Bangalore District Court
Parappana Agrahara Ps vs Kaddi Babu Babu on 14 January, 2026
KABC010222022011
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-63)
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri. Raghavendra S. Channabasappa, B.A., LL.B (Spl).,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO.969/2011
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused 1) Mr.Kaddi Babu @ Babu R.,
S/o. Late Rajappa,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.749, 10th Cross,
Back to Pooja Jewellers,
Chennakeshava Nagar,
Bengaluru-100.
2) Mr.Chinnappa @ Chinni,
S/o. Annaiahappa,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.776, 8th Cross,
Channakeshava Nagar,
Hosa Road,
Bengaluru-100.
2 S.C No.969/2011
3) Mr.Burugappa @ Buruga,
S/o. Nagappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.114, 3rd Cross,
Chennakeashava Nagar,
Hosa Road, Bengaluru-100.
4) Mr.Ramesha @ Andra Ramesh,
S/o. Late Venkataiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.188, 2nd Cross,
Vinayaka Hospital Road,
Chennakeshava Nagar,
Hosa Road, Bengaluru-100. (Abated)
5) Mr.Anthoni Swamy,
S/o. Annaiahappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.776, 8th Cross,
Channakeshava Nagar,
Hosa Road,
Bengaluru-100.
6) Mr.K.Srinivasa @ Kote Garden Seenappa,
S/o. Krishnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.745, 8th Cross,
Channakeshava Nagar,
Hosa Road,
Bengaluru-100.
[Accused No.4 - Abated,
A1 to 3, 5 & 6 are on Bail]
Date of commission of offence 22.03.2011
Date of report of offence 22.03.2011
Name of the complainant Mr.Ashwathanarayana
Date of commencement of trial 27.09.2014
3 S.C No.969/2011
Date of closing of 26.07.2024
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 14.01.2026
Offences complained of U/Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 302,
307, 326 r/w. 149 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are
acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Parappana Agrahara Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offences punishable U/Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307, 326 r/w. 149 of IPC before the learned 9th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, who committed the case for disposal in accordance with law.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as under; On 22.03.2011 at about 12-30 A.M., at Chennakeshavanagar, 9th Cross, within the jurisdiction of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bangalore, accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention to murder deceased Basavaraju, CW1 Ashwathanarayana and CW2 Raju and formed an unlawful assembly, accused No.4, 5 and 6 restrained CW1, CW2 and deceased Basvaraju at the said place and thereafter accused No.1 assaulted with long on deceased Basavaraju's right cheek and near ear, back side head, 4 S.C No.969/2011 right side head and due to which he sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the same while he was being taken to Victoria Hospital. The 2nd accused assaulted with long on CW2's head, face, chest and hands, he sustained grievous injury and was taken treatment at Saint John's Hospital. The accused No.3 assaulted with long on CW1's head, right hand, he sustained grievous injury and was taken treatment at Sparsha Hospital. Hence the complaint. The respondent police registered case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under U/Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307, 326 r/w. 149 of IPC in Crime No.78/2011 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station.
3. On the complaint registered by the complainant in Crime No.78/2011 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station and Police have registered FIR against accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 326 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the I.O. of Parappana Agrahara have submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307, 326 r/w. 149 of IPC.
5 S.C No.969/2011
4. During the trial, firstly the charge has been framed against accused No.1 to 6 on 23.04.2014 U/Sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307, 326 r/w. 149 of IPC. , wherein they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. As per Order sheet dated: 07.11.2017 accused No.4 was died, hence case against accused No.4 is abated. Therefore, case continued only against accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 only.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and Material Objects i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.28(a) were marked and closed their side. Thereupon, the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have been examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by stating the incriminating evidence appearing against them, wherein they have denied the same and they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf and thereby, the defence evidence is taken as NIL. On behalf of accused Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 marked.
6. Heard arguments.
7. The points for my consideration are :-
1) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on 22.03.2011 at about 12-30 A.M., at Chennakeshavanagar, 9 th 6 S.C No.969/2011 Cross, within the jurisdiction of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bangalore, accused No.1 to 6 with common intention to murder deceased Basavaraju, CW1 Ashwathanarayana & CW2 Raju and formed an unlawful assembly and thereby committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 143 r/w. 149 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention to murder deceased Basavaraju, CW1 Ashwathanarayana and CW2 Raju & formed an unlawful assembly and committed an offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 147 r/w. 149 of IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention to murder deceased Basavaraju, CW1 Ashwathanarayana and CW2 Raju, formed unlawful assembly & armed deadly weapons viz., long and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 148 r/w. 149 of IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention to murder deceased 7 S.C No.969/2011 Basavaraju, CW1 Ashwathanarayana and CW2 Raju & chased them, at that time CW1, CW2 and Basavaraju tried to escape, for that accused No.4, 5 and 6 restrained them and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 341 r/w. 149 of IPC ?
5) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention picked up quarrel with CW2 Raju, the 2nd accused assaulted with long on CW2's head, face, chest and hands and accused No.3 assaulted with long on CW1's head, right hand and caused grievous bleeding injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.326 r/w. 149 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention picked up quarrel with CW2 Raju, the 2nd accused assaulted with long on CW2's head, face, chest and hands and accused No.3 assaulted with long on CW1's head, right hand and caused grievous bleeding injuries and tried to attempt to murder them and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 307 r/w. 149 of IPC?
8 S.C No.969/2011
7) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused No.1 to 6 are with common intention to murder deceased Basavaraju, CW1 Ashwathanarayana and CW2 Raju, restrained them, accused No.1 assaulted with long on deceased Basavaraja's right cheek, near ear, back side head, right side head and due to which he sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the same while he was being taken to Victoria Hospital and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.302 r/w.149 of IPC ?
