Bangalore District Court
Cubbon Park Police Station vs Date Of Release Of Accused Surrendered ... on 5 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF February 2019
Serial Number of the C.C.22586/2011
case
Name of the State by Police Sub Inspector,
complainant Cubbon Park Police station
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public
Prosecutor )
Name of the accused 1) Susheela Sharma,
person W/o.Santhosh Sharma,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at. No.166, 15th cross,
Nagarabhavi 2nd stage,
Jeevadhani Ashrama Malgani,
Bangalore-79.
2).Sunita Sharma,
W/o.Purushothama,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. No.166, 15th cross,
Nagarabhavi 2nd stage,
Jeevadhani Ashrama Malgani,
Bangalore-79.
(Reptd.by Sri.R.L.N...Adv., )
Date of 01.03.2011
commencement of
offence
Offences complained U/Secs.284, 323, 504, 506 r/w
of Sec. 34 of the IPC
2 C.C.22586/2011
Date of arrest of Accused are not arrested
accused
Date of release of Accused surrendered before
accused on bail court and were enlarged on bail.
Date of 17.09.2019
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closure of 22.01.2020
recording evidence
Offences Proved Nil
Plea of the accused Not guilty
and his/their
examination :
Final Order : Accused are Not found guilty
Date of final order 05.02.2020
JUDGMENT
U/Sec.355 of the Cr.P.C., This is criminal case arisen out of the charge sheet submitted by W.P.S.I of Cubbon Park P.S against accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.284, 323, 504, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC in Cr.No.47/2011.
3 C.C.22586/2011(Originally this charge sheet was filed before VIII ACMM court as per notification No.ADM-I/1466/2019 dated 21.10.2019. This case has been withdrawn from VIII ACMM court and assigned to this XXXII ACMM court for disposal in accordance with law).
2. The facts of the case runs thus:-
2(a). The flat No.G-16 in Golden Orchid Apartments Lavelle road situated within the jurisdiction of Cubbonpark Police belonged to accused no.1 and 2. The C.W.1 Sri.SanjeevSingh S/o M.N.Singh is tenant in the said flat under accused no.1 and 2.
b). There is dispute between accused no.1 and 2 and C.W.1 relating to vacating the said flat by C.W.1.
Number of civil and criminal cases are pending in different courts relating to this dispute since several years.
c). On 01.03.2011 at about 1.00P.M the C.W.1 came out side from the flat and at that time the accused no.1 and 2 came along with two persons and picked up 4 C.C.22586/2011 quarrel with C.W.1, abused C.W.1 in filthy language. The accused no.1 and 2 criminally intimidated to the life of C.W.1 forcing him to withdraw the complaints lodged against accused no.1 and 2.
d). At that time the accused no.1 suddenly sprayed chilly powder and some poison on the eyes and nose. As a result of which the C.W.1 sustained burning sensation and accused no.1 and 2 assulted the office staff of the C.W.1 by name Ranjith Kumar (C.W.2).
e).Immediately after the incident, the accused no.1 and 2, tried to escape from the block in a car but public gathered near and caught hold of both accused no.1 and 2 and took them to the police station. At that time the accused no.1 threatened the C.W.1 to lodge false ' attempt to rape case'.
f). Earlier to this incident the accused no.1 and 2 attacked C.W.1 and C.W.1 lodged 3 complaints against the accused persons and in all 3 complaints police filed charge sheet against accused.
5 C.C.22586/2011
g). C.W.5 I.O who received the complaint registered the crime and submitted FIR. The C.W.5 proceeded to the spot and drawn mahazar on the spot and recovered chilly powder stained shirt of the C.W.1 and pepper spray bottle at the time of drawing mahazar on the spot.
h).After completing investigation the C.W.5 found the accused guilty and accordingly she submitted charge sheet against accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.284, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. After submitting the charge sheet cognizance of the alleged offence is taken and criminal case against the accused no.1 and 2 came to be registered. Pursuant to the summons the accused no.1 and 2 appeared and enlarged on bail. Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C complied.
4. After hearing before charge since this court finds sufficient reasons to proceed further, charge framed against accused no.1 and 2 and same is read 6 C.C.22586/2011 over to accused. Accused no.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence matter is posted for recording evidence on behalf of prosecution.
