Bangalore District Court
Annapoorneshwari Nagar Ps vs A1-Praveena Alias Vaale on 20 April, 2024
1 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
KABC010207412020
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
Sri. Kashim Churikhan, B.A., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 20th day of April 2024.
S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 & 1115 of 2022
Complainant: State by Annapoorneshwari
Nagar Police, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused No.1 1. Praveena @ Vaale,
to 12 in S.C.No. S/o Shivanna,
902/2020: Aged about 22 years,
2. Naveena @ Vaale Naveen,
S/o Late Madhusudhan,
Aged about 35 years,
A-1 & A-2 are residing
Behind Anjaneya Temple,
Kachohalli Main Road,
Doddagollarahatti,
Magadi Main road,
Bengaluru.
3. Udaya @ Uvi @ Cholurupalya,
S/o Anand,
2 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.333, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross,
Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
Ullala, Bengaluru.
4. Anil @ Ani @ Cholurupalya,
S/o Late Srinivas,
Aged about 28 years,
1st Main, Chanal Road,
Cholurupalya, Magadi road,
Bengaluru.
5. Naveenkumar @ Manju,
S/o Radhakrishna,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.42, 2nd main, 1st cross,
Swathantranagar, Shrirampura,
Bengaluru.
6. Krishna P. @ Kariya
S/o Babu, 27 years,
R/at No.33, 2nd Cross,
1st Main Road,
Manjunathnagar,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru.
7. Venu @ Gonne,
S/o Basavaraju, 23 years,
R/at near Chitrakuta school,
Nagadevanahalli,
Bengaluru.
8. Rameshkumar @ Ramesh @
Sonar, S/o Nagaraju,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.32, 1st Main road,
2nd Cross, Revanna Layout,
Nayandahalli, Bengaluru.
9. Arvind @ Killi,
S/o Ravi, 25 years,
3 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
R/at No.20/13, Kalappa block,
Ramachandrappa Road,
Shrirampura, Bengaluru.
10. John Anthony @ Toni,
S/o John Bhaskar,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.28, 2nd Main road,
7th Cross, Vinayaka Layout,
Nayandahalli, Bengaluru.
11. Chaitanya Kumar S. @Harish,
S/o B.S.Shivananjappa,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.3047, 14th A Main,
8th Cross, Attiguppe,
Vijaynagar, Bengaluru.
12. Poorneshgowda L. @ Poorna,
S/o Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.18, 2nd Cross,
Anjanappa Layout,
BCC Layout, Vijaynagar,
Bengaluru.
(A-1: u/b/w: By Sri. J.R.B, Adv.)
(A-2 to 6 & 12: By Sri. S.K.S, Adv.)
(A-7 to 10: By Sri. K.R.S, Adv.)
(A-11: By Sri. C.K.N, Adv.)
Accused No.13 13. Puneeth Kumar R @
& 14 in S.C.No. Punee @ Pulsar Puneeth,
554/2021: S/o Ramachandra N.
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.42/12, 2nd Floor,
1st Cross, 1st Main road,
Attiguppe, Vijaynagar,
Bengaluru- 40.
4 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
14. Puneethkumar S. @ Puneeth
@Punee @RX Punee @Burude,
S/o Siddegowda,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.9, Dwaraka Nilaya,
10th Cross, Behind Muneshwara
Temple, Eranapalya Main road,
Annapoorneshwarinagar,
Bengaluru.
(A-13: By Sri. J.L, Adv.)
(A-14: By Sri. C.K.N, Adv.)
Accused No.15, 15. Mohan @Double Meter Mohan,
16 & 18 in S.C.No. S/o Late Venkateshmurthy,
233/2022: Aged about 32 years,
R/at Rayara Doddi Village,
Ramanagar Town,
Ramanagar.
16. Nagaraj @ Wilsongarden Naga,
S/o Jayaraj,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.165, 1st Main,
4th Cross, Vinayakanagar,
Wilson Garden, Bengaluru.
18. Anand, S/o late Gangadhar,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.24, 3rd Cross,
Club Road, Opp. to Club,
Hosahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru.
(A-15: u/b/w: By Sri. S, Adv.)
(A-16: u/b/w: By Sri. K.R.S, Adv.)
(A-18: By Sri. A.C.S, Adv.)
Accused No.17 17. Sharath S,
in S.C.No. S/o late Srinivas V,
1115/2022: Aged about 25 years,
5 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
R/at C/o Lakshminarayana,
No.18, 2nd B Main,
2nd Cross, Anjanappa Layout,
BCC Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru.
(A-18: By Sri. A.C.S, Adv.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.C.No.902/2020 and split-up cases in
S.C.No.554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022 are arising out
of one and the same crime number. Hence, common
judgment is passed.
2. The Police Inspector of Annapoorneshwari Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru has laid the charge sheet
against the accused No.1 to 18 for the alleged offences
punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B), 302 r/w
Sec.149 of IPC.
3. The learned Magistrate after complying with the
provisions u/s.207 Cr.P.C, has committed the case
u/s.209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru as the alleged offences are
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After
committal of the case, S.C.No.902/2020 is made over to
this Court for trial in accordance with law. While
committing the case, the accused No.13 to 18 were
6 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
absconding and hence, the trial Court has registered
split up cases against accused No.13 and 14, accused
No.15, 16 and 18 and accused No.17 and directed the
complainant Police to file split up charge sheets against
them.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
Prior to 27.06.2020, the accused No.1 to 18 in the
car garage of the C.W.37 made conspiracy to commit
the murder of S. Subramanya @ Subbu on old enmity
with him. On 27.06.2020 at about 9.50 p.m. accused
made unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons
came on two wheeler and car and other vehicles to
Mallathahalli, MPM Layout, 4th Main road, 9th Cross, in
front of house No.205, where said S. Subramanya was
talking in phone, all accused persons surrounded him
and assaulted on him with deadly weapons and when S.
Subramanya tried to escape from them, the accused
chased him and at the 2nd floor of the building, accused
again assaulted on him by deadly weapons and caused
fatal injuries and committed his murder.