8) What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under :-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.5 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.6 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.7 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.8 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No. 1 to 7:- Since these points are interconnected to each other they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
9 S.C No.969/2011
10. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses examined as PW1 to 13 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and marked material objects M.O.1 to M.O.28(a). PW1/CW1 Ashwathanarayana has deposed in his chief-examination that, ನನಗೆ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುತ್ತದೆ. 1 ರಿಂದ 6 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುತ್ತದೆ. 1 ರಿಂದ 6 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ನಾನು ಬಾರ್ ನಿಂದ ಹೊರಗಡೆ ಬರುವಾಗ ಕೋರ್ಟಿನ ಮುಂದಿರುವ 6 ಜನ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮಧ್ಯ ಪಾನ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದು , 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಕೈ ತಾಕಿರುತ್ತದೆ, 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನಗೆ ತಿಕಾ ಮುಚ್ಚಿ ಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗು ಬೋಳಿ ಮಗನೆ ಎಂದು ಕೆನ್ನೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಬಾರ್ ನ ಹೊರಗಡೆ ಇದ್ದ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ನೀನು ತಿಕಾ ಮುಚ್ಚಿ ಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗು ಎಂದು ಬೈದನು. ಆಗ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಖಾಲಿ ಬೀರ್ ಬಾಟಲ್ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಬಂದನು, ಆಗ ನಾನು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಅಣ್ಣಾ ತಪ್ಪಾಯಿತು ಅವನಿಗೆ ಏನೂ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡನು. ಆಗ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮತ್ತೆ ನನಗೆ ಎರಡು-ಮೂರು ಬಾರಿ ಹೊಡೆದನು. ಸದರಿ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಆದಾಗ ರಾತ್ರಿ 11-00 ಗಂಟೆ ಆಗಿತ್ತು , ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜು ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ತಪ್ಪಿ ಸಿಕೊಂಡು ನಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ದಾರಯಲ್ಲಿ ರೇಣುಕ ಬಾರ್ ಹತ್ತಿರ 6 ಜನ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಿಂತಿದ್ದ ರು, ನಮ್ಮ ನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ 1 ಮತ್ತು 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಿಂತಿದ್ದ ರು, ನಮ್ಮ ನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ 1 ಮತ್ತು 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಕರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾವು ಹತ್ತಿರ ಹೋದಾಗ 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮ್ಮ ನ್ ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಬೈಯುತ್ತಿಯಾ ಎಂದು 10 S.C No.969/2011 ಬಸವರಾಜನಿಗೆ ಎರಡು ಏಟು ಹೊಡೆದನು, 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಿನಿಂದ ಜಾಡಿಸಿ ಒದ್ದ ನು, ಆಗ ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಬಂದಿದ್ದು , ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಸೇರಿ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನ ಬಿಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡೆವು. ನಾವು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ನಮ್ಮ ದು ತಪ್ಪಾಗಿದೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬಿಡಿ ಅಣ್ಣಾ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು ಅಷ್ಟ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಆರೋಪಿತರೂ ಸೇರಿ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದರು, ಸದರಿ ಘಟನೆ ಚನ್ನ ಕೇಶವನಗರದ 9 ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಓಡಿಹೋಗಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದರು, 2 ರಿಂದ 6 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಬಸವರಾಜನ ಬೆನ್ನ ತ್ತಿ ಹೋದರು, ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2, 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತನಿಗೆ ಉಳಿದವರಿಗೆ ಕೇಳು ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು, 2 ರಿಂದ 5 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನನ್ನು 9 ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಹಾಕಿ ತುಳಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ನು, ಆಗ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಹೋಗಿ ಬಸವರಾಜನನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿ ಬಸವರಾಜನನ್ನು ಎಬ್ಬಿಸಿದೆವು, ನಾವು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಅಣ್ಣ ತಪ್ಪಾಗಿದೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬಿಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದೆವು, ನಾವು ಈ ರೀತಿ ಕೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗಲೇ 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ತಲೆ ಹಿಂಬಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ, ನಾನು ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಮೂರನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ಬಲಗೈಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದಿದ್ದ , ನನ್ನ ಕಿರುಬೆರಳು ಕತ್ತರಿಸಿದ್ದು , ಮುಂಗೈನಲ್ಲಿ ಮುರಿತವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ, ಸದರಿ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮೃತ ಬಸವಾರಾಜು ಮತ್ತು ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ರು, ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಇವರಿಗೆ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ರು, ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಮತ್ತು ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಕೆಳಗಡೆ ಬಿದ್ದಿದ್ದು ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಸಾಯಿಸಿಬಿಡುತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದ 5 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿ 14 ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕೋಡೆಯವರ ಮನೆ ಕಡೆ ಓಡಿ ಹೋದೆನು. ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಮತ್ತು ಮೃತ ಬಸವಾಜನಿಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಲಾಂಗ್ಗಳಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1 11 S.C No.969/2011 ಮತ್ತು 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.2 ಇವರ ತಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮುಖಕ್ಕೆ ಲಾಂಗ್ ಗಳಿಂದ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಪೆಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ಕೆಳಗಡೆ ಬಿದ್ದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಸ್ಪ ರ್ಶ ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು , ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನಗೆ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ ಬಲಗೈಗೆ ಪೆಟ್ಟಾಗಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗೆ ಹೆಬ್ಬೆಟ್ಟಿನ ಗುರುತು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಗೌತಮ ಬಾರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನಗೆ ಬೈದು ಹೊಡೆದಾಗ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜು 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಬೈದಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಎಂ.ಓ.1 ರಿಂದ 3 ಬನಿಯನ್, ಶರ್ಟ್, ಚಡ್ಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಎಂ.ಓ.4 ರಿಂದ 6 ಲಾಂಗ್ಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
11. In Cross-examination PW1 deposed that, ಸದರಿ ಘಟನೆ ಆದ ಸಂದರ್ಭಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಬಂದು 8 ವರ್ಷ ಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದ ವು ಮತ್ತು 8 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಹೊಸರೋಡಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸಮಾಗಿದ್ದೆನು. ಸ್ಪ ರ್ಶ ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವೈದ್ಯ ರು ನನಗೆ ಗಾಯ ಎಲ್ಲಿ, ಹೇಗೆ, ಯಾರು ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಆಯಿತೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ . 2-3 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಘಟನೆ ಮುಂಚೆ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಪರಿಚಯವಿತ್ತು .
12. PW2 Raju has deposed in his chief-examination that, ನನಗೆ 1 ರಿಂದ 6 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಪರಿಚಯ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಚನ್ನ ಕೇಶವ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನನಗೆ 1 ರಿಂದ 6 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಲು ಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು 1 ರಿಂದ 6 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ಹೆಸರಿನಿಂದ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ನಾನು, ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಹಾಗೂ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜು ಕೆ.ಮೋಹನ 12 S.C No.969/2011 ಗಾರ್ಮೆಂಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಕಾರಣ ಪರಿಚಯವಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾನು, ಪಿಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಹಾಗೂ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಕೆಲಸ ಮುಗಿದ ನಂತರ ಒಂದೆಡೆ ಸೇರುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು, ನನ್ನ ಮನೆ ಜಿ.ಕೆ. ಲೇಔಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಚನ್ನ ಕೇಶವನಗರ 6 ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 21-03-2011 ರಾತ್ರಿ 10-00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಹೊಸರೋಡ್ ಜಂಕ್ಷನ್ಬಸ್ ನಿಲ್ದಾ ಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂತಿದ್ದೆವು, ಆಗ ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ನಮಗೆ ಪೋನ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಎಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದನು. ನಾವು ಬಸ್ ನಿಲ್ದಾ ಣದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಬಾ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದೆವು, ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಸ್ಥ ಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದನು ನಾವು ಮೂರು ಜನ ಮಾತನಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ದಯಾ ಸಾಗರ ಬಾರ್ ಗೆ ಹೋದೆವು, ದಯಾಸಾಗರ ಬಾರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಊಟ ಕಟ್ಟಿಸಿಕೊಂಡೆವು, ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ರಾತ್ರಿ ಸುಮಾರು 11-15 ಕ್ಕೆ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಪೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ಗೌತಮ್ ಬಾರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ, ನಾನು ಅಂಗಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಸ್ಥ ಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದೆನು, ನಾನು ಸ್ಥ ಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಿನಿಂದ ಒದೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ನು, ಉಳಿದ 2 ರಿಂದ 5 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಈತನೊಡನೆ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ರು. ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಏಟು ತಾಳಲಾರದೆ ಓಡಲು ಆರಂಭಸಿದನು, ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಈತನ ಹಿಂದೆ ಓಡಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದರು, ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಅವರ ಹಿಂದೆ ಓಡಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದರು. ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಅವರ ಹಿಂದೆ ಓಡಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದೆವು, 9 ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸಿನ ತಿರುವಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಕೈಗೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕ ನು, ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಆತನಿಗೆ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದರು, ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿ ಬಸವರಾಜನನ್ನು ಮೇಲೆ ಎತ್ತಿಕೊಂಡೆವು, ಆಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನೀವು ಈತನ ಬೆಂಬಲಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂದು ತಮಗೂ ಹೊಡೆಯಲು ಆರಂಭಿದರು. 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ಮೃತ 13 S.C No.969/2011 ಬಸವರಾಜನ ತಲೆಗೆ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಕುಸಿದು ಬಿದ್ದ ನು. 3 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಈತನ ತಲೆಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕೈಗೆ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನಗೆ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಅಲ್ಲೇ ಕುಸಿದು ಬಿದ್ದೆನು. 2 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನಗೆ ಮಚ್ಚಿ ನಿಂದ ಹೊಡೆದಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ತಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕೈಗಳಿಗೆ ಪೆಟ್ಟಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಹಲ್ಲೆಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಬಲಗೈನ ತೋರು ಬೆರಳು ಕತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದು , ಎರಡೂ ಕೈಗಳ ಮುಂಗೈಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಾನಿ, ಗಾಯವಾಗಿದ್ದು , ತಲೆಯ ಹಿಂಭಾಗದಲ್ಲೂ ಸಹಾ ಗಾಯವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾನು ಸೇಂಟ್ ಜಾನ್ಸ ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾಗ ಬಸವರಾಜ ತೀರಿಕೊಂಡನೆಂದು, ಪಿ.ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ.1 ಈತನ ತಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕೈಗೆ ಪೆಟ್ಟಾಗಿದ್ದು ಸ್ಪ ರ್ಶ ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪಚಾರ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾನೆಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು. ನಾನು ಸೇಂ ಟ್ಜಾನ್ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 25 ರಿಂದ 26 ದಿನಗಳ ಕಾಲ ಒಳರೋಗಿಯಾಗಿ ಉಪಚಾರ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಕೈಗೆ ಮೃತ ಬಸವರಾಜನ ಕೈ ತಗುಲಿದ ಕಾರಣ ಜಗಳವಾಗಿ ದಯಾಸಾಗರ್ ಬಾರ್ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಅಡ್ಡ ಗಟ್ಟಿ ಹಲ್ಲೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಸೇಟ್ ಜಾನ್ ಆಸ್ಪ ತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. Further he identified the Jeans Pant, T Shirt, Inner wear, one pair Sox, one pair white colour Shoes, which are belongs to the deceased Basavaraj, which are marked as M.O.7 to 11 and also identified M.O.4 to 6 long, chopper, but in the cross-examination the learned counsel for the accused have made lengthy cross-examination, but he did not try to elicited any rebuttal evidence from the mouth of this witness except mere denial.
14 S.C No.969/2011
13. PW6 Dr.Dileep Kumar K.B., he deposed that on 22.03.2011 he conducted Postmortem of deceased Basavaraj between 3-00 to 4-00 p.m. and he seized the cloths M.O.7 to 11 belongs to the deceased Basavaraj during the medical examination and he found following injuries No.1 to 5 as mentioned in the Ex.P.6. He found following injuries
1) ತಲೆಯ ಹಿಂಭಾಗ ಮತ್ತು ಎಡಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಚ್ಚಿದ ಐದು ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ಗಾಯಗಳಿದ್ದು , ಅವುಗಳ ವಿಸ್ತೀರ್ಣ 8 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ. ಉದ್ದ ಮತ್ತು 2 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ. ಅಗಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಮೆದುಳಿನ ಆಳ,
2) 3 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಉದ್ದ ಹಾಗೂ 2 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಅಗಲ ಮೆದುಳಿನ ಆಳ,
3) 9 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಉದ್ದ ಹಾಗೂ 2 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಅಗಲ ಮೆದುಳಿನ ಆಳ,
4) 5 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಉದ್ದ ಹಾಗೂ 1 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಅಗಲ ಮೂಳೆಯ ಆಳ,
5) 4 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಉದ್ದ ಹಾಗೂ 1 ಸೆಂ.ಮೀ ಅಗಳ ಮೂಳೆಯ ಆಳ, ಈ ಕ್ರಮಾಂಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತವೆ.
(C.) vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ §® »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 5 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ, 1 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ C¼ÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ MAzÀÄ PÉÆaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄ«vÀÄÛ. (D) §® Q«¬ÄAzÀ 5 ¸ÉA.«Äà ªÉÄïÁãUÀzÀ°è DVzÀÄÝ, UÁAiÀÄzÀ CAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÀvÀÛj¹zÀݪÀÅ.
