustained simple injuries and he was not inpatient in the said hospital nor he was unconscious and he was not unconscious till next day. Inspite of it CW13 deposed he was unconscious and he was taken treatment in the hospital and on next day his father came to the hospital, then only he got conscious. Therefore the evidence of PW16 and CW13 is not corroborated. PW16 was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed in the Ex.P4 it has mentioned as attender by name Babu accompanied with patient along with his father. He further deposed said person was brought dead therefore he was not treated said Babu. He further deposed he has not mentioned in the Ex.P40 deceased Harikrishna was sustained injuries. He denied on 18.09.2022 he has not on duty, colluding with 67 SC No.1941/2022 police he had issued Ex.P40. He further deposed CW13 himself came to the hospital. He further deposed on the said date from night till 8.00am he was in the hospital. He further deposed in the Ex.P42 he has not mentioned how much time was taken to give treatment. In the Ex.P42 it has mentioned as 19.08.2022, 5.15 and same is not written by him. He denied he had issued false intimation and also false wound certificate. He further deposed as per Ex.P42 incident was taken nearby Panchayath office. He further deposed Subhash was residing at Banashankari 2 nd stage, Bengaluru and same is mentioned in the Ex.P42. On the other hand he denied he has given false MLC and false documents.
34. PW19 Santosh who is photographer, he deposed he is having Chitra Photo Studio at Hosuru road. Parappana Agrahara police have called to the station, then he went to the station and after went to the station. Thereafter went to St. John hospital and taken the photos of one cement lorry, in all taken Ex.P5 to Ex.P10, Ex.P21 to Ex.P38 photographs. After taking the photos and same are gave print and handed over to the police. Prosecution has 68 SC No.1941/2022 got marked certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. He deposed he has not furnished documents stating that he was cameraman in the said studio. He further deposed he has not having qualification to work as cameraman. He further deposed he has not given receipt for cost of each and every photographs. He further deposed he has not written the Ex.P44. He further deposed police have written Ex.P44, thereafter he signed on the said document. He further deposed photos were taken and bills were issued, so also in this case he had issued bills to the police. No doubt PW19 was taken the photos of said vehicle as well as dead body of Harikrishna. However he may not obtained qualification for doing photo studio but his evidence cannot be discarded as he was called to the station as per information of police and also intimation of police he had obtained the photos. Therefore there is no evidence to discard the evidence of PW19.
35. PW20 Shivashankar Reddy deposed he is owner of cement concrete vehicle bearing No.KA-51-AC-8028. Said lorry was proceeding from Electronic city towards 69 SC No.1941/2022 Huskuru. Then the police have seen CCTV Footage and police called to the station. He further deposed about 6-7 months back that 4-5 persons have quarreled then one persons was pushed towards the said vehicle, in this regard police have called to the station. He further deposed said he was taken said vehicle to the Police station where he had issued RC card, insurance, permit fitness certificate and emission certificate, same are marked as Ex.P45. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. He deposed in the cross examination name of the driver of the lorry is Subendra Varma. He was working since 3 years. After the incident of 3-4 days he was called to the station. He deposed he and driver of the lorry went to the station. On the same day all the documents were given to the police. Then after 15 days lorry was got released from the Court order. He further deposed he cannot say CCTV footage was belongs to which road. He further deposed driver of the lorry has not given information stating that galata was taken on the said road. He further deposed if cement concrete lorry was issued to anyone then in this regard they issue the receipt. He further deposed on 70 SC No.1941/2022 that day the cement concrete mixer lorry was empty and name of the driver was Subendra Barma. He further deposed said lorry was given to the Matru Concrete. He deposed all the documents stands in the name of Matru Concrete. He denied he and police have colluded with each other and filed the false complaint. He further deposed Matru concrete managed by M.D. by name Sheel K.N. He further deposed Sheela K.N. and he himself were talked with police and then MD told to go to the Police station and after completion of procedure come again. He denied due to fault of lorry driver accident was occurred. He denied he is deposing falsely.
36. PW21 Dr. Anwar K A deposed he was working as Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine at St. John Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru. He deposed on 19.08.2022 received the requisition from Parappana Agrahara Police Inspector to conduct Post Mortem of deceased Budde Harikrishna. On the same day he had conducted the post mortem. As per his evidence he was suffered external injuries 1) Black eye present on right side. 2) Abrasion 0.3x0.2 cm on right side of back of head 4 71 SC No.1941/2022 cm outer to occiput. 3) Lacerated wound 1.8x1 cm, bone deep, on right side of forehead 5cm outer to midline 3cm above eyebrow with surrounded multiple small abrasion over an area 13x5 cm. 4) Lacerated wound 1x0.5 cm, bone deep, on right eyebrow 4 cm outer to midline with surrounded multiple small abrasion over an area 3x3 cm.
5) Multiple small contusions over an area 10x7 cm, on right cheek over cheek prominence. 6) Contusion 1x0.7x0.4 cm on left cheek 0.5 outer to outer corner of eye. 7) Abrasion 1x0.2 cm, on left cheek 0.5 outer to ala of nose. 8) Lacerated wound 1x0.2x0.3 cm on right ear at junction of lobule with surrounded contusion over an area 4x1.2x0.4cm. 9) Abrasion 11x1cm, oblique, on back of neck across midline; its right upper end is 3 cm above root of neck. 10) Grazed abrasion 42x15 cm, on outer aspect of right side of chest, axilla and abdomen. 11) Abrasion 2x1 cm, on left side of chest 13cm outer to midline 1cm below top of shoulder. 12. Multiple small abrasions over an area 20x5 cm, on outer aspect of left side of chest and axilla. 13) Two contusions 7x1x0.4 cm and 1x0.8x0.4 cm, 0.7 cm apart oblique on right side of back of trunk; its lower inner 72 SC No.1941/2022 end is 5.5 cm outer to midline and 9 cm below top of shoulder. 14) Contusion 6x2x0.4 cm on left side of back of trunk 5cm outer to midline and 14 cm below top of shoulder. 15) Grazed abrasion 38x8 cm oblique on left side of back of trunk; its upper outer end is 7 cm outer to midline and 2 cm below top of shoulder. 16) Abrasion 4x0.5 cm oblique on right side of back of trunk; its upper inner end is 1 cm outer to midline and 9 cm above top of hip. 17) Abrasion 3x1.5 cm, on left side of back of trunk; 10 cm outer to midline and 4 cm below top of hip.