5. The accused No.1 and 16 are in JC in other case,
they are secured under body warrant. On securing the
presence of accused No.2 to 15, 17 and 18, this Court
has framed charge against them separately for the
7 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
offences punishable u/s.143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B), 302
r/w Sec.149 of IPC. The prosecution in proof of its case
examined P.Ws.1 to 38 and got marked the documents
Exs.P.1 to 133 and M.Os.1 to 45. After closure of the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, the case was posted
for recording the statements of accused u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C. The accused have denied the incriminating
evidence stated against them and have not chosen to
adduce any defense evidence.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. The points raised for determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that prior to
27.06.2020, accused No.1 to 18 made
conspiracy in the car garage of the C.W.37
to commit the murder of S. Subramanya @
Subbu and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.120(B) r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on
27.06.2020 at about 9.50 pm, at
Mallathahalli, MPM Layout, 4th Main road,
9th Cross, in front of house No.205 within
the jurisdiction of Annapoorneshwarinagar
Police Station, accused No.1 to 18 were
being the members of the unlawful
assembly in furtherance of common object
to commit crime assembled and thereby
8 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
committed an offence punishable u/s.143
r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on the same
date, time and place, accused No.1 to 18
were being the members of the unlawful
assembly in furtherance of common
object, assembled with deadly weapons
and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.144 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on the same
date, time and place, accused No.1 to 18
became the members of the unlawful
assembly in furtherance of common
object, committed rioting an offence
punishable u/s.147 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on the same
date, time and place accused No.1 to 18
became the members of the unlawful
assembly in furtherance of common object
by holding deadly weapons and committed
rioting and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.148 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on the same
date, time and place, accused No.1 to 18
became the members of the unlawful
assembly in furtherance of common object
to commit crime, all accused came on two
wheeler and car and other vehicles to
Mallathahalli, MPM Layout, 4th Main road,
9th Cross, in front of house No.205 where S.
Subramanya was talking in phone and all
9 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
accused surrounded him and assaulted on
him with deadly weapons and he escaped
from them and was climbing steps to the
2nd floor of the building, accused chased
him and assaulted on him by deadly
weapons and caused fatal injuries and
committed his murder and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s.302
r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
7. What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Points No.1 to 6: Negative,
Point No.7: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 6: Since these points are
interconnected to each, they are taken up for discussion
together to avoid repetition of facts.
The prosecution, in order to prove that deceased
S. Subramanya met with homicidal death and the
complicity of accused persons in commission of his
murder, has tendered evidence of 38 witnesses in all.
Among them, P.W.1 is informant, wife of deceased S.
Subramanya as well as eyewitness to the incident of
murder. P.Ws.13, 14 and 16 to 21 are eyewitnesses to
the alleged incident. P.Ws.12 and 15 are sisters and
P.W.23 is father-in-law of the deceased, who are hearsay
10 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
witnesses. P.W.24 is official of BBMP. P.W.25 is the owner
of the house where the deceased and P.W.1 were
residing, which is the spot of incident. P.W.26 is owner of
motorcycle that was allegedly used by the accused No.8
on date of incident. P.W.32 is RC owner of the car
bearing No.KA-04/MQ-9270, which was allegedly used
by accused No.1 on date of incident. P.W.30 is the
medical officer. P.W.36 is Senior Scientific Officer of
RFSL. P.Ws.2 to 6 are Spot-mahazars witnesses. P.Ws.6
to 10 are witnesses to seizure panchanama. P.Ws.11 and
22 are witnesses to inquest panchanama. P.Ws.28, 29,
31 and 33 to 35 are Police officials who have carried out
directions of investigating officers. P.Ws.27, 37 and 38
are the Police Inspectors who have investigated in the
matter and filed charge sheet and additional charge
sheets.
10. P.W.1- Anusha being first informant, wife of the
deceased and eyewitness to the incident has deposed
before the Court that her husband was running a Jim
and except that, she does not know about his other
matter; she had never seen the accused before; she
does not know anything about the cases registered
against her husband and about any life threat to her
husband. She has also deposed that on 27.06.2020, the
Police took her signature on Ex.P.1. She identified her
11 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
signature on Ex.P.1. She has deposed that she has not
given any statement and further statement to the
Police. Though she has admitted that her husband was
murdered, she has deposed that does not know when
and who murdered him and the cause of his murder. She
has identified the photos at M.Os.1 to 19 and clothes of
her husband/ deceased at M.Os.20 to 22. She has also
deposed that she does not know on which parts of her
husband's body sustained injuries; on which dates she
visited the Police Station and for how many times she
gave statements. She has further deposed that she had
not given complaint against accused and she does not
know about the incident.
As per prosecution case, P.W.1 being wife of the
deceased, was present at the house/ spot of incident
and at the alleged time of incident of assault on
deceased, but when she has deposed that she does not
know who murdered her husband, and when she has
denied the very filing of report to the Police against the
accused, the learned Prosecutor has treated this witness
as hostile and cross-examined her.
In the cross-examination by the learned PP also,
P.W.1 has totally denied the case of the prosecution that
due to old enmity, near her house, the accused persons
have assaulted her husband with deadly weapons and
12 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
committed his murder. Thus, P.W.1 has given go-bye
evidence by denying all the suggestions of learned
Prosecutor in respect of prosecution case that the
accused are reason for homicidal death of deceased.
11. As per prosecution, P.W.13- Pradeep, P.W.14-
Dheeraj, P.W.16- Shankaraiah, P.W.17- Ranganatha Rao,
P.W.18- Kumar, P.W.19- Manu, P.W.20-Shivakumar and
P.W.21-Neelakantaiah are eyewitnesses to the alleged
incident of murder of deceased. But all these witnesses
have deposed that they do not know about the incident
and they have not given statements to the Police in this
regard. Since P.Ws.13, 14 and 16 to 21 being eye-
witnesses to the incident have not deposed
incriminating evidence in support of prosecution case,
the learned Prosecutor treated them as hostile
witnesses and cross-examined them.