(E) ªÀÄÄRzÀ §®¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 4 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ, 1 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ D¼ÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ PÉÆaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄ«zÀÄÝ, §®V«¬ÄAzÀ 2 15 S.C No.969/2011 ¸ÉA.«Äà ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è EzÀÄÝ, UÁAiÀÄzÀ CAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÀvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
(F) §®vÉÆý£À ºÉÆgÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 2 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ªÀÄƼÉAiÀÄ C¼ÀzÀªÀgÉV£À MAzÀÄ ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄïÁãUÀzÀ°è 10 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ®zÀ vÀgÀazÀ UÁAiÀÄ«zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄïÁãUÀzÀ°è ºÀjvÀªÁzÀ DAiÀÄÄzÀs¢AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PɼÀV£À ¨sÁUÀ ªÉÆAqÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ«¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ°è DzÀAvÉ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
(G) §® PÉÊ£À PɼÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 2 PÉÆaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ½zÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À «¹ÛÃtð 9 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ªÀiÁA¸ÀRAqÀzÀ D¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁA¸ÀRAqÀzÀ D¼ÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. UÁAiÀÄzÀ CAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÀvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
ºÉÆmÉÖAiÀÄ §®¨sÁUÀzÀ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 3 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁA¸ÀRAqÀzÀ D¼ÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄ«zÀÄÝ, UÁAiÀĪÀÅ ªÀÄzÀså¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ 10 ¸ÉA.«Äà zÀÆgÀ CAzÀgÉ ¨É£ÀÄߪÀÄƼɬÄAzÀ 10 ¸ÉA.«Äà zÀÆgÀzÀ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄzÀ M¼À¨sÁUÀ ªÉÆAqÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ«¤AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ PÁtÄwÛzÀÄÝ, CAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀjvÀªÁzÀ DAiÀÄÄzÀs¢AzÀ DzÀAvÉ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. UÁAiÀÄzÀ CAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁV PàvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. zÉúÀªÀ£ÀÄß bÉâü¹ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV vÀ¯É§ÄgÀÄqÉAiÀÄ 16 S.C No.969/2011 »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è gÀPÀÛ¸ÁæªÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯É§ÄgÀÄqÉAiÀÄ JqÀ»A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 3 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ºÁUÀÆ 6 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ®zÀ°è vÀ¯É§ÄgÀÄqÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄj¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è vÀ¯É §ÄgÀÄqÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ¼É 12 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ®zÀ UÁvÀæzÀ°è ¥ÀÅr¥ÀÅrAiÀiÁV ªÀÄÄj¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÉÄÃgÀÄzÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É£ÀÄߪÀiÆ¼É AiÀÄxÁ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjzÀ PÀqÉUÀ¼À°è ªÉÄzÀĽ£À ¥ÉÇgÉAiÀÄÄ ºÀj¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄzÀĽ£À JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 10 ¸ÉA.«Äà GzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 ¸ÉA.«Äà CUÀ® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄzÀĽ£À D¼ÀzÀµÀÄÖ ºÀj¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
JzÉ UÀÆqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÉ UÀÆr£À ªÀÄƼÉUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀÄxÁ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ±Áé¸ÀPÉÆñÀªÀ£ÀÄß bÉâü¹zÁUÀ PÀrªÉÄ gÀPÀÛ ºÉÆgÀ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ºÉÆmÉÖAiÀÄ°è 300 «Ä°AiÀĵÀÄÖ ¨sÁUÀ±ÀB fÃtðªÁzÀ C£Àß EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DºÁgÀ¢AzÀ ºÁ®ÉÆÌúÁ°£À ªÁ¸À£ÀÉ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. G½zÀ CAUÁAUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀÄxÁ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EzÀݪÀÅ. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è CVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀÅ vÀ¯ÉUÉ DzÀ ¥ÉnÖ¤AzÀ DzÀ gÀPÀÛ¸ÁæªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DWÁvÀ¢AzÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ±ÀªÀ¢AzÀ gÀPÀÛ ¸ÀAUÀ滹 ¥ÉÆðøÀjUÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É F PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀgÀ¢ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É FUÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀªÀgÀ¢ 17 S.C No.969/2011 CzÉà EzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤.¦.6 JAzÀÄ, ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤.¦.6(J) JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹vÀÄ.
n¥Ààtô B ¤¦.6 EzÀgÀ PɼÀCAZÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄqÀaPÉÆAqÀÄ fÃtðªÁV ºÀj¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÁãUÀzÀ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è gÀAzÀæ ªÀiÁr ºÉÆ°zÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ zÉÆqÀØ gÀAzÀsæUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ, ªÉÆzÀ®£É ¥ÀÅl ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 £Éà ¥ÀÅlUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 CAUÀÄ®zÀ°è MAzÀPÉÆÌAzÀÄ CAnPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ §gÉzÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 CAUÀÄ®zÀµÀÄÖ ºÀj¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ºÉÆqÀÉAiÀÄ®Ä §AzÁUÀ gÀPÀëuÉUÉAzÀÄ PÉÊ CqÀØ vÀAzÀ°è ºÉÆgÀUÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À°è£À 5 £Éà UÁAiÀÄ DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FUÀ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ªÀÄÄzÉݪÀiÁ®ÄB4 jAzÀ 6 ¯ÁAUïUÀ½AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀ°è ¤¦.6 gÀ°è G¯ÉèÃR ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ±ÀªÀzÀ ªÉÄðgÀĪÀ ZÀÄaÑzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÉݪÀiÁ®ÄB 4 jAzÀ 6 jAzÀ ZÀÄaÑzÀ°è DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. M§â¤VAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ d£ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÉݪÀiÁ®ÄB4 jAzÀ 6 gÀAvÀºÀ DAiÀÄÄzÀsUÀ½AzÀ MAzÉà ¸Áj ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀ°è ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
The testimony of this witness is corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and I.Os. Therefore, the witness evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 are credible, trustworthy and reliable. Further as per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 the deceased sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.6 Postmortem 18 S.C No.969/2011 Report. Therefore, the Ex.P.6 is reliable as per say of PW6 with the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and reliable to form conviction. But learned counsel for the accused made cross-examination and did not made efforts and try to elicited rebuttal evidence from the mouth of this witness and he made suggestion in cross- examination that it is not true to say that suppose to assault by M.O.4 to M.O.6 the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.6 have not happen, except the suggestions there is no other rebuttal evidence have not been appeared in favour of the accused.
14. PW8 Dr.B.N.Nagaraj, he deposed in chief examination that, on 22.03.2011 around 9.15 am 24 years old male Mr. Ashivintha/PW1 came to our hospital with alleged history of assault on 21.03.2011. On examination he had sustained following injuries in his right hand :-
Amputation of the right little finger at the level of proximal phalmanx Oblique cut injury on the volar aspect over the hypothenar region exposing the bones and tendons.
