Bangalore District Court
State By Peenya Police vs Manju @ Manjunatha on 9 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK COURT-XIV,
BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 7th day of April 2014
PRESENT: Sri. Shivaji Anant Nalwade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XIV,
Bangalore City.
SESSIONS CASE No.1032/2012
COMPLAINANT - State by Peenya Police
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED Manju @ Manjunatha, s/o. Kempaiah,
36 yrs, r/at No.18, Ist cross,
Gruhalakshmi Layout, Nagasandra
post, Bangalore.
(By Sri.S.M.Prakash, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 22-04-2012
2. Date of report of occurrence 22-04-2012
3. Date of arrest of accused 24-04-2012
Date of release of accused 04-05-2012
Period undergone in custody by 0Y 0M 10 days
accused
4. Date of commencement of evidence 19-11-2012
5. Date of closing of evidence 26-11-2013
6. Name of the complainant K.T.Ramesh
7. Offences complained of Sec.323, 324, 504,
307 IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
2
S.C.No.1032/2012
9. Order of sentence Offence not proved
JUDGMENT
1. This case arises out of the charge sheet submitted by the Police Inspector, Peenya police station, Bangalore City against the accused for the offence punishable under section 504, 323, 324, 307 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under :
It is the case of the prosecution that accused on 24-02-2010 at about 7.30 p.m., within the limits of Peenya police station at Nelagadaranahalli village, Sy.No.107 near the jack fruit tree belongs to Kempaiah on pathway picked up quarrel with complainant and abused him in filthy language so as to insult him and such insult may likely to cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Accused assaulted CW 1 with hands and caused simple hurts to him and accused with intend to commit murder of complainant stabbed the complainant with dangerous weapon i.e., broken beer bottle on the left side of the neck knowing well that it may likely to cause his death and thereby committed offence punishable under section 504, 323, 324, 307 of IPC. CW 11 PSI who is the Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that on 22-04-2012 ASI of his police station received memo from Premier Sanjeevini Hospital stating that the complainant Ramesh has admitted to the hospital on history of assault and ASI visited hospital and he came to know that injured was not in a position to give the statement. Thereafter, CW 11 again visited the hospital on 24-03-2012 at 9.30 3 S.C.No.1032/2012 p.m. and consulted duty doctor and doctor told him that the complainant is in fit condition to give statement and thereafter CW 11 has enquired the complainant and complainant has given oral complaint before CW 11 and CW 11 has reduced in writing and obtained the signature and returned back to the police station and register the same in Cr.No.316/2012 at 10.45 p.m. for the offence punishable under section 323, 324, 504, 307 of IPC and submitted FIR to the court. Further CW 11 on 24-04-2012 visited the spot of incident there one Mohan Kumar has shown the spot of incident and CW 11 has drawn mahazar in presence of panchas as per Ex.P-3. The said Mohan Kumar has produced blood stained shirt and pant of complainant and he seized the same as per Ex.P-3 mahazar. CW 11 has recorded statement of Mohan Kumar and spot mahazar pancha viz., Ravikumar and Suresh. On the same day CW 11 has arrested the accused produced before him by his staff and enquired the accused, accused has given voluntary statement before CW 11 stating that he will take him to the spot of incident and show the broken beer bottle used for committing the offence. Thereafter, CW 11 has called panchas namely Ramakrishna and Dinesh and informed them regarding the voluntary statement given by the accused taken panchas and CW 11 to the spot of incident and produced the broken beer bottle and he seized the same by drawing Ex.P-5 mahazar. Further on the same day CW 11 has recorded the statement of Dinesh and Ramakrishna, on 25-04-2012 CW 11 has recorded the statement of one Rajanna and 4 S.C.No.1032/2012 Umadevi. CW 11 has recorded the further statement of complainant on 26-04-2012 and on 27-04-2012 CW 11 has recorded the statement of Rajanna on 30-04-2012, CW 11 has collected the wound certificate and as the investigation is completed he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 504, 323, 324, 307 of IPC.