5. On behalf of prosecution in all evidence of PW.1 to 4 adduced and the documents got marked at Ex.P1 to 3 and M.O.1 and 2- pepper spray and Shirt are got marked.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused no.1 and 2 are examined U/s.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Each and every incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused no.1 and 2 are separately read over to the accused. The accused no.1 and 2 denied all such circumstances as false. The accused no.1 and 2 did not choose to adduce defense evidence and got marked documents as per Ex.D.1 to 9 on their behalf.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Now the point that arises for the determination of this court is:
"Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt the alleged guilt of the 7 C.C.22586/2011 accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/secs.283, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC?"
After considering the arguments submitted from both side and after careful appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, my finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following.....
REASONS
9. In support of case of the prosecution the prime witness/C.W.1 examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 01.03.2011 at about 1.00 P.M when he proceeded from his house, the accused no.1 and 2 came along with other 2 -3 persons in front of him, abused him and asked him why he is going to withdraw the case against accused persons. The accused were asking C.W.1 why he was not paying rent. For that the C.W.1 explained to accused no.1 that the purchaser of the flat is also demanding for rent and he is paying rent to the original owner (purchaser of the flat). Further P.W.1 explained that when he is explained 8 C.C.22586/2011 these facts to accused no.1 the accused no.1, took spray bottle from her bag which contained chilly powder and sprayed it on the face of P.W.1. Further P.W.1 deposed that accused no.1 told that the accused no.2 and other 2-3 persons to kill the P.W.1.
10. Further P.W.1 explained that the accused no.1 snatched his golden chain of 20 grams. Further he explained that as a result of chilly spray he got burning sensation in his eyes, nose and face as a result of it he fell down. Further P.W.1 explained that when he fell down the other persons who came with accused no.1 started to kick him with shoes legs on his chest and private part. Further P.W.1 explained that at that time he started to scream for help and public gathered and accused fled away by their car. Further P.W.1 explained that with the help of the public he went to the hospital and taken treatment and in this regard he lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. Further P.W.1 explained that both accused no.1 and 2 criminally intimidated to lodge false rape case against him in order to force him to 9 C.C.22586/2011 withdraw the case filed against accused no.1 and 2. Further P.W.1 explained that after lodging the complaint police drawn mahazar on the spot as per Ex.P.2 and police seized his shirt and 'cobra magnum chilly spray'. Both shirt and pepper spray are marked as M.O.1 and
2.
11. C.W.3 Sri. Mahesh Kumar examined as P.W.4 claiming to be eye witness to the incident. This witness in his evidence deposed that immediately after the incident he rushed to the spot and C.W.1 informed him that accused no.1 and 2 quarreled with him and assaulted C.W.2 on his face with spray. This witness is treated as hostile witness.
12. C.W.4 one Sri.Ravi Kumar examined as P.W.3 claiming to be spot mahazar witness. This witness in his evidence deposed that on 01.03.2011 police drawn mahazar on the spot and seized M.O.1 and 2. 10 C.C.22586/2011
13. C.W.5 -I.O -W.P.S.I examined as P.W.2. The P.W.2 in her evidence explained the investigation done by her.
14. The prosecution failed to secure C.W.2 one Ranjith Kumar who cited as injured as well as eye witness to the incident. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the prosecution to secure C.W.2, but prosecution failed to secure C.W.2. Hence examination of C.W.2 came to be dropped.
15. Defence of the accused:
The C.W.1 being the tenant under accused no.1 and 2, defaulted in payment of rent and refused to pay rent. The C.W.1 and other tenants along with other accused in the said flat under accused no.1 and 2 misused the said residential address and they indulged in criminal activities and number of criminal cases came to be registered against them. The C.W.1 in order to avoid payment of rent to accused no.1 and 2 went on lodging false criminal cases against accused no.1 and 2 by making use of his influence. The C.W.1 is a State 11 C.C.22586/2011 level political leader and he is close with the Ex-CM and other state level political leaders and out of the influence of C.W.1, police registered false crime and submitted false charge sheet against accused no.1 annd 2 without proper investigation. On the date of registration of crime in this case, the accused lodged complaint against C.W.1 and crime was registered in Cr.No.48/2011 in Cubbonpark P.S. But police did not investigate the matter in Cr.No. 48/2011 due to influence of C.W.1. The accused no.1 and 2 are innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged.