Open fracture of the 5th meta carpal bone.
In his opinion all the above injuries are grievous in nature.
He issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P.8. This witness evidence is corroborative with the injured and credible, reliable, 19 S.C No.969/2011 trustworthy to form the conviction. But the learned counsel for the accused made cross-examination to this witness only denied.
15. PW9 Dr.Nagendra, he deposed in chief examination that, Ex.P2 stated that patient is fit to give the statement. He identified his signature in Ex.P.2. He had treated PW2 Raju. The learned counsel for the accused made cross-examination to this witness only made suggestions and denial. Therefore, he did not try to elicited rebuttal evidence from the mouth of this witness. This witness evidence also corroborated with the evidence of PW2, and reliable and trustworthy.
16. PW11 Sathish Kumar, H.C., as per direction of CW43 he along with CW32, 34, 35 and 36 were went to try to trace-out accused persons and received credible information about the accused persons where they were concealed and went their and apprehend the accused persons and return to the Police Station by 10-40 P.M. and he identified the accused No.3, 5 and 6. Accused No.2 absent on that day his counsel filed exemption petition. Therefore, accused No.2's counsel have no objection for his identification. The learned counsel for the accused made cross-examination to this witness except denial and suggestions 20 S.C No.969/2011 there is no other rebuttal evidence appeared from the mouth of this witness while cross-examination. PW12 V.K.Vasudev, Police Inspector, he deposed in his chief examination he received case file from CW38 on 22.03.2011, he secured CW9 and CW10 as a panchas and went to the spot and drawn the Mahazar as per Ex.P.9 between 6-30 to 7-30 P.M. and he seized M.O.1 to 3 i.e., blood stain banian, blood stain shirt, blood stains inner wear. He further deposed that he drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.12 in presence of CW11 and CW12. On 22.03.2011 he drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.13 between 12-30 to 3-00 P.M. in presence of CW19, 20 and 21. Ex.P.13 is Inquest Mahazar and he recoded statement of CW3 to CW8 and CW24, CW29, CW38, CW41, CW32, CW33, CW34, CW35, CW36, CW40, he identified Ex.P.14 detailed report about dead body and he recorded voluntary statement of accused No.2 to 5 and which is marked as Ex.P.15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, on the basis of voluntary statement he seized three longs and he drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.7 and seized said weapons under Mahazar and mentioned in PF.No.33/2011. Further he deposed that he drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.20 and seized the cloths belongs to the accused No.2 to 6 which were wear as on the date of the incident, he identified Ex.P.6 P.M. 21 S.C No.969/2011 Report. He drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.21 and seized the Cloths belongs to the deceased Basavaraj produced by CW31 and drawn the Mahazar as per Ex.P.21 in presence of CW17 and CW18 between 12-30 to 1-00 P.M. and he identified M.O.7 to 11. and reported the statement of PW2 on 17.04.2011 in presence of the Doctor and he received Ex.P.22 Wound Certificate from the Doctor belongs to the PW2 on 17.05.2011. He further deposed that on 25.05.2011 he received Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate from the concerned Doctor, which is belongs to the PW1 injured and he identified M.O.4 to 6 weapons and seized under Ex.P.15 to 19. On 30.05.2011 he filed charge sheet before the concerned Court and he complied arrest procedures against accused No.1 as produced by PSI Nanjunda, he recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1, which is marked as Ex.P.23 and drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.24 and seized M.O.22 to 28 in presence of the panchas. The learned counsel for the accused made cross- examination to this witness only made suggestions and denial, but there is no other rebuttal evidence appeared and tried to elicited rebuttal evidence from the mouth of this witness. Therefore, the testimony of this witness have corroborated with 22 S.C No.969/2011 the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW8 and PW9 along with other I.Os.
17. PW13 Sridhar, retired ASI, he deposed in his chief examination that on 22.03.2011 at about 12.30 P.M. he received credible information about the incident happened in 9 th Cross of Chennakeshava Nagara within the jurisdiction of this Police Station. Accordingly he went to the Sparsha Hospital, he saw the PW1 Ashwatha Narayan in the Hospital, he found injuries on the body of the PW1 and he recorded his statement as per Ex.P.1. He further deposed that on the same day between midnight at about 1-55 A.M. he return back to the Police Station and registered the case in Crime No.78/2011 and he complied procedures by sending Ex.P.11 FIR to the concerned Court and also to his higher officer and handed over the case file to the Policer Station SHO as because it is a heinous offence. The learned counsel for the accused made cross-examination to this witness only made suggestions and denial, but there is no other rebuttal evidence appeared and tried to elicited rebuttal evidence from the mouth of this witness. Therefore, the testimony of this witness have corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, 23 S.C No.969/2011 PW8 and PW9 along with other I.Os. Therefore, the evidence of this witness have corroborated, reliable, trustworthy to form conviction.
18. The learned counsel for the prosecution has argued that PW1 and PW2 are injured and eye-witness to the incident and also reiterated the facts and allegation against the accused persons. Further argued that sole eye-witness are enough to form conviction against the accused persons for the offence U/Sec.143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307, 326 r/w. 149 of IPC. Further argued that in support of eye-witness PW1 and PW2 along with I.O's evidence are credible and inspire confidence to believe the case of the prosecution and it is more trustworthy. She further argued that Ex.P.1 statement of complaint, PW1 identify the same and reiterated the facts as per Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar, it is proved by the testimony of PW2 and I.O evidence and these witnesses's testimony are credible and trustworthy to believe Ex.P.1 and 2 i.e., complaint and spot mahazar. Ex.P.6 P.M Report, it is corroborated the testimony of Doctor with I.O and PW1 and PW2 to believe the accused persons have assaulted by deadly weapons on the PW1 and PW2 and deceased Basavaraj and Doctor was conducted Postmortem on 22.03.2011 by 3-00 24 S.C No.969/2011 P.M. to 4-00 P.M and he prepared detailed report in this regard and gave report as per Ex.P.6 to the I.O and also hand over some articles belongs to the deceased Basavaraj. Further argued that evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW6, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW13 have corroborated each other and Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.6 P.M. Report, Ex.P.7 Mahazar Report, Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.9 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.11 FIR, Ex.P.12 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.13 Inquest, Ex.P.14 Inquest, Ex.P.15 to 19 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 to 6, Ex.P.20 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.21 Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P.22 Wound Certificate of PW2, Ex.P.23 Self-statement of A1, Ex.P.24 Seizure Mahazar, M.O.1 Blood stained Banian, M.O.2 Blood stained Shirt, M.O.3 Blood stained Underwear, M.O.4 to 6 Longs, M.O.7 Pink colour 'T' Shirt, M.O.8 Blue colour Jeans pant, M.O.9 Brown colour Underwear, M.O.10 Black colour Sox, M.O.11 One pair of white colour Shoe, M.O.12 Black colour Pant, M.O.13 Coffee colour Pant, M.O.14 Gray colour stripes Shirt, M.O.15 Blue colour Pant, M.O.16Gray colour Pant, M.O.17 White, Blue and Gray colour 'T' Shirt, M.O.18 Pink colour Shirt, M.O.19 Black & Red stripes shirt, M.O.20 Blood stained black colour shirt, M.O.21 Blood stained White colour shirt, M.O.22 One purse, M.O.23 One Pan card, M.O.24 one 25 S.C No.969/2011 Driving License, M.O.25 to 27 Three visiting cards and M.O.28, 28(a) Two Rs.100/- Notes, which are all documents proves through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW6, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW13 and corroborated, trustworthy and reliable to form conviction. He further argued that the Mahazar witness are turned Hostile, even though there is no any damages to the prosecution case and as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that when Mahazar witness turned hostile especially in murder case built-up based on the eye -witness, I.O. is sufficient to prove the Mahazar and enough to believe the Mahazars through the I.O. and also Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in various decisions that the injured eye witness are sufficient to form conviction in heinous offences, when they are support to the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6, accused No.4 was died during pendency of this case. Hence, proceedings against accused No.4 is already Abated.
19. Learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have argued that the evidence of PW1 and 2 are very contra with 26 S.C No.969/2011 their testimony and also lot of omissions and contradictions have appeared from the mouth of this witness. Therefore, their evidence are not reliable and trustworthy. They further argued that all the Mahazar witnesses are turned hostile have not supported to the Mahazar Ex.P.7, 9, 12 to 14, 20, 21. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the Ex.P.7, 9, 12 to 14, 20, 21 and M.O.1 to Ex.P.28(a). They further argued that during the cross- examination these witnesses Ex.D.1 and 2 marked, which is the portion statement of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, the prosecution case became fatal and damage. Further argued that the learned counsel for the accused have filed citations ILR 2013 KAR 992 with regard to the I.O deliberately does not record the FIR after receipt of information of cognizable offence. AIR 1993 SC 2644, wherein held that FIR or Statement recorded during investigation officer deliberately not recording FIR after information of cognizable offence registering the complaint as FIR after reaching spot. (2009) 10 SCC 206, wherein held that FIR should atleast mention the broad story of the prosecution, not mentioning the material and vital facts may affect credibility of FIR. AIR 1996 SC 2478 wherein held that proof of murder, prosecution witnesses did not refer to any role played by accused when he gave 27 S.C No.969/2011 statement to Police investigation, accused cannot be convicted for murder on the basis of improvement made by said witnesses. (2011) 2 SCC 715, wherein held that appreciation of evidence, contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishment, material contradictions, it is a significant fact had been omitted in their statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C and no explanation for omissions, it is fatal to the prosecution. 2009 (5) KCCR 3382, wherein held that vital witness make improvements of the statements recorded U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C., it is lead acquittal. AIR 2016 SC 4958, wherein held that delay in recording statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is doubt upon the prosecution case. AIR 1965 SC 328 interested witnesses may not be hostile to the assailant but if he is then his evidence must be examined very carefully and all the infirmities must be taken into account. Therefore, according to this citation it is big fatal to the prosecution case. AIR 1979 SC 135, wherein held that delay as a factor undermining the prosecution case investigation officer recorded the statement of witnesses is also one of the ground for acquittal. They further argued that the evidence of PW1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 are not corroborated and trustworthy when the Mahazar witness turned hostile and also a lot of contractions between the 28 S.C No.969/2011 evidence of PW1 and 2 and I.Os. Therefore, the prosecution have not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted for alleged charges.
20. Perused the testimony of an injured eye-witness is considered highly reliable and often sufficient for conviction, as their injuries prove their presence at the seen, but it depends on the Court's assessment of trustworthiness with minor inconsistencies usually disregarded unless major contradictions suggest fabrication, some times requiring corroboration if doubt arise. Court's presume an injured witness was present at the incident because they suffered harm, making false implication less likely, the Supreme Court has consistently held that such testimony carries great weight and should not be likely discarded. The Supreme Court emphasizes that while eye-witness testimony alone can support a conviction, it must be of struggling quality, reliable and thoroughly corroborating, especially if the witness is interested or the testimony has contradictions, Court's scrutinize inconsistencies, omissions and potential biasis, requiring strong corroboration for reliability with medical evidence, holding that a conviction needs proof beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot rest 29 S.C No.969/2011 on shaky foundations or uncorroborated, contradictory accounts, even from close relatives and conviction based on single eye witness is possible, but requires high quality, unassailable testimony, free from significant contradictions. The Supreme Court demands rigorous testing of eye witness accounts, demanding consistency and corroboration to ensure justice isn't based on flawed or biased testimony.
21. Further injured eye-witness considered reliable because they are direct victims and unlikely to spare the real culprits to frame others, but minor contradictions ignored. The testimony of single injured witness can be enough for conviction if found credible and reliable. Balur Sudam Khalde V/s. State of Maharastra (2023)., wherein held that reaffirmed that minor contradictions shouldn't discredit an injured eye-witness and their presence at the scene is presumed unless proven others. Kala Bhai Hamir Bhai Kachhot V/s. State of Gujarath (2021), wherein emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence alongside the injured witnesses testimony upholding conviction. Further medical evidence acts as crucial corroboration, scientifically confirming if injuries match witness testimony though its 30 S.C No.969/2011 generally corroborative and can be used by the defence to challenge the narrative if it contradicts eye witness testimony significantly. While medical evidence confirms how injuries could happen, it's the injured witnesses's first hand testimony that establishes who caused them, with balancing both to find the truth, often favoring the witnesses unless the medical report completely negates the testimony. Medical evidence verifies the consistency between injuries and the witness's statement, strengthening the case, if often findings inconsistencies on minor points don't invalidate the whole testimony if the Court story holds says.