In the cross-examination also, P.Ws.13, 14 and 16
to 21 have affirmed of what they stated in chief-
examination and totally denied all the suggestions put
forth by the learned Prosecutor in respect of they
witnessing the incident of assault and murder of
deceased by the accused. Therefore, evidence of these
witnesses is not of any assistance to prosecution.
13 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
12. P.W.12- Manjushri and P.W.15- Yashoda are sisters
and P.W.23- Nagaraj is father-in-law of deceased. They
are hearsay witnesses so far as incident of murder is
concerned. In their evidence, P.Ws.12 and 15 have
deposed that they do not know the transaction between
the deceased and accused. They identified the photos at
M.Os.1 to 19. P.W.23 has deposed that he does not know
who committed the murder of deceased and about this
case. P.Ws.12, 15 and 23 have deposed that they have
not given statements before the Police. Therefore, the
learned PP treated these witnesses as hostile and cross-
examined them with the permission of the Court.
In the cross-examination also, P.Ws.12, 15 and 23
have denied the suggestions made by the Prosecutor
that though they know the incident of this case, in order
to assist the accused, they are deposing false evidence.
Therefore, evidence of these witnesses is not helpful to
the prosecution to prove its case.
13. P.W.2- Bharath Bhushan and P.W.3- Akash are
panch witnesses to Spot- mahazar at Ex.P.2. They have
identified their signatures on Ex.P.2. They have deposed
that about 2 years back, Police have called them for
inquiry and took their signatures at Annapoorneshwari
Police Station; the Police have not drawn Mahazar and
sketch in their presence and they do not know the
14 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
contents of Ex.P.2 and they have not given any
statement to the Police.
In their cross-examination by learned Public
Prosecutor, they have denied the suggestions that the
Police have issued notice to them as per Ex.P.3 and they
were present at the time of drawing Mahazar at the spot
as per Ex.P.2. They have also denied that the Police
have collected blood stained cotton, cotton, blood stains
collected from wall of the compound, Puma Chappal and
DVR Box from the spot, which are marked as M.Os.23 to
27. P.Ws.2 and 3 have also denied that they have given
statements as per Exs.P.4 and P.5 respectively.
14. As per prosecution, P.W.4- Gopi Krishna and P.W.5-
Chethan are witnesses to Spot- mahazar drawn as per
Ex.P.7 at the spot where the accused have made
conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased. They
have identified their signatures on Ex.P.7. They have
deposed that they signed the document when the Police
called them to Police Station and Police did not take
them to any spot. Hence, the learned PP has treated
them as hostile witnesses and cross-examined them
with the permission of the Court.
In their cross-examination, they have stated that
they do not know whether the accused No.1 to 9 were in
15 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
Police custody when they were called. They have denied
the suggestion that the Police drew Mahazar as per
Ex.P.11 at the spot where the accused have showed the
spot where they did conspiracy. They have also denied
the suggestions that they gave statements to the Police
as per Exs.P.9 and 10 respectively. Hence, their evidence
is also not helpful to the prosecution case to prove the
spot of conspiracy.
15. P.W.6- Srikanth and P.W.7- Sandeep are Seizure-
mahazar witnesses to Ex.P.11, which was drawn at the
time of seizure of vehicles bearing No. KA-41/EP-7966,
KA-02/EV-1341, and Renault Duster Car bearing No.KA-
04/MQ-9270, machetes, Longs and dagger, which are at
M.Os.28, 29, 30 to 35. These witnesses have also turned
hostile to prosecution case by deposing that two years
back the Police called them to the Police Station and
there they took their signatures. They have deposed
that at that time, the accused were not at the Police
Station and the Police have not seized any property in
their presence and not recorded their statements.
In the cross-examination also they have denied the
suggestions made by the learned Prosecutor in respect
of seizure of vehicles and material objects at M.Os.30 to
35 and drawing of Mahazar as per Ex.P.11.
16 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
16. P.W.8- Narasimaiah is panch witness to Seizure-
mahazar - Ex.P.15, P.W.9- Dilip and P.W.10- Rakesh are
witnesses to Seizure-mahazar -Ex.P.18. They have
deposed that they do not know anything about accused;
they have not seen the accused; the Police have not
seized any property in their presence and not taken their
statements; P.W.8 has deposed that he does not know
the contents of Ex.P.15, and P.W.9 and 10 have deposed
that they do not know the contents of Exs.P.18.
According to prosecution, the blood stained clothes of
accused No.1 to 9 were seized at the place shown by
the accused where they have threw their clothes, these
are marked as M.Os.36 to 39. Ex.P.18- Seizure-mahazar
was drawn at the time of seizure of two daggers and
one machate, which are marked at M.Os.40 to 42.
In their cross-examination P.Ws.8 to 10 have
denied the suggestions and stated that they have not
given statements to the Police as per Exs.P.17, 20 and
21 respectively.
17. P.W.26- Girish is owner of motorcycle bearing
No.KA-41/EP-7966. As per prosecution, P.W.26 gave the
said vehicle to accused No.8, who has used the same for
commission of offence. P.W.26 has deposed before the
Court that he has no acquaintance with accused No.8
and his mother; since there was no document in respect
17 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
of said vehicle, the Police have seized it and thereafter
he got released the vehicle by the order of Court; Police
did not record his statement and did not show the
accused No.8 and he never gave his vehicle to accused
No.8. The prosecution has failed to prove its contention
that the accused No.8 used the vehicle of P.W.6 for
commission of alleged offence.
18. According to prosecution, P.W.32- Roopa is RC
owner of the Car bearing No.KA-04/MQ-9270, which was
used by accused No.1 for commission of offence. She
has deposed before the Court that she met with an
accident in the year 2016, so she sold the said car
through a Sales executive. She has further deposed that
thereafter she came to know that accused No.1-
Praveen had purchased her car and on 25.07.2020, the
Police informed about it and she had given statement to
the Police that she had sold the said car.
During course of cross-examination by learned
counsel for accused No.1 to 3, P.W.32 has stated that
she has not got released the car from the custody of
Court or Police. She has denied the suggestion that still
she is the owner of the said car and it is in her custody.