16. During course of arguments learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and further he argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 is free from material contradictions and there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to 4. Accordingly learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor prayed to convict the accused no.1 and 2 for the alleged offences. 12 C.C.22586/2011
17. On the other hand on behalf of the accused it is argued that there is long standing dispute between the accused and C.W.1 as to recovery of rent and the C.W.1 is an influential person and having close contacts with the Ex-C.M and other political leaders and same is evidenced by the photographs produced by the accused during cross examination of the P.W.1. Further counsel for accused argued that the accused indulged in creating fake marks card and criminal case was registered against accused and accused also involved in Comed-K case ie. Seat blocking case and the C.W.1 misused the address of the house of accused persons Further it is argued on behalf of accused that no incident took place as alleged by the accused and the eye witnesses cited in the charge sheet are associates of C.W.1 and I.O failed to investigate into the matter properly. Further it is argued that since C.W.1 is highly influential person and I.O filed false charge sheet without investigating into the matter and without investigating into complaint of the accused person against C.W.1. Further Learned counsel for accused 13 C.C.22586/2011 argued that the prosecution not proved the use of poison which is dangerous to human life. Further it is argued that other allegations leveled against accused persons are not attracting alleged offences. On these grounds learned counsel prayed to acquit the accused persons.
18. In the background of rival submissions at this juncture I feel it relevant to reproduce Sec. 284, 319, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and the interpretation of the word "Proved" U/Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act
284. Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance.--Whoever does, with any poisonous substance, any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any poisonous substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such poisonous substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
14 C.C.22586/2011
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
506-Punishment for criminal intimidation-Whoever commits, the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.,-And If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire or to cause an offence punishable with death or (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment for a term which may extent to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
15 C.C.22586/2011
Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence Act:
"Proved". A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
19. Now the question which arises before court is that whether the prosecution proved the necessary ingredients required under the above said law. Another question which arises before court is whether the evidence placed on record is sufficient and reliable to hold the accused guilt.
20. At the cost of repetition, I would like to mention the case of the prosecution, that accused no.1 and 2 and two other persons came to the C.W.1, picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused C.W.1 and accused no.1 sprayed chilly powder and pepper spray on the face of C.W.1 and it resulted in falling of the C.W.1 and thereafter the other persons who came with accused no.1 kicked the C.W.1 with shoe leg and at that time C.W.1 screamed for help and thereafter public gathered 16 C.C.22586/2011 and the accused no.1 and 2 tried to escape and thereafter the police caught hold of the accused no.1 and 2 and brought them to the police station.
21. Further I would like to the mention that according to the case of the prosecution C.W.2 and 3 personally witnessed the incident. It is clear that according to the case of the prosecution C.W.2 came to rescue of C.W.1 and at that time the accused no.1 assulted C.W.2.
22. Now the prime question which arises before court is whether these material aspects reflects in the evidence placed on record? On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that at the time of incident the accused no.1 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and sprayed pepper spray on the face of C.W.1 and other persons assaulted C.W.1.
In the chief examination P.W.1 explained that immediately after the incident he went to Mallya hospital and took treatment and thereafter he went to Police station and lodged complaint. 17 C.C.22586/2011
During cross examination P.W.1 explained that immediately after the incident he went to small clinic for treatment. On the contrary the P.W.4 by name Sri.Jayakumar @Mahesh in the cross examination explained that immediately after the incident of assault, himself and C.W.1 went to police station and thereafter police took the C.W.1 to the hospital and he came back from the police station. Admittedly no wound certificate is secured by I.O during investigation.
23. The evidence placed on record as to taking treatment by C.W.1 in the hospital is not corroborating with the case of prosecution and evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is contrary with each other. This aspect creates a serious doubt.
24. According to the case of the prosecution C.W.2- Ranjith Kumar and C.W.3-Mahesh Kumar are eye witnesses to the incident. During cross examination of P.W.1 specific suggestion was posed to the P.W.1 as to mention of presence of C.W.2 and 3 in the complaint, for this P.W.1 in the cross examination dated 18.09.2019 18 C.C.22586/2011 explained that at the time of incident C.W.2 and 3 were waiting for him near the car and for this reason he did not mention the presence of C.W.2 and 3 in the complaint. This explanation of the P.W.1 in the cross examination clearly indicates that C.W.2 and 3 were not present at the time of incident and they did not witness the incident. This aspect in turn falsifies the case of prosecution that C.W.2 went to rescue of C.W.1 and accused persons assulted C.W.2 also.