18)Abrasion 1x0.5 cm, on left side of back of trunk; 13 cm outer to midline and 7 cm below top of hip. 19) Grazed abrasion 22x5 cm on back of right arm just above elbow.
20) Multiple small abrasion over an area 23x7 cm on back of right arm and elbow. 21) Multiple small abrasion over an area 5x4 cm on back end outer aspect of right elbow. 22) Abrasion 2x1 cm on inner aspect of right wrist.
23)Lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 x0.3 cm on back of right V finger 2 cm below its root with surrounded multiple small abrasion over an area 4x3.5 cm. 24) Contusion 9x6x0.4 cm, circular, on outer aspect of left arm just below tip of 73 SC No.1941/2022 shoulder. 25) Abrasion 8.5 x 6 cm on outer aspect of left arm and elbow. 26) Multiple small abrasion over an area 16x7 cm on inner aspect of left arm and elbow.
27)Abrasion 9x5 cm on back of left forearm just below elbow. 28) Abrasion 3x1.5 cm on inner aspect of left forearm 11 cm below elbow. 29) Abrasion 4x3 cm on front of left forearm 10 cm below elbow. 30) Multiple small abrasions over an area 5x5 cm on back of left 1,2,3 fingers 3cm below the root. 31) Abrasion 2x2 cm on outer aspect of right thigh 31 cm above knee. 32) Abrasion 6x1.5 cm on outer aspect of right thigh 14 cm above knee. 33) Abrasion 13x8 cm on front and outer aspect of right knee.
34)Abrasion 1.5x1.5 cm on inner aspect of right ankle.
35)Abrasion 3x1 cm on back of left thigh 14 cm below to of hip. 36) Abrasion 3x1 cm on outer aspect of left thigh 14 cm below top of hip. 37) Multiple small abrasions over an area 4x2 cm, on outer aspect of left thigh 5 cm below top of hip. 38) Abrasion 3x1 cm, on inner aspect of left knee. 39) Multiple small abrasions over an area 7x4.5 cm, on inner aspect of left foot 4 cm below ankle. He further deposed on Internal Examination he found 40) Blood extravasation 74 SC No.1941/2022 measuring 15x15x0.5 cm present over left side of front, top, side and back of head, 7x5x0.5 cm present over right side of head around lacerated wound. 41) A depressed comminuted fracture of area 5x2x0.3 cm on right parietal bone with surrounded comminuted fracture of area 15x11x cm involving right fronto temporoparietal bone and left frontal bone; and a comminuted fracture area 13x11 cm involving right side of anterior cranial fossae, pituitary fossae, both side of middle and posterior cranial fossae with blood extravasation at the fracture sites. Subdural haemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage was present over both cerebral hemisheres. Brain showed contusions on cerebellum (2x1x0.3 cm) and pons (1x0.5x0.3 cm).
42)Fracture of spine involving disc between IV and V cervical vertebrae. 43) Contusion 1x0.5x0.5 cm on right side of front of chest wall over IV rib 0.7 cm outer to midline. 44) Undisplaced fracture of II rib as its front aspect on right side with blood extravasation at fracture site. Right chest cavity contains 200 ml of fluid blood. The right lung contused at upper lobe (13x10x6 cm), middle lobe (7x5x2 cm) and lower lobe (15x15x6cm). 75 SC No.1941/2022
45)Undisplaced fracture of VI rib as its outer aspect on left side with blood extravasation at fracture site. Left chest cavity contains 920 ml of fluid blood. The left lung contused at upper lobe (15x15 x6 cm) and lower lobe (15x15x7cm). 46) Right lobe of liver shows multiple laceration, largest being 13x5x5 cm, dividing liver into two pieces with adherent blood clots. Peritonium contains 300 ml of fluid blood. Right kidney was contused at outer surface with surrounding perirenal hematoma (7x5x4cm). He further deposed he issued the Post Mortem report as per Ex.P.46. He deposed on the dead body M.O.1 to M.O.5 were there. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. In the cross examination he deposed it is true based on the history furnished by the police he has conducted the PM of deceased Budde Harikrishna. It is true if a person intoxicated fully, when he came to contact with moving vehicle any type of injuries may be caused. He denied he issued false report. However counsel for the Accused No.2 submitted that death is not disputed, but he argued that Accused persons are not causes for death of Harikrishna. PW21 further deposed death is duty injuries 76 SC No.1941/2022 sustained by Harikrishna. However based on the I.O. requisition conducted the Post mortem. At the same time counsel for the accused taken defence that Harikrishna was intoxicated fully and he went on the road, due to imbalance he contacted to the vehicle and sustained injuries, accused persons have not assaulted on Harikrishna. PW21 has not stated due to assault Harikrishna was died but he died due to injuries sustained. Based on the evidence of PW21 court cannot come to conclusion that due to assault made by the accused persons, Harikrishna was died.