19. P.W.24 is the BBMP official. He has deposed about
his part of duty done in issuing the copies of documents
18 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
in respect of building of C.W.38 (place of incident) as per
Exs.P.42 to 44 on the requisition of Investigating Officer
as per Ex.P.41.
20. P.W.11- Sharath Kumar and P.W.22- Manjunath are
witnesses to Inquest panchanama- Ex.P.23. They have
identified their signatures on Exs.P.22 and 23 and
deposed before the Court that they signed the
documents on the say of Police; they do not know about
deceased and contents of Exs.P.22 and 23. Hence, the
learned Prosecutor treated them as hostile witnesses
and with the permission of the Court, they were cross-
examined.
During the cross-examination by learned
Prosecutor, P.Ws.11 and 22 have denied the suggestions
regarding drawing of inquest panchanama in their
presence as per Ex.P.23 and its contents. They have not
identified the photos of the deceased at M.Os.1 to 11
and photos of spot of incident at M.Os.12 to 19. They
have also denied that they have given statements to the
Police as per Exs.P.24 and 39 respectively.
21. P.W.30- Dr. K.V. Sathish is the Medical officer, who
has conducted post-mortem of the deceased on the
requisition of Investigating Officer. He has deposed
before the Court in respect of clothes found over the
19 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
body, external appearance and external injuries over
the body. He has also deposed that he has described the
specific injuries in detail in P.M. Report- Ex.P.64. He has
further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem in
nature and he opined that the death was due to shock
and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab and chop
injuries. He has identified the clothes of deceased at
M.O.20 to 22. He has also deposed that after
examination of 9 articles sent by the Investigating
Officer, he gave opinion report that the injuries found on
the deceased could be caused when assaulted with
these weapons and death is possible if assaulted by said
weapons at M.Os.30 to 35 and 40 to 42.
In the cross-examination by the learned counsel
for accused No.7 to 10 and 16, P.W.30 has admitted the
suggestion that he has not mentioned the time of death.
He has denied that without examining the weapons he
has given his report.
In the cross-examination by the learned counsel
for accused No.1 to 6 and 12, he has admitted that he
has not taken photograph or videograph as there was no
request by the Investigating Officer. He has denied that
as per the medical manual, it is the duty of the doctor
who is conducting autopsy to get the photography and
videography; he has not mentioned the measurements
20 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
of each and every injuries in P.M. report. He has
admitted that development of rigor mortise is one of the
criteria to ascertain the time of the death.
22. Ex.P.64 is Post-mortem Report which shows that
the injuries found on the deceased are antemortem in
nature. It further reveals that the death is due to shock
and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab an chop
injuries sustained. In the presence of documents
brought on record, the prosecution has proved the fact
of homicidal death of deceased, but fails to prove that
on the alleged date, time and place, the accused are the
persons who attacked on deceased and caused his
death.
23. P.W.25- Ravikumar is the owner of the house
building where the deceased was residing, which is
alleged place of incident. He deposed before the Court
that he and his family are residing in 4 th floor; the
informant- P.W.1 and the deceased were his tenants; the
deceased was running Jim; 6 CCTV cameras are fixed to
his building; on the alleged date of incident, he was
travelling to his village along with his family members;
at 10.10 p.m the Police informed him about the incident
through phone; on the next day at 3.15 a.m. he came
near his building. He has also deposed that the Police
21 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
collected DVR from CCTV; Ex.P.45- Certificate u/s.65(b)
is issued by the Police regarding taking of DVR from his
building and he never seen the accused. He has
identified Exs.P.43 and 44 are the documents of his
building and Exs.P.12 to 19 are photos of his building.
In the cross-examination by learned Prosecutor,
P.W.25 has admitted that at the time of getting DVR
from his building, the Police drew Mahazar; he signed
the Sec.65(b) certificate at Ex.P.45; on 27.06.2020, the
Police took the footage of CCTV recordings to the DVR
and from DVR to pen-drive with the assistance of the
laptop and at that time the Police have drawn Mahazar.
He has denied the suggestions that the neighbours of
his building have informed him about the incident; on
16.07.2020, the Police called him to the station and
showed the accused No.1 to 9 and 12 to him and he
came to know that the accused have caused the death
of deceased by assaulting with machete, Longs and
other deadly weapons. He has also denied that he has
given statements to the Police as per Exs.P.46 and
46(a).
In the cross-examination by the counsel for
accused No.1 to 3, 12, 17 and 18, he has admitted that
he cannot definitely say that M.O.27 is the DVR which
was taken by the Police from his house.
22 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
In the cross-examination, he has admitted the
suggestions made by the counsel for accused No.4 to 6
that DVR like M.O.27 is available in the market and he
has not seen the footage of M.O.27. Hence, the
evidence of owner of the building, where the incident of
murder taken place, would not come to support the
prosecution case to prove its case.
24. The evidence of P.Ws.28, 29, 31 and 33 to 35 being
Police personnel, is formal in nature. P.W.28- Chaithanya,
PC, has deposed about apprehending of accused No.18
and producing him before the Investigating Officer and
collecting of deceased clothes and P.M. report - Ex.P.64
from the hospital and handing over the same to the
Investigating Officer with his report as per Ex.P.63.
25. P.W.29- Shivakumar, HC has deposed that on
03.08.2020, he has delivered 20 sealed articles to the
FSL office and collected the acknowledgment from them
as per Ex.P.65. He has also deposed about giving of DVR
to lab for its examination.
26. P.W.31- Siddarth, P.C, has deposed about
apprehension of accused No.13 and 14 and producing
them before the Investigating Officer with report as per
Ex.P.71.
23 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
27. P.W.33- Abhishek V.H, P.C, has deposed about
submission of FIR to the Court as per Ex.P.77. He has
deposed that due to heavy rain, there was delay to
submit FIR to the Magistrate. Ex.P.78 is his report
submitted to the Investigating Officer in this regard.
In the cross-examination by the counsel for
accused, he has denied the suggestion that during delay
time he has tampered the FIR. He has also stated that
he has not mentioned the reason for the delay in his
report- Ex.P.78 and there was no problem for him to go
in Police jeep to submit FIR to the Magistrate.