25. Apart from this the P.W.4 (C.W.3) in his evidence deposed that he rushed to the spot after the incident and C.W.1 informed him that accused no.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and assulted C.W.2 with spray. The say of P.W.4 falsifies the case of the prosecution that P.W.4 personally witnessed the incident. This witness is treated as hostile witness. During cross examination made by learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor this witness admitted that he personally witnessed the incident. Further during cross examination on behalf of accused, he specifically explained that he did not personally witness the 19 C.C.22586/2011 incident. In the cross examination made on behalf of accused, it is elicited from the mouth of P.W.4 that this witness was also tenant along with C.W.1 in the house of accused 1 and 2. It is crystal clear that this witness is also having some enmity with accused persons. It is also case of the accused that this P.W.4 also co-accused in criminal case against C.W.1. The P.W.4 in the cross examination admitted that he is not given statement before I.O relating to this case, but C.W.1 has given statement. On close scrutiny of the evidence P.W.4 it is clear that the P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution. On the other hand the evidence of P.W.4 reveals that case of the prosecution is false. This circumstance leads to presumption that I.O did not record the statement of this witness U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C as per say of the witness. Further this court observed that in the Ex.P.1 complaint itself. C.W.1 mentioned that C.W.2 Ranjith is his office staff. No doubt C.W.2 is also an interested witness. C.W.2 is not secured by the prosecution even after giving sufficient opportunities. As I have above stated the P.W.1 admitted that this C.W.2 20 C.C.22586/2011 was not present at the time of incident and this C.W.2 not personally witnessed the incident.
26. During cross examination of P.W.1 it is tried to establish that some criminal cases are registered against C.W.1 relating to fake marks card and in COMED-K Seat blocking case. P.W.1 denied such suggestions as false and P.W.1 explained that these cases are against Sanjeev Kumar Singh but not against him. Further he admitted that in O.S.No.9017/2011, Civil Court held that the defendant No.1 S.K. Singh and defendant No.4 Sanjeev Singh (present C.W.1) are one and the same person. Further P.W.1 explained that he challenged the finding of the Civil Court before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
27. On looking into the entire evidence of P.W.1 it is crystal clear that there is some enmity between the accused persons and the C.W.1.21 C.C.22586/2011
28. At this juncture I feel it relevant to rely on the following decisions reported :
1). (2003) 11 SCC 681 (Harijan Narayana and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) wherein it is held that Criminal Trial witness related witnesstestimony of -conviction on the basis of -Held, permissible if the presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved or considered to be natural and the evidence tendered by him/her is found to be true but where there is enmity and the witnesses are near relatives too, held great care, caution and circumspection required while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses"
2). AIR 1980 SC 443( Babu VS State of UP wherein it is held that were the witnesses are interested, theirevidence should be scrutinized with great caution"
3). 2002(7) SCC 691(Ruli Ram Vs.State of Haryana) in this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"enmity is a double edged sword. While it can be a base for false implications, it can also be a base for the crime. The court has to weigh the evidence carefully and if, after doing so, holds the evidence to be acceptable, the accused cannot take the plea it should not be acted upon. When the plea if false implication is advanced by the accused, foundation for the same has to be established. In the instant case, the trial court and the High Court analyzed the evidence in detail and have held to be plausible and acceptable one. There is no reason to differ from the courts below on the factual aspects"22 C.C.22586/2011
I have gone through the law laid down in the above decisions.