37. PW22 Basavaraju deposed he is having Sankalpa Condiment and chats bakery at Shantipur. In the year 2022 he was in the shop at about 9.00pm infront of bakery one accident was happened. Harikrishna consuming alcohol came and hit to backside wheel of cement concrete vehicle. Before I went to the said place, public gathered and taken Harikrishna in an auto to the hospital. He further deposed Parappa Agrahara police called him to the station. He further deposed he has given statement as per say of police. PW22 eye witness to the incident has not supported 77 SC No.1941/2022 the prosecution. Prosecution cross examined this witness. He denied on 18.08.2022 at 9.00pm when he was working in the bakery, one boy working in petrol bunk came to 1 st accused and told someone had broken the side mirror of lorry. He denied after knowing the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 wen to the house of CW1 and assaulted on Budde Harikrishna and Subhash. He further denied they dragged Harikrishna and Subhash to onion and coconut shop and assaulted them with hands and legs and wooden re-piece. He denied then they have assaulted Harikrishan and dragged to the road where lorry was coming on the said road knowing it, Harikrishna was pushed then he was sustained injuries as rare wheel hit to Harikrishna. He denied he has given statement as per Ex.P48. He denied he deposing falsely. PW22 is independent eye witness to the incident, he has not supported the prosecution case in the examination in chief nor in the cross examination.
38. PW23 Gangadharaiah M.R., he deposed on 19.08.2022, he, CW32 and CW33 were deputed to trace out the accused No.4. They traced out in Bengaluru city, but he was not traced out and then received credible 78 SC No.1941/2022 information that he was in K.R.Pete of Mandya District. He further deposed on 20.08.2022 they went to of K.R. Pete of Mandya where accused is having house and he was standing infront of the said house. After confirming the same, he was caught hold and produced before the CW36 and gave report as per Ex.P49.
39. PW24 Manjunath P deposed in his evidence that on 19.08.2022, CW36 deputed him, CW29 and CW30 to trace out the accused No.3. On 20.08.2022 they received credible information and upon the information they went to Hoskuru gate at about 4.30pm and caught hold the accused No.3 and produced before CW36 and gave report as per Ex.P50.
40. PW25 Mehaboob Guddalli deposed he was working as PSI in Parappana Agrahara Police station from 5.5.2021 to 2.2.2024. He deposed on 18.08.2024 at about 11.00pm received the MLC-1 from Sacred Oak hospital that one Harikrishna died. He further deposed received MLS of Subhash as per Ex.P42. He further deposed on 19.08.2022 at about 1.00 am CW1 came and lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint registered the case in crime 79 SC No.1941/2022 No.299/2022 for the offence punishable U/s 448, 504, 323, 324, 342, 302 of I.P.C. He further deposed he has handed over the entire records to CW36. He further deposed on 19.08.20202 he and CW26, CW27 deputed to trace out the accused Nos.1 and 2. On 20.08.2022 received information that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the Kumbalagodu road, then went at 2.30pm and caught hold the accused Nos.1 and 2 and produced before CW36 and gave report as per Ex.P52. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. In the cross examination he deposed he was discharging day duty. He further deposed he do not know who were on night duty. He further deposed "ನಾನು ರಾತ್ರಿ ಕರ್ವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". He further deposed when he handed over the entire records to the CW36 for investigation then he had not received the records for investigation. He further deposed in the Ex.P40 and Ex.P42 due to oversight it has mentioned the date as 18.09.2022 instead of mentioning 18.08.2022 and there was no difficulty regarding correcting the same. He denied he has not went to the said hospital and received the complaint as per Ex.P1. He further deposed in Ex.P1 and 80 SC No.1941/2022 Ex.P52 name of the accused No.2 is not mentioned as Vijaykumar. As per Ex.P52 he do not know name of accused No.2 is Vijaykumar. He further deposed in the Ex.P1 and Ex.P52 nowhere in the said document it has not mentioned accused No.2 name as Vijaykumar. Ex.P1 and Ex.P52 it has mentioned as Pavan. He further deposed CW36 had not given photos of accused, address of the accused while they were deputed to trace out the accused persons. He further deposed "ಘಟನೆ ನಡೆದ ಸುತ್ತಮತ್ತ ಸಿಸಿಟಿವಿ ಕ್ಯಾಮೆರಾ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". He further deposed he has not verified the CCTV cameras. He denied he created the false case against accused persons. He denied he registered the case at 10.00am and same was sent to the Court at 11.00am. On 20.08.2022 he went and caught hold the accused No.1 at Kumbalgodu road and produced before the CW36 and gave report. He further deposed Ex.P1 was typed in the station as CW1 is uneducated. He further deposed he do not remember who typed the same in the station. He further deposed CW1 does not know read and write Kannada language. He denied CW1 gave information that his son met with accident but as per instructions of 81 SC No.1941/2022 higher officers he typed the Ex.P1 stating that galata was taken in the house of Harikrishna and accused has not committed any offence. He further deposed on 18.08.2022 deceased injured was taken at Sacred Oak hospital. He further deposed on 19.08.2022 registered the FIR after dead body was taken to St. John hospital. He deposed in the Ex.P1 there is mention about Eicher vehicle. In the Ex.P1 is ha mentioned that Mallikarjun was residing in the said house. He denied on 19.08.2022 CW36 deputed him to trace out the accused. He deposed in the memo accused No.2 name mentioned as Vijay. He denied he has registered false case against the accused persons. PW25 deposed in his evidence that on that day he was on day duty and he was not on night duty. On the other hand he has stated that on 18.08.2022 at about 11.00pm received the MLC from Sacred Oak hospital. At the same time he deposed he was not in night duty. Inspite of it he has received the complaint at 1.00am from CW1. When he was not having duty at night hours, inspite of it he has taken complaint at 1.00am. On the other hand PW1 deposed he has not lodged 82 SC No.1941/2022 the complaint before police. Therefore evidence of PW1 and PW25 is not corroborated.