28. In this aspect of delay in submitting the FIR, the
counsel for accused has relied on the decision reported
in (1980) 4 SCC 425 (Marudanal Augusti -Vs- State of
Kerala), wherein it is held that:
"Once FIR is held to be fabricated or
brought into existence long after the
occurrence, the entire prosecution case
would collapse- Omission to mention
names of eyewitnesses in FIR giving
minute details, and unexplained delay in
dispatch of the FIR to Magistrate besides
other infirmities held, would throw serious
doubt on prosecution case- Criminal trial-
Benefit of doubt.
It is the fact that P.W.33, the Police official who has
submitted the FIR to the Magistrate has admitted that
24 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
there is delay in submission of the same. Though he has
given reason that as there was rain, the delay had
caused, there is no explanation from him for the
suggestion put forth in his cross-examination by the
learned accused counsel as to why he had not used the
departmental jeep. However, the counsel for accused
has not specified what type of fabrication has been done
in the FIR at Ex.P.77. Hence, the above decision referred
by the learned counsel is not applicable to case in hand.
29. P.W.34- Siddappa Poojari, P.C, has deposed about
transmission of dead body to the Victoria hospital
through ambulance and submission of his report as per
Ex.P.79 in this regard.
30. P.W.35- Vinuth, PSI, has deposed about
apprehension of accused No.18 and producing him
before the Investigating Officer with his report as per
Ex.P.80.
31. P.W.27- Naveen Supekar is one of the Investigating
Officers of this case has deposed that on 29.06.2020, he
received the case records from C.W.59; apprehension
and production of accused No.1 to 9 along with vehicles
before him as per report of C.W.42 at Ex.P.48 and
recording of voluntary statements of accused No.1 to 9
25 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
as per Exs.P.49 to 57 respectively. He has also deposed
about drawing of Mahazar as per Ex.P.11 and seizure of
M.Os.30 to 35 and submission of PF to the Court as per
Ex.P.58. He has identified the photos of the deceased at
M.O.43 and 44. He has also deposed about drawing of
Mahazars at the place shown by the accused as per
Exs.P.15 and P.61, and seizure of M.Os.36 to 39 under
Ex.P.15. He has further deposed that he produced the
accused before the Court and handed over the case to
C.W.59.
In the cross-examination P.W.27 has denied the
suggestions made by the counsel for accused that he
has not visited the places and not drawn any Mahazars
as mentioned therein. He has also denied the
suggestion that there was CCTV camera at the Instant
Motor Car garage, where the accused alleged to have
made conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased.
32. P.W.27- Lohith is Investigating Officer who did part
of the investigation of this case. He has deposed that he
recorded the further statement of P.W.1 as per Ex.P.86;
sent requisition to the Court for body warrant against
accused No.15 and 16; he recorded voluntary
statements of accused No.15 and 16; he drew Mahazar
as per Ex.P.88 and seized dagger at M.O.45 and sent PF
to the Court as per Ex.P.90. He has further deposed
26 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
about production of accused No.18 before him and
recording of statements of their staff and panch
witnesses. He has also deposed that he collected the
crime registered against the deceased in Chandra
Layout Police Station as per Exs.P.95 and 96; pertaining
to accused No.16 from Wilson Garden Police as per
Ex.P.98; and in respect of accused No.15 from
Ramanagara Police Station as per Ex.P.100; accused
No.15 and 16 from Channarayanaptna Circle Police
Station as per Ex.P.102; accused No.1 from Chandra
Layout Police as per Ex.P.104 and in respect of accused
No.18 from Byatarayanapura Police Station as per
Ex.P.106. He has also deposed that P.W.13 has given
statement as per Ex.P.28 and after completion of
investigation he submitted additional charge against the
accused.
During the course of cross-examination, P.W.37 has
deposed that in the voluntary statements of accused
No.1 to 12 have named accused No.15 to 18 and
accused No.13 and 14 have named accused No.15 to
18. He has admitted the suggestion that though names
of accused No.15 to 16 are mentioned in the report to
the Police in 1st and 2nd charge sheet, accused No.15 and
16 are not charged and after one year of incident, he
has filed 3rd charge sheet against accused No.15 and 16.
He has denied that the suggestion that he forced P.W.13
27 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
to give statement u/s.164 of Cr.P.C, before the
Magistrate. He has admitted that he has not furnished
the photographs, physical features or identification
marks of accused No.17 and 18 to his staff to apprehend
them.
33. P.W.38- Srinivas V.T, SHO is also Investigating
Officer of this case. He has deposed that on 27.06.2020,
C.W.1 came to the Police Station and recorded her
complaint as per Ex.P.1; he registered crime and sent
FIR as per Ex.P.77; he visited the spot along with
panchas and drew Mahazar as per Ex.P.23; he got taken
the photographs of the deceased as per M.Os.1 to 3 and
photographs of the spot at M.Os.12 to 19; he prepared
Mahazar of the spot as per Ex.P.2 and seized the articles
at M.Os.23 to 27 from the spot; he got prepared the
sketch of the spot as per Ex.P.110; he collected the DVR
from the owner of the building and he recorded the
statements of the witnesses. He has also deposed that
he recorded the voluntary statements of accused No.10
to 12 as per Exs.P.113 to 115 and he drew Mahazar as
per 18 and seized M.Os.40 to 42 at the place shown by
the accused No.10 to 12. He has deposed that C.W.51
has produced clothes of the deceased at M.O.20 to 22
along with P.M. report as per Ex.P.64. He has also
deposed that he sent the seized properties to FSL for
28 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
their scientific examination and he collected the report
in respect of DVD as per Ex.P.123 and documents in
respect of spot of incident as per Exs.P.42 to 44. He has
filed first charge sheet against accused No.1 to 12.
