Bangalore District Court
Nandini Layout Ps vs A4 Thulasiram.A Alia Thulasi on 8 April, 2024
KABC010009412018
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 64 /2018
Complainant : State by Nandinilayout
police station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
Accused: 4. Tulasiram M. @ Tulasi
Aged about 29 yeas,
R/at No.62, 1st Main,
5th Cross, Muneshwara Layout,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.D.R., advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 12.09.2016
2. Date of report of occurrence 13.09.2016
3. Date of commencement of evidence 30.06.2022
4. Date of closing of evidence 15.02.2024
2
SC.No.64/2018
5. Name of the complainant Karigalan K.
6. Offences complained of U/Sec.143, 144, 147,148,
153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353
R/w Sec.149 IPC & 3(1) of
Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act 1984.
7. Opinion of the Judge As per final order
8. Order of sentence Offence not proved
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub Inspector of Nandinilayout police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 26 before learned 7th ACMM, Bangalore, alleging the commission offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
2. After filing of the charge sheet, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 against the accused No.1 to 26 and registered the criminal case bearing CC.No.2529/2017. At the time of filing the charge sheet, accused No.1 to 23 and 25 were on court bail. Accused No.24 was in J.C. and accused No.26 was absconded.
3. During the pendency of the case before the trial court and after registering the case against the accused No.1 to 26, accused No.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 to 19, 21, 23 to 25 have appeared 3 SC.No.64/2018 before the Trial court. Accused No.24 was produced before the Trial court from J.C.. Thereafter, the Learned Magistrate had complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., by furnishing the copy of charge sheet and other papers annexed with the charge sheet to the aforesaid accused. Accused No.4, 7, 9, 20, 22 and 26 have not appeared before the Trial court and as such the Trial court has ordered to split up case against them. Split up charge sheet was filed against accused No.4, 7, 9, 20, 22 and 26 and split up C.C.No.11715/2017 was came to be registered against them. In CC.No.11715/2017, the accused No.4 was secured and he was enlarged on bail and split up CC.No.30651/17 was came to be registered against A.7, 9, 20, 22 and 26.
4. Since the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 to 19, 21, 23 to 25 which is punishable u/Sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Learned Magistrate had committed the case to Hon'ble Principle City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru for trial by exercising the power u/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C as per order dated 07.04.2017. After committal, the same was registered as SC.No.595/2017. After securing the presence of accused No.4 in CC.No.11715/2017, the learned magistrate after complying the provisions of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case against accused No.4 to Hon'ble Principle City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru for trial by exercising the power u/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C as per order dated 21.12.2017.
4SC.No.64/2018
5. After committal of the case against accused No.4, SC.No.64/2018 was registered and made over to this court. Thereafter summons was issued to accused No.4. The accused No.4 has appeared before the court after service of summons and he was enlarged on bail. Then the matter was posted for hearing the said accused on charge.
6. The accused No.1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 to 17, 19, 21 and 25 of SC.No.595/2017 and accused No.4 of the present case were heard on the charge. Since there are sufficient prima-facie materials in the charge sheet to proceed with trial against the accused No.4 for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307,353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, charge was framed for the said offences and read over and explained to the accused No.4 in the language known to him. The accused No.4 has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then, the matter was posted for evidence of the prosecution.
7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has got examined 20 witnesses as P.W.1 to 20. The prosecution has produced 48 documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.48. The prosecution has produced 10 material object and got them marked as M.O.1 to M.O.10 and closed its side. Thereafter, the matter was posted for recording the statement of the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C.
5SC.No.64/2018
8. All the incriminating evidence appearing against accused No.4 in the evidence of P.W.1 to 20 were read over and explained to the accused No.4 in the language known to him. The accused No.4 has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused No.4 has submitted that he has no defence evidence. Hence, the matter was posted for arguments. It is to be noted here that since SC.No.595/2017 and this case are arising from the same charge sheet, both the matters were tried together and posted for arguments on the same day and posted for judgment on the same day.
9. Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for the accused No.4 and Learned Public Prosecutor.
10. Perused the charge sheet, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, and other materials available on record.
11. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly having common object of destroying the public property and to prevent the public officials from discharging their lawful duties and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 143 of IPC?6
SC.No.64/2018
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of common object of unlawful assembly he has committed the offence of roiting punishable under section 147 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons in order to prosecute common object of unlawful assembly and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 148 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object accused No.4 has malignantly gave provocation with intention to cause roiting and inconsequence of such provocation offence of roiting was committed and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 153 read with section 149 of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object, accused No.4 and other accused have voluntarily caused hurt to CW.1, 7 SC.No.64/2018 4 to 8 by beating with hands and legs and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object, accused No.4 and other accused have voluntarily caused hurt to CW.1, 4 and 5 by beating with stones, club and other deadly weapons which are used as an weapon of offence likely to cause death and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 of IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object, they have used criminal force on CWs.6 to 8 who are working as public servants at that time and prevented them from discharging their lawful duties and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 353 read with section 149 of IPC?
8. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object, they have committed mischief by damaging the vehicles belonging to CWs.1, 9 to 29 which were parked by the side of the road and caused loss of more than Rs.50/- and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence 8 SC.No.64/2018 punishable under section 427 read with section 149 of IPC?
9. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object, they have attempted to commit murder of CWs.1, 4 and 5 by beating them with stones, clubs and other deadly weapons having knowledge that, if they assault with those objects, it will result in death and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of IPC?
10. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 12.09.2016, at 8.30 p.m., near Ayyappa Swamy Temple of Coolie Nagar, accused No.4 along with other accused were the members of unlawful assembly and in the process of execution of its common object, they have committed mischief by damaging the public property and thereby accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable under section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act?
11. What order?
12. My answer to the above said points are as follows;
(1) Point No.1 .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.2 .. In the Negative
(3) Point No.3 .. In the Negative
(4) Point No.4 .. In the Negative
(5) Point No.5 .. In the Negative
(6) Point No.6 .. In the Negative
9
SC.No.64/2018
(7) Point No.7 .. In the Negative
(8) Point No.8 .. In the Negative
(9) Point No.9 .. In the Negative
(10) Point No.10 .. In the Negative
(11) Point No.11 .. As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
13. Points No.1 to 10:- These 10 points are interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
14. The Police Sub Inspector of Nandini Layout police station had filed the present charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 26, by alleging the commission of offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
15. The gist of the allegations made against the accused in the charge sheet are as follows:
On 12.09.2019, since the public call was made to protest against release of Cauveri river water to Tamil Nadu, prohibitory order was passed by the Government in Bangalore city by restraining the public from gathering in group. But the accused No.1 to 26 have from an unlawful assembly on 12.09.2016 at about 8.30 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Nandini Layout police station on Coolie Nagar Government School Road, in front of Ayyappa Swamy 10 SC.No.64/2018 Temple, Near Government Hospital with common object of causing damage to the public property and to commit offence of rioting. The accused in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly have damaged the vehicles belonging to C.W.1, 9 to 29 which were parked by the side of the road with the help of stones and clubs. On seeing the same, C.W.1 went near the accused and asked them why they are destroying the properties and damaging the vehicles, the accused have assaulted C.W.1 with stones, clubs, with other deadly weapons and hands and legs and attempted to murder him. When C.W.4 and 5 came to rescue C.W.1, the accused have also assaulted C.W.4 and 5 and caused injuries to them. When C.W.6, 7 and 8, K.S.R.P. staff who were on duty in the said place have came to prevent the accused from damaging the properties, the accused have assaulted them and prevented them discharging their lawful duty as K.S.R.P. staff and the accused have damaged the headlight and right side door of the Government Jeep bearing No.KA03G7066 which was brought by C.W.6 to 8 on official duty. Hence, it is alleged in the charge sheet that accused No.1 to 26 have committed the offences punishable U/Secs. U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
16. Since, the prosecution has alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable u/Secs. 143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 11 SC.No.64/2018 accused have committed the said offences as alleged in the charge sheet. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused as alleged in the charge sheet, the prosecution has examined in all 20 witnesses as PW.1 to 20. Among them PW.1 is the first informant and the injured. P.W.4 and P.W.19 are the spot mahazar witnesses. P.W.9 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses and injured witnesses. P.W.3 and P.W.15 are also the victims. P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 to P.W.14, P.W.16 to P.W.17 are the owners of the vehicles which were alleged to have been got damaged by the accused at the time of alleged incident. P.W.20 is the Investigating Officer who has registered FIR and who has conducted part of the investigation of the case. P.W.18 is another Investigating Officer who has conducted further investigation of the case and who has filed charge sheet against the accused. Now let us discuss the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in order to adjudicate whether their evidence is sufficient to prove the alleged charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubts are not.
17. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that during Cauveri river water protest his vehicle was got damaged and as such he came out of his house and at that time one stone which was pelted by some persons has fallen on his head and he had sustained injuries and took treatment in the hospital. He has further deposed that the police came to the hospital and took his signature on Ex.P.1 information and he do not know the contents of the same. P.W.1 has not identified M.O.1 to 10. But he has identified the photo of his damaged vehicle. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated 12 SC.No.64/2018 that he has not seen the accused No.4 earlier and further stated that the accused No.4 has not attempted to murder him and he has not damaged his vehicle.