41. PW26 Dr.Mahadeshwar Swamy who is Deputy Director of FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru. As per his evidence on 1.9.2022 received nine sealed covers from Parappana Agrahara Police station in crime No.299/2022 from CW36. That the nine sealed packets were in good condition and seal tallied with model seal. After opening the said articles found 1. Blood stained ear buds, 2. Sample ear buds, 3. One Frock, 4. One T-shirt, 5. One underwear, 6. One Pant,
7. One scared bracelet thread, 8. Nail clipping 9. Nail clipping. He further deposed he tested the said articles and found blood stains in item Nos.1, 3 to 7 and in item Nos.1, 3, 5 to 7 were found with human blood of 'B' blood group. In the item No.2 there was no blood stains. Item Nos.8 and 9 having human skin. He has given his opinion as per Ex.P53 After repacking the said articles, same were sent to concerned police. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. In the requisition it is not mentioned blood group. Based on the requisition of the police has tested the said articles. He denied he has issued Ex.P53 to 83 SC No.1941/2022 help the police. He deposed there are more than 32 blood groups. He denied there are mainly four blood groups A+, A-, B+, B-, O+, O-, Ab+, Ab-. In the Ex.P53 not mentioned positive or negative blood group. Witness stated that in the said lap sub blood group is not tested. He denied he has give false report. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW26 it reveals that on 1.9.2022 received nine articles. From 8.9.2024 to 29.09.2022 tested the above said articles and he has found human blood group on the said articles except article No.2. Concerned police have not seeks opinion regarding said sub-blood groups in the said articles. However as per requisition he has tested the said articles and gave report.
42. PW27 Sandeep S who is investigating officer, he has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. As per his evidence on 19.08.2022 he received the records from PW25. On the same day conducted the spot mahazar in presence of CW1 to CW3 at 7.30am to 9.15am and collected the blood stain mud through ear buds and blood stained frock of CW15 and blood stained half shirt of CW13 and obtained the photos at Ex.P4 to Ex.P10. Recorded the 84 SC No.1941/2022 statement of CW2 and CW3 and conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P20 of deceased in presence of CW10 to CW12 and recorded the statement of CW14 and CW15. On the same day recorded the statement of CW17 Pavan and deputed the CW25, CW28, CW31 to trace out the accused persons and CW25, CW28 and CW31 have produced the accused persons and gave the report. He further deposed in presence of CW6 and CW7 conducted the mahazar in the onion and coconut shop and recorded the statement of CW1, CW14 and CW16 and recorded the statement of CW6, CW7, CW19 and CW22 and collected the xerox documents of vehicle bearing No.KA51-AC-8028. On 24.08.2022 nine articles were collected by the Ambresh Jamadhar, same is sent to FSL. He further deposed on 24.08.2022 filed the requisition to RTO to furnish the documents pertains to TATA LPT and Bolero vehicle. On 25.08.2022 collected the wound certificate as per Ex.P41 from Sacred Oak hospital and gave the requisition to Assistant Executive Engineer to prepare the map of place of incident and collected the FSL report. After completion of 85 SC No.1941/2022 investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
43. He was cross examined by the counsel for the Accused persons. He denied he was not properly conducted the investigation and created the document, filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. He denied he was not recorded the statement of witnesses, not collected the material objects. He denied due to accident Harikrishna was died. Accused persons have not at all assaulted on Subhash and Harikrishna. He denied due to heavy drink Harikrishna lost control on his body, he was fell on the vehicle which was proceeding on the said road.
44. PW28 Sujata K.M., Deputy Director of FSL, Bengaluru, she deposed on 1.9.2022 received four sealed articles from Parappana Agrahara Police station in crime No.299/2022, said articles having seal and were in good condition. Said articles are 1. small intestine and its contents, 2.Parts of the liver and testicles, 3.blood, 4. Common salt solution used for preservation. She opined that there is 98.80miligram/100ml alcohol contain in blood and she gave report as per Ex.P70. She deposed 86 SC No.1941/2022 there is digital signature on the said document. She was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. She deposed she is not MBBS doctor. She has stated Ethyl Alcohol in the sample belonging to the deceased Harikrishna. She further deposed if a man contains 98.80mg/100ml of alcohol in blood what is the status of his mind in general, witness says it depends upon the individual, some person may get intoxication very low level of alcohol, some may be stable even upto 100mg/100ml blood. Generally some gets blur vision. She further deposed if a man having 98.80mg/100ml of alcohol he cannot walk properly as a normal man, witness says may be. It is true that they may loose balance of the body. Apart from it she has not stated that she has issued false report. The evidence of PW28 regarding alcohol in the blood in the body of deceased Harikrishna.
45. On careful perusal of the prosecution papers as well as evidence placed by the prosecution that PW15 and Harikrishna went to have tea. After having tea they were proceeding towards their house, then one Jelly stone was thrown by Harikrishna towards PW15, said Jelly stone was 87 SC No.1941/2022 hit to side mirror of Eicher vehicle and side mirror of the said vehicle was broken. This is the causes for the said incident. On careful perusal of the entire evidence as well as documents and records, PW25 nor PW27 have not at all collected any broken piece of side mirror of the side vehicle. On going through the records accused Nos.1 to 4 are not belongs to same place. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are residents of different areas and they are not friends. PW27 has not at all collected documents from RTO regarding Eicher vehicle nor Bolero vehicle nor Cement mixer lorry. It is the duty of I.O. to collect the report from the RTO. However PW27 deposed he has written letter to RTO, inspite of it he has not collected any document from the concerned authority. Even PW27 has not gave any explanation for non collecting report from RTO. PW27 has not stated that in the said place there are glass pieces were fell on the ground and same are not collected and he has not explained for not collecting the same, which is causes for alleged incident.