He has further deposed that he has recorded
statements of some witnesses and collected the report
from FSL as per Ex.P.84; he has recorded the voluntary
statement of accused No.14 as per Ex.P.127; he has
recorded the voluntary statement and further statement
of P.W.13 as per Exs.P.128 and 129; he has seized the
vehicle bearing No. KA-01/EJ-1160 at the place shown by
accused No.13 by drawing Mahazar as per Ex.P.130 in
the presence of panchas. Thereafter he filed additional
charge against accused No.13 and 14. He has further
deposed that he collected report from FSL and final
opinion report from the hospital.
In the cross-examination by the learned counsel
for accused, he has admitted that they have not
obtained cameras pertaining to DVR; the company
name of DVR and date of manufacturing is not
mentioned in Ex.P.45- certificate u/s.65(b) of Indian
Evidence Act; DVR like M.O.27 are available at market;
DVD and DVR were sent to FSL, but not pen-drive. He
has denied that Ex.P.123 was prepared by the private
inspectors as per his say and the report of doctors is
29 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
also as per his say. He has admitted that he has given
up the accused No.15 to 18 in the charge sheet by
mentioning as there is no incriminating evidence against
them. He has denied that he has not conducted
investigation in respect of cases against the deceased.
34. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that
though the informant- wife of deceased, relatives of
deceased, eye-witnesses and other circumstantial
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the
evidence of Investigating Officers is corroborated with
the prosecution case. He has further argued that
through the video clips in DVR, the prosecution has
proved that the accused are the assailants who
committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, prays to
convict the accused persons.
35. On the contrary, the learned counsel for accused
sought to acquit the accused by referring the following
citations in support of their defence:
a) (2012) 8 SCC 21 (Rai Sandeep @ Deeput -Vs- State
(NCT of Delhi), wherein it is discussed that "sterling
witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber
whose version should, Therefore, be unassailable.
30 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
In the case in hand, all the eyewitnesses including
the informant, who is wife of deceased, have turned
hostile to the prosecution case. Hence, there is no
sterling witness in this case to prove the allegation of
prosecution case;
b) (2023) 10 SCC 134 (Naresh @ Nehru -Vs- State of
Haryana), wherein the accused are acquitted by
observing one of the reason that from the video clips
the faces of assailants and complainants are not
decipherable.
Herein this case also, the Court has observed that
video clips in DVR, the faces of assailants and
complainants are not decipherable. Hence, the Court
could not convict the accused on the basis of video clips
as argued by the learned Prosecutor since the faces of
accused cannot be figured out in DVR.
c) Crl.A.No.100197/2014 dated 24.03.2023 (Ramesh
Irappa Mutyannatti -Vs- State of Karnataka). In this
criminal appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by
referring the citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar etc, -Vs- State of
Maharashtra reported in (1995) 4 SCC 255, it is held
that: 'it is also settled position of law that in a criminal
trial, the testimony of official witness needs to be
31 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible the
same shall be corroborated in material particulars and
the evidence of independent witnesses'.
In the referred case, the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has said that when the evidence of material
witnesses is not corroborated with the testimony of
official witnesses, Investigating Officer evidence is to be
subjected to strict scrutiny. In this case, the wife of
deceased being informant and other eyewitnesses and
relatives of deceased and also independent witnesses
have turned hostile to prosecution case. The evidence of
official witnesses is subjected to strict scrutiny. There is
no material to corroborate to version of Investigating
Officers. Without corroboration of material witnesses,
the Court could not convict the accused persons only on
the basis of testimony of Investigating Officers as
argument by the learned learned Public Prosecutor.
d) (2022) 4 SCC 735 (Vasudev -Vs- State of Madhya
Pradesh), wherein it is held that: 'the prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of
presumption to rule out the presence of accused'.
e) (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1099 (Arvind Kumar @
Nemichand & Others -Vs- State of Rajasthan ), wherein
32 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
it is observed that: 'an Investigating Officer being a
public servant is expected conduct the investigation
fairly'.
f) (2020) 7 SCC 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar -Vs-
Kailash Rao Gorantyal and others ), wherein it is held
that:
"Production of certificate u/s. 65-B(4) -
Mandatory, but only in case of a
secondary evidence i.e., where primary
evidence is not lead/ original not produced
- Oral admission e.g., by stepping into the
witness box qua such document/
electronic record - Non-consideration of,
as compliance with such mandatory
requirement of production of Sec.65-B(4)
certificate".
The counsel for accused has argued that in view of said
citations, only on the evidence of Police, conviction
cannot be conferred against the accused; and based on
the presumption or assumption evidence, accused
cannot be made guilty; the investigating officers being a
public servant is expected to conduct the investigation
fairly. Production of certificate u/s.65-B of Indian
Evidence Act is mandatory and it can be used only in
the case of secondary evidence. Hence, prays to acquit
the accused persons.
33 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
36. In view of above discussions, it is evident that the
evidence of P.W.38- Investigating Officer is not
corroborated by evidence of complainant/ P.W.1 as she
disowned contents of Ex.P.1. Therefore. contents of
Ex.P.1 under which criminal law was set in motion is not
proved. P.W.27, 37 and 38 being Investigating Officers
have testified of investigating in the crime and filing of
charge sheet and additional charge sheets. In their
cross-examination, they have denied all suggestions
made by the accused counsels in respect the
investigation. Except evidence of Investigating Officers,
none of witnesses have supported story of prosecution.
The entire story is tried to be proved on the evidence of
investigating Officers. They have given evidence based
on information allegedly given by the witnesses. But the
witnesses have denied of giving statements before them
implicating accused persons. There is no material to
show that the accused had animosity against the
deceased and to take revenge on him, they assaulted
caused his murder.
37. The other evidence relied on by the prosecution is
FSL Report- Ex.P.82. The FSL Report reveals that, blood
stain was detected in items No.1 and 3 to 20 and no
blood was detected in item No.2. It further reads that,
items No.1 and 3 to 20 were stained with human blood.
34 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
The seizure of clothes of deceased and weapons is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt as pancha witnesses
did not support story of prosecution. Under these
circumstances, FSL Report alone cannot be based upon
to bring home accused guilty of offences. FSL could be
considered to connect chain of evidence. When direct
evidence has fallen to ground, the FSL report and
alleged seizure cannot be based upon to prove guilt of a
person. Whenever there is direct evidence, case has to
be proved on such direct evidence and as a matter of
corroboration, circumstantial evidence can be relied
upon. When there is no direct evidence, the other
evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to prove guilt
of accused. Hence, the prosecution though has proved
that deceased died homicidal death, it has failed to
prove complicity of accused persons in commission of
murder beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer
points under consideration in the negative.
38. Point No.7: My finding on this point is as per the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 12 in S.C.No.902/2020, the accused Nos.13 and 14 in S.C.No.554/2021, the accused Nos.15, 16 and 18 in S.C.No.233/2022 and the 35 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
accused No.17 in S.C.No.1115/2022 are acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B) and 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
The accused No.1 in S.C.No.902/2020 and the accused Nos.15 & 16 in S.C.No.233/2022 are set at liberty forthwith in the respective cases.
Intimation shall be issued to the Central Prison, Bengaluru.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused No.2 to 14, 17 and 18 stand cancelled, subject to appeal/appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 45 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
Copies of this judgment shall be kept in S.C.No.554/2021, 233/2022 and 1115/2022.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on Computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2024) (Kashim Churikhan) LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
36 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,233 and 1115 of 2022.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1: Anusha
P.W.2: Bharath Bhushan
P.W.3: Akash
P.W.4: Gopi Krishan R.
P.W.5: Chethan
P.W.6: Srikanth
P.W.7: Sandeep
P.W.8: Narasimaiah
P.W.9: Dileep
P.W.10: Rakesh
P.W.11: Sharath Kumar
P.W.12: Manjushree
P.W.13: Pradeep
P.W.14: Deeraj
P.W.15: Yashoda
P.W.16: Shankaraiah
P.W.17: Ranganath
P.W.18: Kumar
P.W.19: Manu
P.W.20: Shivakumar
P.W.21: Neelakantaiah
P.W.22: Manjunath
P.W.23: Nagaraj
P.W.24: Ashok
P.W.25: Ravikumar
P.W.26: Girish
P.W.27: Naveen Supekar
P.W.28: Chaithanya
P.W.29: Shivakumar
P.W.30: Dr. K.V. Sathish
P.W.31: Siddhartha M.
P.W.32: Roopa
P.W.33: Abhishek
P.W.34: Siddu
P.W.35: Vinuth H.R.
37 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
P.W.36: B.R. Mamatha
P.W.37: Lohith B.N.
P.W.38: Srinivasa V.P.
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint
Ex.P.1(a): Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b): Signature of P.W.38..
Ex.P.2: Spot- mahazar
Ex.P.2(a): Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(b): Signature of P.W.3..
Ex.P.2(c): Signature of P.W.38
Ex.P.3 Notice
Ex.P.3(a): Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(b): Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.3(c): Signature of P.W.38
Exs.P.4 & 5: Statements of P.W.2 & 3
Ex.P.6: Further statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.7: Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a): Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.7(b): Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.7(c): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.8: Notice
Ex.P.8(a): Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.8(b): Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.8(c): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.9: Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.10: Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.11: Mahazar
Ex.P.11(a): Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.11(b): Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.11(c): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.12: Notice
Ex.P.12(a): Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.12(b): Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.12(c): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.13: Statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.14: Statement of P.W.7
38 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.15: Mahazar
Ex.P.15(a): Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.15(b): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.16: Notice
Ex.P.16(a): Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.16(b): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.17: Statement of P.W.8
Ex.P.18: Mahazar
Ex.P.18(a): Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.18(b): Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.19: Notice
Ex.P.19(a): Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.19(b): Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.19(c): Signature of P.W.38
Ex.P.20: Statement of P.W.9
Ex.P.21: Statement of P.W.10
Ex.P.22: Notice
Ex.P.22(a): Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.22(b): Signature of P.W.22
Ex.P.22(c): Signature of P.W.38
Ex.P.23: Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.23(a): Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.23(b): Signature of P.W.22
Ex.P.23(c): Signature of P.W.38
Ex.P.24: Statement of P.W.11
Ex.P.25: Statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.26: Acknowledgment
Ex.P.26(a): Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.26(b): Signature of P.W.27
Ex.P.27: Statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.28: 164 statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.28(a): Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P.29: Further statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.30: Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.31: CD
Exs.P.32 to 40: Statements of P.W.15 to 23 Ex.P.41: Letter from PS Ex.P.42: Letter from BBMP 39 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.42(a): Signature of P.W.24 Ex.P.43: Extract Ex.P.44: Report Ex.P.45: Letter Ex.P.45(a): Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.45(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.46: Statement of P.W.25 Ex.P.46(a): Marked portion in Ex.P.46 Ex.P.47: Statement of P.W.26 Ex.P.48: Report of Rajashekaraiah Ex.P.48(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.48(b): Signature of Rajashekaraiah Ex.P.49: Voluntary statement of A-1 Ex.P.49(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.49(b): Thumb impression A-1 Ex.P.49(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.49 Ex.P.50: Voluntary statement of A-2 Ex.P.50(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.50(b): Thumb impression A-2 Ex.P.50(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.50 Ex.P.51: Voluntary statement of A-3 Ex.P.51(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.51(b): Thumb impression A-3 Ex.P.51(c) Portion marked in Ex.P.51 Ex.P.52: Voluntary statement of A-4 Ex.P.52(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.52(b): Thumb impression A-4 Ex.P.52(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.52 Ex.P.53: Voluntary statement of A-5 Ex.P.53(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.53(b): Thumb impression A-5 