3. After filing the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, VII ACMM Court has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.16703/2012. Thereafter the 7th ACMM Court furnished the charge sheet copy to accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore and that was registered as S.C.1032/2012 and made over to this court for disposal according to law against accused as the offence alleged are triable by the Sessions Court.
4. After receipt of the papers presence of the accused is secured. Accused appeared through his counsel and he is enlarged on bail. Thereafter, heard learned counsel for accused and learned Public Prosecutor for state on charge to be framed against the accused, the charge under section 240 of Cr.P.C. framed against the accused for the offence under section 504, 323, 324, 307 of IPC and read over the same to the accused in the open court, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution is called upon to prove the guilt of the accused 5 S.C.No.1032/2012 by examining the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in all examined 10 witnesses as PW 1 to PW 10 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 and got marked 3 material objects as MO 1 to MO 3. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, two documents came to be marked on behalf of accused as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. Thereafter, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. to unable him to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the statement in toto and further stated that he has no defence evidence and he has nothing to say thereafter the case is posted for arguments.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state in length.
6. The points that arise for my determination are :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused on 22-04-2012 at about 7.30 p.m., within the limits of Peenya police station at Nelagadaranahalli village, Sy.No.107 near jack fruit tree belongs to Kempaiah on pathway picked up quarrel with cW 1 and abused him in filthy language so as to insult him and such insult may likely cause him break public peace or 6 S.C.No.1032/2012 to make any offence and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 504 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused on the above said date, time and place picked up quarrel with complainant and assaulted the complainant with hand and caused simple hurt to him and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused on the above said date, time and place picked up quarrel with complainant and assaulted the complainant with broken beer bottle on his neck and caused simple hurt and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused on the above said date, time and place with intent to commit murder of CW 1 stabbed CW 1 with dangerous weapon i.e., broken beer bottle on the left side of the neck knowing that it may likely to cause death and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC?
5. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
7
S.C.No.1032/2012
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 TO 4 : The above points are connected,
hence they are taken for discussion together in order to avoid repetition. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 504, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and in order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses and they are PW 1 Dr.P.N.Prakash son of late P.Narayanan - Medical Officer, PW 2 K.T.Ramesh, son of Thimmegowda - complainant, PW 3 Umadevi, wife of Ramesh - wife of complainant, PW 4 Mohan Kumar son of Ramakrishnaiah - eye witness, PW 5 Ravikumar son of Nagaiah - spot mahazar pancha, PW 6 Suresh son of Lakshmana - spot mahazar pancha, PW 7 Rajanna son of Marappa - eye witness, PW 8 Dinesh, son of Narayanappa - seizure mahazar pancha, PW 9 Ramakrishna, son of Ramaiah - seizure mahazar pancha, PW 10 Lohith son of Nanjegowda, PSI.
9. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused in all got marked 11 documents and they are Ex.P-1 wound certificate, Ex.P-2 - statement of PW 2, Ex.P-3 - spot mahazar, Ex.P-4 - 161 statement of PW 5, Ex.P-5 seizure mahazar, Ex.P-6 - 161 statement of PW 8, Ex.P-7 8 S.C.No.1032/2012 161 statement of PW 9, Ex.P-8 - FIR, Ex.P-9 - P.F.No.135/2012, Ex.P-10 - portion of voluntary statement, Ex.P-11 - P.F.No.136/2012. The prosecution has got marked 3 material objects and they are MO 1 broken bottle, MO 2 and MO 3 are blood stained shirt and pant. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, two documents came to be marked on behalf of accused and they are Ex.D-1 photo and Ex.D-2 photo.
10. The perusal of complaint which is at Ex.P-2 discloses that incident took place on 22-04-2012 at 7.30 p.m., and complainant has lodged the complaint before the police on 23-04-2012 at 10.45 p.m. i.e., after 27 hours from the alleged incident. The prosecution has not explained delay caused in lodging the complaint. Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that PSI of his police station has received message from Premier Sanjeevini hospital on 22-04-2012 and ASI has visited the hospital, there complainant was not in a position to talk so he returned, further Investigating Officer has stated that on the next day he went to the hospital and recorded oral complaint given by the complainant. When Investigating Officer himself has admitted that ASI has received message from the premier Sanjeevini hospital on 22-04-2012 delay caused in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. The perusal of FIR discloses that police have submitted FIR to the court on 22-04-2012 at 9.10 p.m., i.e., within 24 hours from the registration of the case.