18. P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 to P.W.14, P.W.16 to P.W.17 in their examination-in-chief have deposed that during Cauveri river water dispute protest the vehicles belonging to them were got damaged. But they have stated in their chief examination that accused No.4 has not damaged their vehicle and they have not identified the accused No.4. They have not deposed any thing regarding accused No.4 assaulting P.W.1 and 9 and damaging their vehicles. They have not identified M.O.1 to 10. They have further stated in their examination-in-chief that they have not given any statement before the police.
19. Hence P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 to P.W.14, P.W.16 to P.W.17 were treated as hostile and there were cross examined by learned P.P. But nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross examination to prove the accused have damaged their vehicles on the date, place and time as alleged in the charge sheet and the accused have assaulted P.W.1, P.W.3 and 15. Further nothing has been elicited during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 to prove that he took treatment for the injuries sustained due to the assault made by the petitioner and he gave complaint to the police regarding the same. Further nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross examination to prove that they have given statement before the 13 SC.No.64/2018 police against the accused. They have denied all the suggestions put to them by learned P.P. during the course of their cross examination about the case of the prosecution. Hence, evidence of aforesaid witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged charge sheet against the accused No.4.
20. P.W.4 and P.W.19 spot mahazar and seizure mahazar witnesses have also not supported prosecution case they have not deposed anything about conduct of Ex.P.3(a) mahazar in their presence and about seizure of M.O.1 to 10. They have stated in their examination-in-chief that the police have obtained their signature on Ex.P.3(a) mahazar near their quarters and they do not know the contents of the said mahazar. They have also not identified their damaged vehicle. Hence, the said two witnesses were treated as hostile and they were cross examined by learned P.P.
21. P.W.9 and P.W.2 are other two material witnesses. They in their chief examination have not deposed anything about the accused No.4 assaulting them and attempting to murder them and the accused No.4 damaging the vehicle belonging to C.W.1. They have also not identified the accused No.4 and M.O.1 to 10. Hence they were treated as hostile and were cross examined by learned P.P. But nothing material has been elicited during the course of their cross examination in order to prove that the accused No.4 and other accused have assaulted them and accused No.4 and other accused have attempted to murder them and caused damage to the vehicle of C.W.1 and others.
14SC.No.64/2018
22. P.W.3 and P.W.15 are the victims and police constables of K.S.R.P.. They in their examination in chief have deposed that on 12.09.2016 in between 8.30 to 9.00 p.m., near Laggere Bridge, rioting was taken place by some public and as such they had gone to the said place and at the time of on firing tear gas, one stone fell on the front hand guard of the Government vehicle and as such he gave report to the police. But they have not deposed anything about accused No.4 committing the alleged offences and they have not seen the accused No.4 near the place of said incident. They have not deposed anything about the accused No.4 assaulting P.W.1, P.W.9, and P.W.3 and accused No.4 damaging the vehicles of other witnesses. They have also not deposed anything regarding the accused No.4 preventing them from discharging their duties. Hence, their evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged charges against the accused No.4.
23. P.W.20 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that C.W.39 has obtained the statement of P.W.1 before C.W.30 in the hospital and produced the same before him and on the basis of the said statement, he has registered criminal case in Crime No.164/2016 and further deposed that he has conducted spot mahazar and seized M.O.1 to 10 and also taken the photos of the damaged vehicles. P.W.20 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that he has recorded the statements of the owners of those vehicles. He has further deposed that he has arrested accused No.1 to 22 and recorded their voluntarily statements and also recorded the statements of the police officials who have brought the said 15 SC.No.64/2018 accused to the police station. He has further deposed that he has obtained the wound certificate of C.W.1 and since he was transferred, he has handed over the further investigation of the case to P.W.18. P.W.20 in his Cross examination by accused has deposed that in M.O.1 to 10 the date and time is not mentioned. He has further deposed in cross examination that he has not produced the CD containing the entry about incident. He has further stated that in the complaint, he has not mentioned about the age and other details of 25 persons mentioned in the complaint. He has further stated that he has not given any notice to the panchas in writing.
24. P.W.18 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he has arrested accused No.23 to 25 and recorded their voluntary statements and obtained further statement of C.W.1 and 5 by after identification of accused by them. He has further deposed that he has completed the investigation of the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused.