46. PW1 who is the father of deceased Harikrishna, eye witness, complainant, based on the complaint lodged by the PW1, PW25 has registered the case. PW1 in his 88 SC No.1941/2022 evidence he has not stated that accused persons came to their house and they asked who broke the side mirror of the vehicle and assaulted PW11, he was taken to Onion and coconut shop and accused persons assaulted with hands and kicked with legs and assaulted with wooden re- piece. Then Harikrishna came and asked the accused persons why you all assaulting my younger brother, then the Accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted Harikrishna with hands. PW1, PW12, PW14 begged Accused persons that they will pay the cost of mirror and not to assault on Harikrishna. Inspite of it Accused persons assaulted and Accused No.2 pushed Harikrishna when cement mixer lorry was coming on the Shantipura main road. PW1 in examination in chief nor in the cross examination, he has not supported the prosecution case. PW1 deposed in his evidence while he was sleeping in the house then his son met with accident. Apart from it PW1 has not at all stated that Accused persons have assaulted and Accused No.2 pushed towards road. As per evidence of PW1 Harikrishna was died due to accident. Accused have taken defence that Harikrishna had consumed alcohol, due to uncontrol he fell on the road and 89 SC No.1941/2022 cement mixer vehicle hit to Harikrishna and driver of the said vehicle is not having driving license, colluding with owner of the vehicle PW20, police have filed false charge sheet against Accused persons.
47. As per the prosecution case that the Accused No.2 pushed Harikrishna, then cement mixer lorry was proceeding on the Shantipura main road, then Harikrishna was hit to rare mudguard of the said vehicle and he was sustained injuries. Based on the facts, prosecution has filed the charge sheet against the Accused persons. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15, they have not at all stated in their evidence that the Accused persons have abused in filthy language, when they came to the house of PW1 nor in the onion and coconut shop nor on Shantipura main road, when they alleged that they dragged Harikrishna from Onion and coconut shop to Shantipura main road. However the prosecution has not established that the Accused persons have abused in filthy language. On careful perusal of the prosecution papers in the Ex.P1 and Ex.P51 it has mentioned as Bhaskar and Pavan and others. Further in 90 SC No.1941/2022 the Ex.P12 and Ex.P20 in the statement of Lavanya, Nagamallu they have stated that Bhaskar and Pavan and other two persons, all of sudden entered into the house and in the statement of Raghu i.e., PW2 has stated that Bhaskar and Pavan and other two persons, all of sudden entered into the house. In the said documents it has not mentioned Bhaskar, Vijay i.e.,accused No.2, in the said documents it has mentioned Bhaskar and CW17 who is Pavan. While conducting Inquest mahazar PW12 and PW14 have stated Bhaskar and Pavan. Inspite of it PW27 has not made clear that why the name of Pavan was deleted and he was cited as witness in the case and Vijaykumar name was inserted in the charge sheet. PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15 have not at all stated in their evidence they have identified the accused persons and name of the accused persons, address of the Accused persons. On the other hand they deposed they do not know the name and address, identification of the Accused persons. PW27 deposed he had shown the photos of Accused persons. At the same time PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15 have deposed in their evidence that they have not given statement regarding 91 SC No.1941/2022 identification of the Accused persons. Counsel for the Accused persons have taken contention that PW27 has not conducted the test identification parade. Even though he deposed he had shown the photos of Accused persons. Admittedly Accused persons are not residents of Shantipura nor residing nearby the house of PW1. Even though witnesses have deposed they have not seen the Accused persons. Under such circumstances it is necessary to conduct the test identification pared. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment reported in (2007) 2 SCC 310 - Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra - with due respect to the ratio laid down in the said judgment, is not applicable to the present case on hand. Learned Public prosecutor relied on the judgments reported in 1) (2012) 7 SCC 699 - Kashinath Mondal Vs State of West Bengal 2) AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1920
-Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2003 - Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and others vs State of Punjab, 3) (2013) 2 SCC 162 - N.V.Subba Rao Vs State Through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh, 4)Criminal Appeal No. 497/2012 - Jandel Singh and others Vs State 92 SC No.1941/2022 of Madhya Pradesh, 4) State Vs Mohammed Danish @ Aasif
- 5) (2018) 10 SCC 509 - Shamim Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) with due respect to the ratio laid down in the said judgments, are not applicable to the present case on hand.
48. On the other hand counsel for the accused persons relied on the judgments reported in (2021) 20 SCC 38 - Jayan Vs State of Kerala - with due respect to the ratio laid down in the said judgment, that the test identification parade is necessary. In the present case PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 have deposed in their evidence at that time it was dark in the house and they have not seen the accused persons. They have not known the address and occupation of the accused persons. At the same time PW27 deposed he has shown the photos of accused persons, witnesses have identified the accused persons. PW12 deposed she do not know the accused persons, when it appears in the TV as well as news papers she came to know about the accused persons. So also above said witnesses have not stated they have seen the accused persons and also they are residing in the said 93 SC No.1941/2022 place. Under such circumstances it is necessary to conduct the TI Parade.
49. Counsel for the accused persons relied on the judgments reported in -1) 2013 Crl. L.J.-2339 (S.C) Sunil Kumar another Vs state of Jarkhand and in another case
2) 2002 SCC 461 - Bhim Singh Vs State of Haryana - wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15 are deposed in different version regarding identification of the accused and assault made by the accused as well as accident was taken on Shantipura road, so also place of incident. Further PW1 who is the father of the deceased, PW2 eye witness, PW22 have not supported the prosecution case. There is no corroboration in the evidence of father of the deceased as well as PW2 and PW22. Therefore with due respect to the ratio laid down in the above said judgments are applicable to the present case on hand.