9S.C.No.1032/2012
11. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt examined complainant as PW 2. PW 2 in his evidence stated that on 22-04-2012 at 7.30 p.m. he and one Rajanna were proceeding on motor cycle by taking gas cylinder to the house of Rajanna and when they came behind Nelagadaranahalli, Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant they met with a person who is known to Rajanna and Rajanna asked him to stop the motor vehicle and he stopped and Rajanna started talking with the said person and he was attending the natural call at that time one person came and started abusing him in filthy language and assaulted with his hands and at that time Rajanna asked the said persons why he is assaulting him and at that time the said person with intend to commit his murder assaulted him with broken beer bottle on his neck and he sustained grievous injuries another person came there on motor cycle and the said persons went along with that person, Rajanna has taken him to the Premier Sanjeevini hospital and when he was in the hospital he noticed that 22 gram golden chain and 14 grams finger ring totally worth Rs.18,000/- were missing and next day at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. police came to the hospital and he has lodged the complaint and identified the complaint as per Ex.P-2. He has handed over his blood stained shirt and pant to CW 4 and CW 4 has produced the same before the police and identified the beer bottle used for assaulting as MO 1 and shirt and pant as MO 2 and MO 3. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for accused and this witness has stated that incident 10 S.C.No.1032/2012 happened at 7.30 p.m. and within half an hour he went to the hospital. Further this witness in his cross-examination has stated that the name of the accused might not have been mentioned in Ex.P-1. Further this witness has stated that he do not know whether in Ex.P-1 it is mentioned that he went to the hospital at 11 p.m. This witness has denied that in Ex.P-1 time of incident was mentioned as 9.30 p.m. Further this witness has stated that he has not given further statement before the Investigating Officer. Further this witness has stated that he has not mentioned in the complaint for what purpose the accused was having ill-will with him. Further this witness has stated that he and his family members have not lodged the complaint immediately.
12. The prosecution examined PW 2 and she is the wife of complainant and she in her evidence stated that about 3 months earlier to her evidence at 10 p.m. Rajanna called him on phone and informed him that one Manja assaulted her husband and asked her to come to Premier Sanjeevini hospital and she went there and he saw her husband there. Her husband has sustained injury on the left side of the neck. Her husband was unconscious and he was kept in the Intensive Care Unit and in the hospital Rajanna, Mohan and another Rajanna were there and she came to know that accused assaulted her husband.
13. The prosecution examined PW 4, PW 4 in his evidence stated that CW 1 is her brother in law he know the 11 S.C.No.1032/2012 accused. On 22-04-2012 at 7.30 p.m., CW 1 and Mesthri Rajanna were proceeding on bike towards Nelagadaranahalli and he was proceeding behind them on bike and when CW 1 came near Kempaiah land near jack fruit, Mesthri Rajanna asked CW 1 to stop the bike and Mesthri Rajanna started talking with some other person and at that time accused came and asked CW 1 whether he has came there for doing black magic and assaulted CW 1 with hands. Mesthri Rajanna asked accused not to assault and accused has not heard his words and assaulted CW 1 with broken beer bottle on his neck and CW 1 sustained injuries blood came out and fell on the shirt and pant of CW 1 and at that time another person came on bike and accused went away on the said bike and he took CW 1 to the Premier Sanjeevini hospital, in the hospital CW 1 has given his blood stained pant and shirt and he has produced the same before the police at the time of drawing mahazar and identified mahazar as Ex.P-3 and also identified the blood stained shirt and pant belongs to CW 2 as MO 2 and MO 3 and also admitted broken beer bottle used for assaulting CW 1 as MO 1. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and this witness has admitted that immediately after the incident he has not lodged the complaint. Further this witness in his cross-examination stated that he is not knowing what is the ill-will between CW 1 and accused person. After the evidence of this witness counsel for the accused has filed application for recalling him for further cross-examination and the said application came to be 12 S.C.No.1032/2012 allowed and thereafter this witness has not availed for the further cross-examination of accused inspite of NBW issued to secure the presence of PW 4 the same returned unexecuted, as delay was causing to dispose the present case on 05-09-2011, the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor to re-issue NBW to PW 4 is rejected and prosecution side is closed. So this witness has not availed for further cross-examination of accused.