29. Further at this juncture I feel it relevant to rely on the following decisions reported in:
1). (2010) 13 SCC 657 Dr.Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the principles of law of appreciation of the evidence
2). (2014) 13 SCC 308 (State of MadhyaPradesh Vs Dharkole alias Govind Singh and others, wherein it is held that CEvidence Act 1872 Sec.3Proved Standard of proof required is proof beyond all reasonable doubtyet there is no absolute standard of reasonable doubt a reasonable doubt is A fair doubt based on a reason and commonsense and must grow out of the evidence in the caseconcept of probability cannot be expressed with mathematical precision as it involves subjective elements and it rests on commonsensecriminal trial benefit of doubt words and phrases reasonable doubt"
I have gone through the above said decisions and keeping the law laid down in the above decisions in my mind I have appreciated the evidence placed on record and circumstances of the case.23 C.C.22586/2011
30. In this present case on hand, as I have above stated it is crystal clear that the C.W.2 and 3 were not at all present at the time of alleged incident and they did not witness the incident personally. Further it is clear that the I.O mentioned the C.W.2 and 3 as eye witnesses by recording their statements U/S 161 of Cr.P.C. in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Further this court observed that the P.W.1 admitted in the cross examination that two securities in the apartment and 3-4 drivers personally witnessed the incident. The presence of the securities at the time of alleged incident is probable and acceptable one. The I.O did not make efforts to record statements of the securities. No local persons are cited as eye witnesses in the charge sheet. This aspect creates a serious doubt in believing the case of the prosecution.
31. Apart from this, as to manner in which the incident occurred, the say of P.W.1 is contrary to the case of the prosecution. As per complaint averments at 24 C.C.22586/2011 the time of incident, the accused no.1 snatched golden chain of 80 grams. During investigation the I.O found that the chain is not snatched by the accused and same is strengthened by further statement before the C.W.1. Contrary to the case of the prosecution, C.W.1 in his evidence deposed that at the time of incident, the accused snatched his golden chain of 20 grams.
32. After going through the entire papers on this aspect it is clear that the C.W.1 made attempt to make false allegations against accused no.1 and 2 as to snatching of the golden chain. This aspect alos creates a doubt in believing the case of the prosecution. Further this court observed that according to the case of the prosecution and as mentioned in Ex.P.1- complaint, accused no.1 poured chilly powder on the eyes and nose of the C.W.1 and thereafter sprayed pepper spray on the face of C.W.1. Based on this averment in the complaint, the I.O investigated the matter and at the time of drawing mahazar, these details are reflected in the mahazar. The I.O seized the 25 C.C.22586/2011 "chilly powder stained shirt" of C.W.1 and the "pepper spray" at the time of drawing mahazar. The I.O who examined as P.W.2, in her evidence deposed accordingly. But the P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that the accused sprayed pepper spray on his face. This P.W.1 not deposed about pouring chiily powder. Like this number of circumstances arising out of the evidence, creates a serious doubt in believing the case of the prosecution.On overall scrutiny of the evidence placed on record, it clearly indicates that the C.W.1 by making use of his influence got registered criminal case against accused no.1 and 2 with false allegation.
33. As I have above stated, on close scrutiny of the evidence placed on record and after appreciating the circumstances it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused no.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused C.W.1, put life threat to C.W.1 and sprayed chilly powder and pepper spray and committed the alleged offences. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons assaulted 26 C.C.22586/2011 C.W.2 as alleged. On the other hand, as I have above stated the material placed on record clearly indicates that the C.W.1 in order to avoid payment of rent to accused persons got registered false case against the accused no.1 and 2 by making use of his influence. With these observations this court held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. With this observation, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following....
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1)) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/secs. 284, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Sec 34 of IPC.
Accused no.1 and 2 are set at liberty forthwith and the bail bond of the accused and that of surety stands canceled.
27 C.C.22586/2011M.O.1-pepper spray being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
M.O.2-Shirt is ordered to be returned to C.W.1-Sanjeev Singh, after lapse of appeal period.
(Judgment dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her computerized copy corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th day of February 2020).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1: Sri.Sanjeev Singh P.W.2: Smt.Roopa Hadagali- Woman P.I P.W.3: Sri.S.Ravikumar P.W.4: Sri.Jaishankar Kumar @ Mahesh
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1:-Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a): Signature Ex.P.3: FIR Ex.P.3(a): Signature 28 C.C.22586/2011
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused Ex.D.1-Greeting card Ex.D.2-letter Ex.D.3-C.C.in Crl.Misc. 6081/2015 Ex.D.4-Internet print out of the article Ex.D.5 to 8- Four photos Ex.D.9- Letter from the bank
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
M.O.1 -Pepper spray M.O.2-Shirt (Hattikal Prabhu.S) XXXII Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.