25. If the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution is perused, it could be seen that all the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The injured witnesses have not deposed anything about the accused assaulting them and causing injuries to them. Further the owners of the vehicles which were damaged at the time of the incident have also not stated anything about the accused causing damage to their vehicles. Further C.W.6 to 8 have also not deposed anything about the accused No.4 along with other accused preventing them from 16 SC.No.64/2018 discharging their duties as K.S.R.P constables. Further none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed anything about the accused No.4 along with other accused attempting to murder C.W.1, 4 and 5 by beating with stones, clubs and other deadly weapons and they have not deposed anything about the accused No.4 along with other accused committing the offence of mischief by damaging the public property. The evidence of all the material witnesses is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the commission of alleged offences by the accused No.4 along with other accused. Both the mahazar witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has not proved the fact of conduct of spot mahazar and seizure of M.O.1 to 10 beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence of Investigating Officers is not corroborated by the evidence of the informant, eye witnesses, injured witnesses and punch witnesses. Even though the prosecution has proved the fact that C.W.1 has sustained injuries and several vehicles and public properties were got damaged at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.4 along with other accused are responsible for the same. Under these facts and circumstances, only on the basis of uncorroborated evidence of the Investigating Officers, it cannot be held that the accused No.4 has committed all the 10 alleged offences along with other accused as mentioned in Point No.1 to 10. Prosecution has failed to adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, place and time has alleged in the charge sheet, the accused No.4 and other accused have committed the alleged offences mentioned in Point No.1 to 10. As such accused 17 SC.No.64/2018 No.4 is entitled to get benefit of doubts with respect to commission of said alleged offences. As such the accused No.4 is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences by extending benefit of doubts to him. Accordingly, I answered Points No.1 to 10 in Negative.
26. Point No.11: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 10, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting u/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 153, 323, 324, 427, 307, 353, R/w Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.
The bail bond of the accused No.4 and the surety bond of surety of accused No.4 shall stand cancelled. The accused No.4 is set at liberty.
Since, split up case against accused No.2, 18, 23 and 24 in S.C.No.590/2022 is pending and C.C.No.30651/17 is pending against accused No.7, 9, 20, 22 and 26 before Trial court, no order regarding disposal of M.O.1 to 10 is not passed. The office is directed to preserve the said properties till disposal of the case against other accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of April, 2024).
(B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
18SC.No.64/2018 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Karigalan P.W.2 Alamelu P.W.3 Manjunath P.W.4 Loordaswamy P.W.5 Subramani P.W.6 Kumar P.W.7 Murugan P.W.8 Renu P.W.9 Dilip P.W.10 Vijay Sanoop P.W.11 Anad P.W.12 Babu P.W.13 Mani P.W.14 James P.W.15 Radhakrishna Kankunkar P.W.16 Setu P.W.17 Ramu P.W.18 Ramakrishnaiah P.W.19 N.Ramu P.W.20 Srikanth S.
Documents marked for the prosecution :
Ex.P.1 Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.2 Photo
Ex.P.3 Statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(a) Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-11-A-
3415
Ex.P.5 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.6 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-04-B-
9558
Ex.P.7 Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.8 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-16-A-
2000.
Ex.P.9 Statement of P.W.6
19
SC.No.64/2018
Ex.P.10 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-
AF-4007
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.12 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-
AC-3907
Ex.P.13 Statement of P.W.8
Ex.P.14 Statement of P.W.9
Ex.P.15 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-C-
7735
Ex.P.16 Statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.17 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-01-
EQ-5385
Ex.P.18 Statement of P.W.11
Ex.P.19 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-
AD-4013
Ex.P.20 Statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.21 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-04-
601
Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.23 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-28-
8597
Ex.P.24 Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.25 Wound certificate
Ex.P.26 Statement of P.W.16
Ex.P.27 Photo of vehicle bearing No.KA-01-
AA-2558
Ex.P.28 Statement of P.W.17
Ex.P.29 to 36 Report given by H.C.No.6084, 5218,
9261, 5218, 4165, 6084, 4165
Ex.P.31 & 33 Report given by P.C.No.9261
Ex.P.37 FIR
Ex.P.38 to 47 Photos of vehicles
Ex.P.48 P.F.No.110/16
Witnesses examined for the Accused:
NIL
20
SC.No.64/2018
Documents marked for the Accused:
NIL
Material Objects marked for the prosecution:
M.O.1 Wicket
M.O.2 Cricket bat
M.O.3 to 7 Five stones
M.O.8 to 10 3 wooden clubs
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-53), Bengaluru.
21
SC.No.64/2018