14. The prosecution examined PW 5 and PW 8 they are spot mahazar panchas and they in their evidence stated that police have not called them for drawing spot mahazar. The police have not drawn any spot mahazar in their presence and police have not seized any article in their presence. The prosecution treated these witness as hostile and cross-examined them and nothing has been made out in their cross-examination so as to help the prosecution to prove the drawing of spot mahazar and seizure of MO 2 and MO 3 articles.
15. The prosecution examined PW 6, PW 6 in his evidence stated that one year earlier to his evidence in the month of April he and CW 8 who is brother-in-law of CW 1 went to the spot of incident and there CW 8 told him that on the said place CW 1 has been assaulted and there CW 8 has given clothes to the police and police have seized the same by drawing the mahazar and identified the mahazar as Ex.P-3. This witness has been cross-examined by counsel for accused and the cross-examination this witness has 13 S.C.No.1032/2012 stated that he has not signed on the chit which is affixed on the sealed shirt and pant. Further this witness has stated that he has not seen another pancha signing on Ex.P-3 mahazar.
16. The prosecution examined PW 7, PW 7 in his evidence stated that he is the archaka of Chowdeshwari temple. He is having land and his mother's Samadhi is in his land, on 22-04-2012 at 7.30 p.m., he went near the place of Samadhi of his mother and when he was returning after visiting Samadhi at that time Rajanna and Ramesh were proceeding on bike and Rajanna stopped the vehicle and started talking with him and CW 1 went to attend natural call and at that time accused came there and picked up quarrel with complainant saying that he came there for doing black magic. He told that they are not doing any black magic there, inspite of it accused assaulted CW 1 with broken beer bottle on the left side of the neck and CW 1 sustained injuries, he Rajanna and Mohan took CW 1 to the hospital. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that he is not knowing where CW 1 has lost his golden ring and chain on that day.
17. The prosecution examined PW 8 and PW 9 they in their evidence stated that 4-5 months earlier to their evidence Peenya police called them to the police station and obtained their signature, police have not seized any articles in their presence, the prosecution treated these witness as hostile and cross-examined them and nothing 14 S.C.No.1032/2012 has been made out in their cross-examination so as to help the prosecution to prove the drawing of Ex.P-5 seizure mahazar and seizure of MO 1 article.
18. The prosecution examined PW 1, PW 1 is the medical officer and he in his evidence has stated that 22-04-2012 he examined CW 1 Ramesh on the history of assault by unknown person and further stated that the said persons has sustained lacerated wound on his neck and it was bleeding the said injury was simple in nature and for examining the injured he has issued wound certificate and identified the same as Ex.P-1. Further stated that injury mentioned in Ex.P-1 is likely to be caused if a person is assaulted with MO 1 beer bottle. This witness has been cross-examined and in the cross-examination this witness has stated that he has examined injured at 11 p.m., on that day. The counsel for accused has suggested to this witness that if a person came in contact with sharp and blunt object at the time of doing work it is likely that he may sustain injuries as mentioned in Ex.P-1 and this witness has admitted the same. Further this witness has stated that CW 2 told him that unknown person assaulted him on that day.
19. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer and he in his evidence has stated regarding investigation done by him. It is specific case of the accused during the cross-examination of prosecution witness that he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The complainant has fell 15 S.C.No.1032/2012 and sustained injuries and complainant only in order to harass him has lodged false complaint against him. The complainant and his friend and relatives are giving false evidence against him. In the present case there is delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint. Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that on 22-04-2012 ASI of his police station has received memo from Premier Sanjeevini hospital and wherein it is intimated that the complainant has admitted on history of assault and ASI visited the hospital and came to know that injured is not in a position to give the statement. In the present case it is specific case of the complainant that PW 4 who is the eye witness taken him to the hospital and PW 4 was in the hospital with CW 1 and if really ASI of complainant police station has visited the Premier Sanjeevini hospital on 22-04-2012 and if really CW 1 was not in a position to give statement. ASI ought to have recorded the statement of PW 4 and register the case. In the present case Investigating Officer has not cited the said ASI as a witness in this case and also not given explanation for non citing ASI as witness in this case. Further medical officer has been examined in this case as PW 1 and he in his evidence stated that he has informed regarding the admitting of CW 1 in the hospital on the next day which is contrary to the evidence of Investigating Officer. Further injuries sustained to CW 1 are simple in nature. Ex.P-1 wound certificate clearly goes to show that wound sustained to CW 1 is simple in nature. So the version of Investigating Officer that the complainant was 16 S.C.No.1032/2012 not in a position to give statement on 22-04-2012 is unacceptable one. Further in the present case no documentary evidence is produced to show that the complainant was unable to talk and he has been shifted to Intensive Care Unit. The delay caused in lodging the complaint is remained unexplained. Further Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that the exact place of incident is mud pathway situated by the side of jack fruit tree belongs to Kempaiah in Sy.No.107 of Nelagaranahalli village. Further Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has stated boundaries of spot of incident as per Ex.P-3 spot mahazar are towards east vacant space of land of Marappa, west vacant space belongs to Kempaiah, north jack fruit tree at a distance of road about 20 feet and south vacant space belongs to Marappa and perusal of the said boundaries and earlier part of evidence of Investigating Officer goes to show that the spot of incident i.e., mud pathway situated by the side of jack fruit tree belongs to Kempaiah situated in sy.107 of Nelagadaranahalli village is different from the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P-3. Further in the cross-examination of Investigating Officer, the counsel for accused has shown the photos and asked the Investigating Officer whether in the said photo Lakshmi Bar and jack fruit tree are seen or not Investigating Officer after seeing the same has stated that in the photo the Lakshmi bar and jack fruit trees are seen and the said photo is marked as Ex.D-1 Lakshmi bar is identified and marked as Ex.D-1(a) and jack fruit tree identified by the witness is marked as Ex.D-1(b). Further 17 S.C.No.1032/2012 the counsel for accused has confronted another photo to Investigating Officer and asked where in the said photo jack fruit tree is seen and witness stated that jack fruit tree is seen in the said photo and the same photo is marked as Ex.D-2 and jack fruit tree is marked as Ex.D-2(a). Further Investigating Officer has admitted that the said photos are in respect of spot of incident. The perusal of Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 and the version of Investigating Officer that the exact place of the incident is mud pathway situated by the side of jack fruit tree belongs to Kempaiah situated in Sy.No.107 of Nelagadaranahalli village clearly goes to show that the spot of incident shown in Ex.P-3 and exact spot differs. Further Investigating Officer has admitted that he is not mentioned anything regarding delay caused in lodging the complaint. Further Investigating Officer has admitted that in Ex.P-1 doctor has mentioned the cause of injury as assault by unknown person with broken bottle at 9.30 p.m. on 22-04-2012 whereas in the complaint incident is shown as on 22-04-2012 at 7.30 p.m. Further Investigating Officer in his cross-examination admitted that during his investigation he did not find any old enimity between the injured and accused further in Ex.P-2 complaint also no where it is mentioned that there is old enimity between accused and complainant. The complainant in his evidence stated that due to old enimity accused has assaulted him and complainant no wherein in his evidence stated what is enimity between him and accused and if really there was enimity between the accused and complainant the said 18 S.C.No.1032/2012 ought to have mentioned in Ex.P-2 complaint and complainant has stated the same in his evidence. Further complainant in his cross-examination admitted that he has not mentioned what is the old enimity between him and accused. The complainant has also not stated the correct boundaries of spot of incident and he in his cross-examination stated that towards north of spot of incident temple is there towards west Nelagadaranahalli road is situated, again complainant says that towards south temple is there and the said fact goes to show that the complainant is also not in a position to give the boundaries of the spot of incident. PW 4 who is eye witness is brother in law of the complainant and he is related witness and he accompanied the complainant to the hospital and he also stated that he has not lodged the complaint immediately after the incident. Further PW 4 in his evidence stated that he is not knowing what is the ill-will between the complainant and accused. Further PW 4 has been recalled for cross-examination of accused and thereafter PW 4 has not availed for further cross-examination. So his evidence will not in any way help the prosecution to prove the guilt. In the present case pancha of spot mahazar panchanama examined by prosecution as PW 5 and he turned hostile. Further another pancha on spot mahazar examined by prosecution as PW 6 in his evidence stated that he has not seen another pancha signing on the mahazar. He has not put his signature on the papers which were attached to the sealed cover. Both the seizure mahazar pancha for 19 S.C.No.1032/2012 seizure of broken beer bottle examined by the prosecution as PW 8 and PW 9 turned hostile. Medical Officer in this case has stated that the Investigating Officer has not referred MO 1 to his opinion. In the present case evidence o f PW 1 to PW 10 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 and MO 1 to MO 3 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per well settled principles of criminal law benefit of doubt goes to the accused and in the present case also accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the accused, I hold that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the NEGATIVE.