22. Spot Mahazar is a vital investigative document prepared by the I.O. to record the scene of crime including the presence of blood stains, blood stain soil, weapons and other physical evidence, typically in the presence of the witnesses, when the murder case is build upon eye-witness testimony, the spot mahazar acts as a crystal corroborative evidence. If an eye- witness says that the murder took place at a specific spot and the spot mahazar records blood stained soil at the exact location, it strengthens the credibility of the eye-witnesses. Even if a 31 S.C No.969/2011 Mahazar witness turned hostile in Court, the Mahazar may still be used to establish the scene of crime if other evidence is strong. If a spot mahazar is combined with recovery mahazar U/Sec. 27 of Evidence Act it becomes a very strong piece of evidence. A spot mahazar constitute a link in the chain of evidence if eye-witness testimony is strong, the spot mahazar cements the place an manner of the offence if the eye-witness is weak a well documented spot mahazar can help build circumstantial evidence.
23. The Supreme Court holds that the testimony of an injured eye-witness carries great evidentiary value because their presence and suffering injuries at the scene proved their involvement making their account highly reliable unlikely to falsely implicate some one else and generally not discardable for minor contradictions or embellishment, while minor discrepancies are expected and ignored, Court must balance this strong reliability with scrutiny for major contradictions or if the witness is an interested witnesses, emphasizing that conviction requires careful evaluation, not automatic acceptance. The landmark Judgments passed in State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Naresh, wherein affirmed 32 S.C No.969/2011 that injuries at the scene support testimony and minor contradictions don't discredit it. Bhagirath V/s. State of Madhyapradesh, wherein highlighted the crucial reliance on injured witnesses where their presence is confirmed by injury. Recent case in 2023-24 wherein held that continue to reiterate that statement cannot be likely discarded unless substantial contradictions exists, stressing a positive judicial approach for the victim justice. An injured eye witness as a stamped witness making their evidence a strong foundation for conviction, though not infallible, requiring careful judicial consideration of the entire context.
24. Abdul Rahimuddin @ Abdul Rahim Vs. State of Assam
- 2019(5) Gau LR 2 NOC wherein held that the victim had 3 cut injuries on his body by sharp weapon, when there was a mob of large number of people and most of the witnesses were none, but close relations of the victim and were under extreme trauma, noticing the brutality of attack and killing of their near and dear one, it was a quite natural that in such a situation it might not be possible for the witnesses to minutely observe, as to who dealt with blow or blows or with what weapon, in the above 33 S.C No.969/2011 circumstances it was also observed to expect from the eye witnesses an account of what they have seen with arithmetical occuracy. Rather a tendency to make some exaggerated statement by the kith and kin of the victim out of anxiety to ensure the punishment of the offender is natural human conduct. The fact remains that the victim received multiple injuries including 3 cut injuries, therefore, when a large number of persons attacked the victim and inflicted injuries causing his death, eye witness accounts cannot be brushed aside merely for the reason that number of cut injuries as noticed by the Doctor did not tally with the oral testimony, reason being that the testimony of eye witnesses has to involvement of the accused persons inflicting injuries by sharp weapon was consistent and did not suffer from any imparement. When medical evidence says that there was 3 cut injuries, whereas eye witness account says that more than 3 persons hit the victim with sharp weapon, such difference between the medical evidence and testimony of eye witness in the fact and circumstances of the present case can by no stretch of imagination be held to be contradiction in its true sense that apart having regard to the facts and circumstances and the environment in which the occurrence took place, such 34 S.C No.969/2011 discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular evidence as indicated above or some exaggeration as to the injury inflicted to the victim were quite natural and could be a ground for discarding the evidence of eye witnesses lock, stock and barrel. Therefore, the verdict of the Apex Court in the said case is very much applicable to the present facts of the case.
25. Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras - AIR 1957 SC 614, wherein held that legal system has laid emphasizes on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not count, it is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under section 134 of Evidence Act, as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. Further Court can draw adverse inference if an accused person remains silent or give false answers when questioned under section accused statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. about incriminating evidence as this statement is 35 S.C No.969/2011 crucial for the accused to explain suspicious circumstances though the right to silence under Article 20(3) of Constitution must also be balanced, with silence itself not being the sole basis for conviction, while the old code explicitly allowed adverse inferences, the current codes silence on this is often interpreted by courts as permitting such inferences especially when the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation for strong prosecution evidence. An accused can choose to stay silent, but this silence especially when faced with clear incriminating evidence they could easily explain can be used by the Court to form an opinion against them, though it must be done causciously to uphold the right to silence.
26. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW6, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW13. PW1 and 2 deposed that the accused persons have assault by deadly weapons i.e., M.O.4 to 6 on the deceased Basavaraj and also PW1 and PW2, they sustain injuries on vital part of the deceased, and he died, PW1 and PW2 are sustain injuries and their evidence are credible, trustworthy and reliable to form conviction against accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 have corroborated with the evidence of PW6, PW8, PW9, PW11, 36 S.C No.969/2011 PW12, PW13 and proved Ex.P.1 statement of complaint, PW1 identify the same and reiterated the facts as per Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar, it is proved by the testimony of PW2 and I.O evidence and these witnesses's testimony are credible and trustworthy to believe Ex.P.1 and 2 i.e., complaint and spot mahazar. Ex.P.6 P.M Report, it is corroborated the testimony of Doctor with I.O and PW1 and PW2 to believe the accused persons have assaulted by deadly weapons on the PW1 and PW2 and deceased Basavaraj and Doctor was conducted Postmortem on 22.03.2011 by 3-00 P.M. to 4-00 P.M and he prepared detailed report in this regard and gave report as per Ex.P.6 to the I.O and also hand over some articles belongs to the deceased Basavaraj. Further argued that evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW6, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW13 have corroborated each other and Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.6 P.M. Report, Ex.P.7 Mahazar Report, Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.9 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.11 FIR, Ex.P.12 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.13 Inquest, Ex.P.14 Inquest, Ex.P.15 to 19 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 to 6, Ex.P.20 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.21 Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P.22 Wound Certificate of PW2, Ex.P.23 Self-statement of A1, Ex.P.24 Seizure Mahazar, M.O.1 Blood stained Banian, M.O.2 Blood 37 S.C No.969/2011 stained Shirt, M.O.3 Blood stained Underwear, M.O.4 to 6 Longs, M.O.7 Pink colour 'T' Shirt, M.O.8 Blue colour Jeans pant, M.O.9 Brown colour Underwear, M.O.10 Black colour Sox, M.O.11 One pair of white colour Shoe, M.O.12 Black colour Pant, M.O.13 Coffee colour Pant, M.O.14 Gray colour stripes Shirt, M.O.15 Blue colour Pant, M.O.16Gray colour Pant, M.O.17 White, Blue and Gray colour 'T' Shirt, M.O.18 Pink colour Shirt, M.O.19 Black & Red stripes shirt, M.O.20 Blood stained black colour shirt, M.O.21 Blood stained White colour shirt, M.O.22 One purse, M.O.23 One Pan card, M.O.24 one Driving License, M.O.25 to 27 Three visiting cards and M.O.28, 28(a) Two Rs.100/- Notes. Therefore, the prosecution have successfully proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences U/Sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. Hence, points No.1 to 7 under consideration are answered in the Affirmative.