50. Counsel for the accused persons relied on the judgment reported in 1971(3) SCC 436 - Yudhistir Vs State 94 SC No.1941/2022 of Madhya Pradesh. In the present case evidence of above said witnesses there are omissions and improvements and also independent mahazar witnesses, vehicle seizer mahazar witnesses are not supported the prosecution case. Under such circumstances above said judgment is applicable to the present case on hand.
51. On perusal of the records, when PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 have not at all stated in their evidence they have identified the Accused persons, they have given name and address of the Accused persons. Under such circumstances it is necessary to conduct the test identification. Moreover in the evidence of PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 deposed that in the said house there is no electricity. PW14 deposed at distance of 100mtrs there is electricity pole, if a person came to their house in the night hours then they see the said person in mobile torch. Admittedly house of PW1 is not having any electricity supply. Alleged incident has been taken at 10.00pm., even though said witnesses have not stated that the Accused persons have been seen in the light. When the incident was taken in the night time when it was dark then 95 SC No.1941/2022 the persons may not see the accused persons and assaulted made by the Accused persons. PW11, Pw12, PW14 have deposed in their evidence that the accused persons have assaulted on PW11 and he was taken to onion and coconut shop where the Accused persons have assaulted with wooden re-piece. Harikrishna came to the said shop and asked why you are assaulting my younger brother then the Accused persons have assaulted Harikrishna. Even though PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 have not stated in their evidence in the said shop there was light, then they have seen that the Accused persons assaulting on PW11 and Harikrishna. PW12, PW14 and PW15 have deposed in their evidence PW1 and PW12 begged the Accused persons holding their feet not to assault, they will pay the cost of mirror. When there is no light in the house of PW1 and also PW27 has not placed document or evidence to come to conclusion in the said shop there was light. Under such circumstances how they have identified the Accused persons has not at all stated by the above said witnesses. Even they have stated they have seen the Accused persons by seeing the photographs and 96 SC No.1941/2022 they deposed police have told the Accused persons and witness deposed he has seen the Accused No.2 first time in the court. Under such circumstances TI parade is necessary. But I.O. has not conducted the same.
52. PW27 deposed he has conducted mahazar of Eicher vehicle. PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 have not at all stated in their evidence TATA 1412 LPT vehicle is belongs to the Accused No.2 nor Accused No.1, 3 and 4. All the above said witnesses have deposed said vehicle belongs to Accused No.2 nor other accused. Even prosecution has not produced any document to come to conclusion said vehicle belongs to Accused No.2. PW27 is has not produced 'B' register extract of said vehicle. The causes for alleged incident is broke the side mirror of the said vehicle, inspite of it prosecution has not produced documents to come to conclusion said vehicle belongs to Accused No.2. For the sake of arguments assuming that said vehicle belongs to the Accused No.2 then how Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are causes for the alleged incident. They are not the owners of the said vehicle nor partners of the said vehicle. Admittedly PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 have deposed in their 97 SC No.1941/2022 evidence that there is no previous enmity between them and Accused persons nor they have seen the Accused persons prior to the incident nor they are resident of same area. Under such circumstances why the Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have went to the house of PW1 and assaulted on PW11 and Harikrishna has not at all explained by the prosecution as they are not owners of the said vehicle. PW27 deposed he has seized the Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-06-AA-3611, even though the above said witnesses have not at all stated how the Bolero vehicle was involved in the said case. PW27 has collected the documents pertaining to the cement mixer lorry bearing No.KA-51-AC- 8028, at the same time he has not collected documents pertaining to the TATA 1412 LPT vehicle and Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-06-AA-3611. Even though he has not recorded the statement of owners of the said vehicles. On the other hand PW27 deposed accused No.2 has given the statement that he is the owner of TATA 1412 LPT vehicle. Based on the voluntary statement of the Accused it cannot come to conclusion said vehicle belongs to the Accused No.2.
98 SC No.1941/2022
53. As per prosecution case that the Accused No.2 was transporting the onion bags from Yashwanthpura to Shantipura i.e., shop of Bhaskar accused No.1. In this regard PW27 has not at all collected from which mandi Accused No.2 has taken the onion bags and where he was downloaded the said onion bags. In this regard there is no evidence from PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15. PW27 has not at all collected document from Yashwanthpura mandi. PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15 deposed in their evidence Eicher vehicle was stopped on the road then mirror of the said vehicle was broken. Normally no vehicles can park on the road nor stop the vehicle on the road. Vehicles may parked by the side of road nor in the parking place. Witnesses have not at all stated in their evidence that they have seen the said vehicle. Except PW15 none of the above witnesses have deposed they have seen the said vehicle. Even they have not stated they have seen mirror broken vehicle. Said witnesses have not at all stated in their evidence that the alleged incident was taken infront of Sankalpa Cafe and Condiments. As per the prosecution case that the accused No.1 is having onion and coconut 99 SC No.1941/2022 shop in the said place. PW1, PW11, PW12 and PW14 have not at all stated in their evidence the onion shop belongs to the accused No.1. PW27 has not collected any document to show that accused No.1 is having onion and coconut shop. PW27 has not stated that accused No.1 is the owner of the said shop nor he was taken on rental basis nor lease basis. Accused No.2 was transporting onion bags to the shop of accused No.1. In this regard prosecution has not at all placed any single document to come to conclusion accused No.1 is having said shop. Even witnesses have not stated said shop is having name plate or not. While conducting mahazar that the onion and coconut shop was closed and he has not opened the said shop, conducted the mahazar. As per Ex.P16 mahazar "ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ಬಾಗಿಲು ಮುಚ್ಚಿದ್ದು ಲಾಕ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ಪಕ್ಕ ದ ಸಂದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿದಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಕೋಲನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಹಾಜರಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದು ". As per Ex.P16 said shop was locked and in the said shop PW27 has not conducted the mahazar. As per the prosecution case PW11 and Harikrishna was assaulted with hand kicked with legs and assaulted with wooden re-piece from the said shop Harikrishna was taken to the road and he pushed while cement mixer lorry was 100 SC No.1941/2022 coming on the said road. Inspite of it PW27 has not opened the door and conducted the mahazar in the onion and coconut shop. PW27 has stated he was recorded the voluntary statement of the accused persons. Based on the voluntary statement he was seized the vehicles. No doubt voluntary statement of the accused is to be considered only for recovery of material objects. In the present case eye witness PW22 has given the statement " ಭಾಸ್ಕ ರ ಅಂಗಡಿಗೆ ಈರುಳ್ಳಿ ಮೂಟೆ ಇಳಿಸಲು ಬಂದಿದ್ದ ಬುಲೇರೋ ವಾಹನದ ಮಾಲೀಕ ವಿಜಯಕುಮಾರ ಹಾಗೂ ಲಾರಿ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಸಿಮೆಂಟ ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ರಮೇಶಬಾಬುರವರು ಸೇರಿಕೊಂಡು ಬುಡ್ಡೆ ಬಾಬುರವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಹರಿಕೃಷ್ಣ ಹಾಗೂ ಸುಭಾಷ ಎಂಬುವ ಹುಡುಗನನ್ನು ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಾ ಭಾಸ್ಕ ರ ಅಂಗಡಿಯ ಒಳಗಡೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಕೈಗಳಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದು ಕಾಲಿನಿಂದ ಒದ್ದ ರು". As per the Ex.P48 said Bolero vehicle came to shop of accused No.1 to download onion bags. So also in the voluntary statement of accused No.2 and accused No.3, they have stated in the statement Bolero vehicle belongs to Vijay. In the said statement that they have not at all stated said vehicle number. As per the prosecution case accused No.2 was taken the TATA LPT 1412, in the said vehicle from Yashwanthpura mandi to the shop of accused No.1 onion 101 SC No.1941/2022 bags were taken and unloaded. Even though Ex.P48, Ex.P60 and Ex.P61 in the Bolero vehicle onion bags were taken and brought to the shop of accused No.1. Prosecution case is not clear that accused No.2 brought the onion or accused No.4 brought the onion. Even though why the said Bolero vehicle was seized by the PW27 is not at all explained in his evidence. In support of the said fact prosecution has not produced the any independent evidence. Further PW1, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 have not at all stated in their evidence said Bolero vehicle nor how the said Bolero vehicle was involved in the present case, has not at all explained. The said witness deposed in their evidence Harikrishna was taken the small Jelly stone and try to hit Mallikarjun, said stone was hit to Eicher vehicle. Apart from it they have not at all stated Bolero vehicle was also there in the said place nor accused persons used for commission of offence has not at all explained by the prosecution. PW20 deposed said concrete mixer lorry is in the name of Matru Concrete, he was appeared on behalf of Matru Concrete in the station and produced the document. He further deposed Matru 102 SC No.1941/2022 concrete was maintained by M.D. by name Sheela K.M. PW27 has not made notice to said Sheela K.M. who is the proper person to say that said vehicle was proceeded on the said road on the said date and who is the driver of the said vehicle. Notice was not issued to the said Sheela K.M., and she was not examined and there was no document to show that there was agreement between PW20 and Matru concrete.
54. PW1, PW3 have not stated in their evidence police have conducted the mahazar in the said place on 19.01.2022. They have not stated in their evidence collected the frock of PW14 and cloths of PW11 and blood stained mud through ear buds and sample mud and T- shirt in their presence and conducted the mahazar. PW4 and PW5 Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-06-AA-3611 and TATA LPT 1412 seizer mahazar witnesses, that they have not at all stated in their evidence police have seized the said vehicle in their presence as per Ex.P13. PW6 is the another seizer mahazar witness in his presence seized one wooden re-piece, have not at all stated in their evidence that police have conducted mahazar as per Ex.P16 and 103 SC No.1941/2022 seized wooden re-piece. PW7 and PW18 are the Cement Mixer lorry bearing No. KA-50-AC-8028 seizer mahazar witnesses that they have not at all stated in their evidence police have conducted in their evidence as per Ex.P18 and seized the said vehicle. PW8, PW9, PW10 are the inquest mahazar witnesses, they deposed in the cross examination they do not know contents of Ex.P20 and they have signed on the said document at the station. Therefore from these witnesses prosecution has failed to prove in their presence seized the above said articles. Therefore there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW27 and above said witnesses. Therefore from the said witnesses prosecution has failed to prove its case.
55. PW11 deposed Harikrishna studied upto ITI and he was doing driving Bolero vehicle in Shantipura. PW12 deposed her son Harikrishna was studying Diploma. PW1 and PW12 have not stated Harikrishna was working or not. So also PW11 working in the Petrol bunk or as lift worker and he was working as timber worker. Therefore regarding occupation of the said persons are deposed in different manner. So also witnesses have deposed in different 104 SC No.1941/2022 regarding PW15 and Harikrishna went to tea or to bring milk. Even though PW11 deposed he and Harikrishna were used to take alcohol. PW12, PW14 and PW15 have deposed they do not know Harikrishna was having habit of taking alcohol. At the same time doctor who conducted the Post mortem PW21 and PW28 who tested the small intestine and its particles, parts of liver and testicles and blood of Harikrishna, have deposed in their evidence that Harikrishna was consumed alcohol. Inspite of it PW12, PW14 and PW15 deposed they do not know Harikrishna was consumed alcohol. Therefore the evidence of PW21 and PW28 is to be taken into consideration rather than oral testimony of PW12, PW12 and PW15. However PW11 admitted he and Harikrishna were consumed alcohol. Therefore the evidence of PW21 and PW28 clearly reveals that Harikrishna was consumed alcohol. Further PW25 and PW27 have not at all collected CCTV footage that the accused persons have committed the alleged offence. CCTV footage is the material document to come to conclusion, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 assaulted the PW11 and Harikrishna and accused No.2 pushed Harikrishna when 105 SC No.1941/2022 the cement mixer lorry was coming on the said road. Therefore without cogent and sufficient evidence it is unsafe to come to conclusion that the accused persons have committed the alleged offence. Without proper, cogent evidence Court cannot convict the accused persons. Hence the prosecution failed to bring home the guilty against the accused persons by producing cogent evidence. Accordingly, I have answered Points Nos.1 to 5 in the Negative.