20. POINT No.3 : In view of my findings point No.1 and 2 and reasons stated there, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. accused by name Manu @ K.Manjunatha is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under section 504, 323, 324, 307 of IPC.
Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
MO 1 to 3 articles are worthless articles, hence ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of April 2014).
20S.C.No.1032/2012 (SHIVAJI ANANT NALWADE) Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XIV, Bangalore City.
---
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
Pw.1 Dr.Prakash Cw.10 19-11-2012 Pw.2 K.T.Ramesh Cw.1 10-12-2012 Pw.3 Umadevi Cw.9 " Pw.4 Mohan Kumar Cw.8 03-01-2013 Pw.5 Ravikumar Cw.2 10-01-2013 Pw.6 Suresh Cw.3 " Pw.7 Rajanna Cw.6 " Pw.8 Dinesh Cw.5 " Pw.9 Ramakrishna Cw.4 " Pw.10 Lohith Cw.11 19-11-2013
Documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Wound certificate Pw.1 19-11-2012 Ex.P1a Signature of Pw.2 Pw.1 "
Ex.P2 Statement of Pw.2 Pw.2 10-12-2012 Ex.P2a Signature of Pw.2 " "
Ex.P2b Signature of doctor Pw.10 19-12-2012 Ex.P2c Signature of Pw.10 " "
Ex.P3 Spot mahazar Pw.4 03-01-2013
Ex.P3a Signature of Pw.4 " "
Ex.P3b Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 10-01-2013
Ex.P3c Signature of Pw.3 Pw.6 10-01-2013
Ex.P4 161 statement of Pw.5 Pw.5 10-01-2013
Ex.P5 Seizure mahazar Pw.8 10-01-2013
Ex.P5a Signature of Pw.8 " "
Ex.P5b Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 "
Ex.P5c Signature of Pw.10 Pw.10 19-01-2013
Ex.P6 161 statement of PW 8 Pw.8 10-01-2013
Ex.P7 161 statement of PW 9 Pw.9 "
Ex.P8 FIR Pw.10 19-11-2013
Ex.P8a Signature of PW 10 " "
Ex.P9 P.F.No.135/2012 Pw.10 19-11-2012
Ex.P10 Port of voluntary statement Pw.10 19-11-2012
21
S.C.No.1032/2012
Ex.P11 P.F.NO.136/2012 Pw.10 19-11-2013
Material objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Broken bottle Pw.2 10-12-2012
MO.2 Shirt " "
MO.3 Pant " "
Witnesses examined for accused:
NIL
Documents marked for accused:
Ex.D1 Photograph of spot
Ex.D1a Lakshmi wine building
Ex.D1b Jack fruit tree
Ex.D2 Photograph of jack fruit tree
Material objects marked for accused:
- Nil -
Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court-XIV,
Bangalore City.
---
22
S.C.No.1032/2012
JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE
OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE ORDER
ORDER
Acting under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
accused by name Manu @ K.Manjunatha
is hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable under section 504, 323, 324, 307 of IPC.
Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
MO 1 to 3 articles are worthless articles, hence ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Presiding Officer FTC-XIV, Bangalore.