Ex.P.53(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.53 Ex.P.54: Voluntary statement of A-6 Ex.P.54(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.54(b): Thumb impression A-6 Ex.P.54(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.54 Ex.P.55: Voluntary statement of A-7 Ex.P.55(a): Signature of P.W.27 40 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.55(b): Thumb impression A-7 Ex.P.55(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.55 Ex.P.56: Voluntary statement of A-8 Ex.P.56(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.56(b): Thumb impression A-8 Ex.P.56(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.56 Ex.P.57: Voluntary statement of A-9 Ex.P.57(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.57(b): Thumb impression A-9 Ex.P.57(c): Portion marked in Ex.P.57 Ex.P.58: PF No.83/2020 Ex.P.58(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.59: Report Ex.P.59(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.59(b): Signature of Renukaswamy Ex.P.60: PF No.84/2020 Ex.P.60(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.61: Mahazar Ex.P.61(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.61(b): Signature Ex.P.61(c): Signature Ex.P.62: Notice Ex.P.62(a): Signature of P.W.27 Ex.P.62(b): Signature of pancha Ex.P.62(c): Signature of pancha Ex.P.63: Report of P.W.28 Ex.P.63(a): Signature of P.W.28 Ex.P.63(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.64: P.M. report Ex.P.64(a): Signature of P.W.29 Ex.P.64(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.65: FSL Acknowledgment Ex.P.66: Passport Ex.P.66(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.67: Acknowledgment Ex.P.68 & 69: Reports of Shivakumar Ex.P.68(a) & 69(a): Signatures of P.W.29 Ex.P.68(b) & 69(b): Signatures of P.W.38 41 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.70: Requisition Ex.P.70(a): Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.71: Report of Ramachandra Ex.P.71(a): Signature of Ramachandra Ex.P.71(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.72: Memo Ex.P.72(a): Signature of P.W.31 Ex.P.73: Report of Ramachandra Ex.P.73(a): Signature of Ramachandra Ex.P.74: Memo Ex.P.74(a): Signature of P.W.31 Ex.P.75: Delivery Note Ex.P.76: Statement of P.W.32 Ex.P.77: FIR Ex.P.78: Report of P.W.33 Ex.P.78(a): Signature of P.W.33 Ex.P.78(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.79: Report of P.W.34 Ex.P.79(a): Signature of P.W.34 Ex.P.79(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.80 Memo Ex.P.80(a): Signature of P.W.35 Ex.P.80(b): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.81: Report of P.W.35 Ex.P.81(a): Signature of P.W.35 Ex.P.81(b): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.82: FSL report Ex.P.82(a): Signature of P.W.36 Ex.P.82(b): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.83: Sample seal Ex.P.83(a): Signature of P.W.36 Ex.P.84: Report of P.W.30 Ex.P.84(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.85: Sample seal Ex.P.86: Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.87: Voluntary statement of A-15 Ex.P.87(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.87(b): Signature of A-15 42 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.88: Mahazar Ex.P.88(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.88(b): Signature of pancha Ex.P.88(c): Signature of pancha Ex.P.89: Notice Ex.P.89(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.89(b): Signature of panch Ex.P.89(c): Signature of pancha Ex.P.90: PF No.131/2021 Ex.P.90(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.91: Letter Ex.P.91(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.92: Report Ex.P.92(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.93: Endorsement Ex.P.93(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.94: Report Ex.P.94(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.95: FIR copy Ex.P.96: Charge sheet copy Ex.P.97: Endorsement Ex.P.97(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.98: Copies of records pertaining to A-16 Ex.P.98(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.99: Endorsement Ex.P.99(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.100: Copies of records pertaining to A-15
Ex.P.100(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.101: Copy of requisition Ex.P.101(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.102: Copies of records pertaining to A-15 & A-16 Ex.P.102(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.103: Endorsement Ex.P.103(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.104: Copies of records pertaining to A-1 Ex.P.104(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.105: Endorsement Ex.P.105(a): Signature of P.W.37 43 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.106: Copies of records pertaining to A-18 Ex.P.106(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.107: Requisition Ex.P.107(a): Signature of P.W.37 Ex.P.108: Form No.146(11) Ex.P.108(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.109: PF No.82/2020 Ex.P.109(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.110: Sketch Ex.P.110(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.111: Report of Rajashekaraiah Ex.P.111(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.112: Memo Ex.P.112(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.113: Voluntary statement of A-10 Ex.P.113(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.113(b): Signature of A-10 Ex.P.114: Voluntary statement of A-11 Ex.P.114(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.114(b): Signature of A-11 Ex.P.115: Voluntary statement of A-10 Ex.P.115(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.115(b): Signature of A-12 Ex.P.116: PF No.85/2020 Ex.P.116(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.117: Letter to BBMP Ex.P.118: Endorsement Exs.P.119 & 120: Sketches Ex.P.121: PF No.86/2020 Ex.P.121(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.122: Mahazar Ex.P.122(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.123: Images Ex.P.123(a): Signature of P.W.38 Exs.P.124 to 126: 'B' Register Extracts Ex.P.127: Voluntary statement of A-14 Ex.P.127(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.127(b): Signature of A-14 44 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021, 233 and 1115 of 2022.
Ex.P.128: Voluntary statement of A-13 Ex.P.128(a): Signature of P.W.28 Ex.P.128(b): Signature of A-13 Ex.P.129: Voluntary statement of A-13 Ex.P.129(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.130: Mahazar Ex.P.130(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.131: PF Ex.P.131(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.132: 'B' Register extract Ex.P.132(a): Signature of P.W.38 Ex.P.133: Notice Ex.P.133(a): Signature P.W.38 List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.Os.1 to 19: Photos
M.O.20: Blue colour T-shirt
M.O.21: Black colour night pant
M.O.22: Underwear
M.O.23: Blood stained cotton
M.O.24: Cotton
M.O.25: Blood stains collected from wall
M.O.26: Puma Chappal
M.O.27: DVR box
M.Os.28 & 29: Photo
M.O.30: Machete
M.Os.31 to 33: Longs
M.O.34: Dagger
M.O.35: Machete
M.O.36: Blue Jeans pant
M.O.37: Half T-shirt
M.O.38: Blood stained blue pant
M.O.39: Blue & black colour pant
M.Os.40 & 41: Dagger
M.O.42: Machete
M.Os.43 & 44: Photos
45 S.C.No.902/2020, 554/2021,
233 and 1115 of 2022.
M.O.45: Dagger
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused: -Nil-
(Kashim Churikhan) LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by KASHIMKASHIM MOHADDINSAHEB MOHADDINSAHEB CHURIKHAN CHURIKHAN Date: 2024.04.22 17:33:00 +0530