56. Point No.6 :- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused No. 1 to 4 are hereby acquitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 448, 302, 323, 324, 342 r/w 34 of IPC.
The M.O.1 to M.O.10 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
Jail authority are hereby directed to release the accused No.2 forthwith if he is not required in any other case.106 SC No.1941/2022
The personal bond and surety bond
executed by the accused No. 1 to 4 in
compliance to section 437(A) of Cr.P.C, same shall be continued for a period of 6 months from today in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
(To my dictation, transcripted by the Stenographer, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 19th day of October, 2024).
sd/-
(A. EARANNA) LXIIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Budde Babu
P.W.2 Raghu
P.W.3 Muruli
P.W.4 Vidya Sagar
P.W.5 Abhi
P.W.6 Venkatesh
P.W.7 Naveen
P.W.8 Seva Narasimha
P.W.9 Y. Shiva
P.W.10 D. Ishwar
P.W.11 Subhash
P.W.12 Nagamallu
P.W.13 Subendra Barman
P.W.14 Lavanya
107 SC No.1941/2022
P.W.15 Mallikarjun
P.W.16 Dr. Sudeep Kumar D
P.W.17 Rajesh
P.W.18 Venu Gopal
P.W.19 Santosh
P.W.20 Shivashankar Reddy
P.W.21 Dr. Anwar K A
P.W.22 Basavaraj
P.W.23 Gangadharaiah M.R.
P.W.24 Manjunath P
P.W.25 Mehaboob Guddalli
P.W.26 Dr. Mahadeshwar Swamy
P.W.27 Sandeep S
P.W.28 Sujata K M
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Statement of PW1
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW25
Ex.P2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW27
Ex.P3 Statement of PW1
Ex.P4 to P10 Photographs
Ex.P11 Statement of PW2
Ex.P12 Statement of PW3
Ex.P13 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P13(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P13(c) Signature of PW27
Ex.P14 Statement of PW4
Ex.P15 Statement of PW5
Ex.P16 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P16(b) Signature of PW17
Ex.P16(c) Signature of PW27
Ex.P17 Statement of PW6
108 SC No.1941/2022
Ex.P18 Seizer mahazar
Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P18(b) Signature of PW13
Ex.P18(c) Signature of PW18
Ex.P18(d) Signature of PW27
Ex.P19 Notice
Ex.P19(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P19(b) Signature of PW9
Ex.P19(c) Signature of PW10
Ex.P19(d) Signature of PW27
Ex.P20 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P20(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P20(b) Signature of PW9
Ex.P20(c) Signature of PW10
Ex.P20(d) Signature of PW27
Ex.P21 to 36 Total 16 photos
Ex.P37 & P.38 Two photographs
Ex.P39 RC card of KA-51-AC-8028
Ex.P40 Police intimation
Ex.P40(a) Signature of PW16
Ex.P40(b) Signature of PW25
Ex.P41 Wound certificate
Ex.P41(a) Signature of PW16
Ex.P42 Police intimation
Ex.P42(a) Signature of PW16
Ex.P42(b) Signature of PW25
Ex.P43 Statement of PW17
Ex.P44 Certificate U/s 65(b)
Ex.P44(a) Signature of PW19
Ex.P44(b) Signature of PW27
Ex.P45 RC Card, Insurance permit,
fitness certificate and emission certificate Ex.P46 PM report Ex.P46(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P46(b) Signature of PW27 Ex.P47 Final Opinion report Ex.P47(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P48 Statement of PW22 Ex.P49 Report Ex.P49(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P49(b) Signature of PW27 Ex.P50 Report 109 SC No.1941/2022 Ex.P50(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P50(b) Signature of PW27 Ex.P51 FIR Ex.P51(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P52 Report Ex.P52(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P52(b) Signature of PW27 Ex.P53 Report Ex.P54 Request letter Ex.P54(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P55 Acknowledgment Ex.P55(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P56 Photograph Ex.P57 Reminder letter Ex.P57(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P58 Reminder letter Ex.P58(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P59 Reminder letter Ex.P59(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P60 Statement of PW27 Ex.P61 Statement of PW27 Ex.P62 Request letter Ex.P62(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P63 Report Ex.P63(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P64 & 65 TATA LPT Two photographs Ex.P66 & 67 Bulero Two photographs Ex.P68 Request letter Ex.P68(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P69 Acknowledgment Ex.P69(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P70 Opinion Report List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1 - Blue Underwear labeled R Tex
M.O.2 - Black checkered white pants
M.O.3 - Sacred Thread 4 in number
M.O.4 - Nail Clipping of right hand
M.O.5 - Nail Clipping of left hand
M.O.6 - Ear bud containing Blood sample
110 SC No.1941/2022
M.O.7 - Sample ear bud
M.O.8 - Blood stained Frock
M.O.9 - One T-shirt
M.O.10 - Wooden Re piece
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :-
Ex.D1 - Statement of Witness Lavanya Ex.D2 & 3 - Two photos
List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL (A. EARANNA), LXIIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.