27. Point No.8 :- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C, Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby convicted for the 38 S.C No.969/2011 offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC.
(Dictated to the stenographer Gr-II, transcribed and typed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of January, 2026.) (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
HEARD REGARDING SENTENCE:-
Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused persons already found guilty for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. Therefore, he prays to impose sentence for imprisonment for life but not impose death penalty as because the said offences are not rarest rare offences. Hence, he prays to impose life imprisonment and also fine against them.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 have argued that accused No.1 have son and he is studying LL.B final year, accused No.2, 3 and 5 have wife and children and they are earning members in their family and accused No.2 undergone for operation, accused No.6 is also earning member of his family. Hence they prays to impose minimum sentence.
Heard arguments from both side on hearing on sentence. Hence, I proceed to pass following:-39 S.C No.969/2011
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 2 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.143 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 months and fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.147 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1 year and fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.148 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1 month and fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.341 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.326 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.307 r/w. 149 of IPC.
40 S.C No.969/2011Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.302 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.4 was died during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence case against accused No.4 is abated vide order 07.11.2017.
J.C. of accused No.1 to 3, 4 and 5 are hereby set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.
All Sentences shall run concurrently.
Fine amount of Rs.24,000/- x 5 = Rs.1,20,000/-. Rs.60,000/- has to be given to the PW1 under victim compensation for injuries sustained by him.
Rs.60,000/- has to be given to the PW2 under victim compensation for injuries sustained by him. M.O.1 to 3, 7 to 22, 25 to 27 are hereby destroyed after appeal period is over as because which are worthless.
M.O.4 to 6, 28, 28(a) are confiscated to the state. M.O.23, 24 Driving license and Pan card ordered to hand over to concerned person after appeal period is over.
41 S.C No.969/2011
Free Judgment copies will be furnished to the accused persons with free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer Gr-II, transcribed and typed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of January, 2026.) (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
PW1 Ashwathanarayana PW2 Raju PW3 Gowramma PW4 Krishnappa PW5 Balaraj PW6 Dr.Dileep Kumar K.B. PW7 Seenappa PW8 Dr.B.N.Nagaraj PW9 Dr.Narendra S.M. PW10 Muthurayappa PW11 Sathishkumar PW12 V.K.Vasudev PW13 Sridhar
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW13 42 S.C No.969/2011 Ex.P.1(b) Doctor's signature Ex.P.2 Statement of PW2 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.3 Statement of CW3 Ex.P.4 Statement of CW5 Ex.P.5 Statement of CW6 Ex.P.6 P.M. Report Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.7 Mahazar Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate Ex.P.8(a) Signature of CW26 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.9 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.9(a) Signature Ex.P.10 PF No.30/2011 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.11 FIR Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.12 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.13 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.14 Inquest Report Ex.P.14(a) PW12's signature Ex.P.15 Accused No.3 Burugappa's self-statement Ex.P.16 Accused No.2 Chinnappa's self-statement Ex.P.17 Accused No.4 Ramesh's self-statement Ex.P.18 Accused No.5 Antoniswamy self-statement Ex.P.19 Accused No.6 K.Srinivasa's self-statement Ex.P.20 Seizure Mahazar 43 S.C No.969/2011 Ex.P.20(a) PW12's signature Ex.P.21 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.21(a) PW12's signature Ex.P.22 PW2's Wound Certificate Ex.P.22(a) PW12's signature Ex.P.23 1st Accused Self-Statement Ex.P.24 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.24(a) PW12's signature
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1 Blood stained Banian M.O.2 Blood stained Shirt M.O.3 Blood stained Underwear M.O.4 to 6 Longs M.O.7 Pink colour 'T' Shirt M.O.8 Blue colour Jeans pant M.O.9 Brown colour Underwear M.O.10 Black colour Sox M.O.11 One pair of white colour Shoe M.O.12 Black colour Pant M.O.13 Coffee colour Pant M.O.14 Gray colour stripes Shirt M.O.15 Blue colour Pant M.O.16 Gray colour Pant M.O.17 White, Blue and Gray colour 'T' Shirt M.O.18 Pink colour Shirt M.O.19 Black & Red stripes shirt M.O.20 Blood stained black colour shirt M.O.21 Blood stained White colour shirt M.O.22 One purse M.O.23 One Pan card M.O.24 One Driving License M.O.25 to 27 Three visiting cards M.O.28, 28(a) Two Rs.100/- Notes
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL 44 S.C No.969/2011 List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :-
Ex.D.1 Portion statement of PW1 Ex.D.2 Portion statement of PW2
List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
45 S.C No.969/2011JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT Acting U/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C, Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC.
(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
46 S.C No.969/2011HEARD REGARDING SENTENCE:-
Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused persons already found guilty for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. Therefore, he prays to impose sentence for imprisonment for life but not impose death penalty as because the said offences are not rarest rare offences. Hence, he prays to impose life imprisonment and also fine against them.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 have argued that accused No.1 have son and he is studying LL.B final year, accused No.2, 3 and 5 have wife and children and they are earning members in their family and accused No.2 undergone for operation, accused No.6 is also earning member of his family. Hence they prays to impose minimum sentence.
Heard arguments from both side on hearing on sentence. Hence, I proceed to pass following:-
ORDER Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergone for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 2 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.143 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergone for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 months and fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.147 r/w. 149 of IPC.47 S.C No.969/2011
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1 year and fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.148 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1 month and fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.341 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.326 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.307 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hereby undergo for sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence U/Sec.302 r/w. 149 of IPC.
Accused No.4 was died during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence case against accused No.4 is abated vide order 07.11.2017.
J.C. of accused No.1 to 3, 4 and 5 are hereby set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.48 S.C No.969/2011
All offences shall run concurrently.
Fine amount of Rs.24,000/- x 5 = Rs.1,20,000/-.
Rs.60,000/- has to be given to the PW1 under victim compensation of injuries sustained by him.
Rs.60,000/- has to be given to the PW2 under victim compensation for injuries sustained by him.
M.O.1 to 3, 7 to 22, 25 to 27 are hereby destroyed after appeal period is over as because which are worthless.
M.O.4 to 6, 28, 28(a) are confiscated to the state.
M.O.23, 24 Driving license and Pan card ordered to hand over to concerned person after appeal period is over.
Free Judgment copies will be furnished to the accused persons with free of cost.
(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.