Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Syed Ziaulla Shah @ Ziaulla on 4 January, 2019
S.C. No.543/2014
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
PRESENT: SRI. SHIVASHANKAR B.AMARANNAVAR,
B.Com., LL.M.,
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C.No. 543/2014
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka
by Banashankari Police
Bengaluru.
Vs.
ACCUSED: 1. Syed Ziaulla Shah @ Ziaulla
S/o Late Syed Jalil Sha
Aged about 57 years
2. Matheen
S/o. Syed Ziaulla Sha
@ Ziaulla,
Aged about 35 years
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are
R/at No.87/A, Bomman Babu
House House Street,
34th Cross, Yarab Nagar,
Banashankari III Stage
Bengaluru.
3. Ayaz Pasha @ Ayaz
S/o Fayaz Pasha
Aged about 24 years
Ali Bai House Road
S.C. No.543/2014
2
Sarabande Palya
Banashankari II Stage
Bengaluru.
4. Mahaboob Pasha
S/o Aslam Pasha
Aged about 27 years
Rented House of Muniraju
Near Nijidam School
Minaz Nagar
Bengaluru;
Date of offence 01.01.2014
Date of report of offence 01.01.2014
Date of arrest of accused 03.01.2014 (A1, A3 & A4)
01.04.2014 (A2)
Date of release on bail 17.07.2014 (A1 to A4)
Total period of custody 6 Months 14 Days (A1,3 & 4)
3 Months 16 Days (A2)
Name of the complainant Smt. Mahiya
Date of commencement of 31.08.2016
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 11.07.2018
Offence complained of 302, r/w S.34 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. E.P.P., Advocate.
S.C. No.543/2014
3
JUDGMENT
This is a charge-sheet submitted by the Inspector of Police, Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2) The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The accused No.1 had an illicit relationship with the deceased Smt.Sayeeda and since the accused No.1 did not perform the marriage of 2nd daughter of deceased Sayeeda, there was misunderstanding between them and the deceased Sayeeda had not entertained accused No.1 and refused his proposal to lead life as in the past, due to that the accused No.1 had demanded and threatened the deceased to give money by selling her house or to give share in her property and also suspected her of having illicit relationship with one Asgar and with an intention to commit the murder of deceased Sayeeda, on 1.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m., the accused No.1 secured the deceased Sayeeda on the foot path in front of the Telephone Exchange situated on 9th Main, Banashankari II Stage, Yarab Nagar, Bengaluru, and also secured accused Nos.2 to 4 and in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of deceased Sayeeda, the accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the deceased Sayeeda and strangulated her S.C. No.543/2014 4 with a rope and when accused No.3 held the rope, the accused No.1 took out a knife and pierced the deceased Sayeeda on her stomach and left waist and caused grievous injuries and when the deceased fell down, the accused Nos.2 and 4 held the hands of deceased Sayeeda, the accused No.1 slit the neck of deceased Sayeeda and the accused No.4 took the same knife and cut the neck of the deceased Sayeeda and committed her murder.
3) The accused faced the trial and they were defended by their Counsel. My learned predecessor has framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereafter the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 27 and has got marked Exs.P.1 to P.57 and also got marked material objects MO-1 to MO-15 and thereafter the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein the accused denied the evidence appearing against them. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
4) Heard the arguments.
5) The points for my consideration are;
Point No.1: Does the prosecution prove that the death of the deceased Sayeeda is homicidal one?
S.C. No.543/2014 5 Point No.2: Does the prosecution prove that on 1.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m. on the foot path in front of the Telephone Exchange situated on 9th Main, Banashankari II Stage, Yarab Nagar, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention to commit the offence, secured Smt. Sayeeda, picked up quarrel with her, strangulated her by a rope and assaulted with a knife causing grievous injuries to her and caused her death and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point No.3: What Order?
6) My answer to the above points is;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per the final order, for the following;
S.C. No.543/2014 6 REASONS
7) Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that on 1.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m. on the footpath in front of Telephone Exchange situated at 9th Main, Banashankari II Stage, Yarabnagar, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention to commit the offence, secured deceased Smt.Sayeeda and picked up quarrel with her and strangulated her by a rope and assaulted with knife causing grievous injuries to her and causesd her death. It is the case of the prosecution that the death of deceased Sayeeda is homicidal. PW.13 is the daughter of deceased Sayeeda and she has filed complaint as per Ex.P12. PW.13 has deposed that on 1.1.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., her sister Najiya informed her that her mother Sayeeda died on the road near Yarabnagar BSNL office and she went to Yarabnagar and saw the dead body of her mother Sayeeda, which was lying on footpath, where her neck was stabbed. She has further deposed that she do not know who caused the death of her mother and she filed complaint as per Ex.P12. PW.20 is a Doctor, who conducted P.M. Examination over the dead body of deceased Sayeeda. Ex.P23 is the P.M. Report issued by PW.20. PW.20 has deposed that he conducted P.M. Examination over the dead body of Sayeeda and issued P.M. Report as per Ex.P23. He has further deposed that he has noticed five external injuries over the dead body of deceased Sayeeda, which are as under:
S.C. No.543/2014 7 (1) Cut throat wound measuring 15 cms X 3 cms X bone deep present over the front of the upper part of the neck, involving both right and left sides situated 6 cms below the chin, 5 cms below the right ear lobule and 5 cms below the left ear lobule exposing the cut underlying muscles, vessels, nerves of the neck, cutting the right horn of the thyroid cartilage, trachea, esophagus, cutting the body of the C-3 vertibrae, margins are clean cut.
(2) Incised wound measuring 5 cms X 0.5 cms X muscle deep present 0.5 cm below injury no.1, margins are clean cut.
(3) Incised wound measuring 3 cms X 0.2 cms X subcutaneous tissue deep present 1 cm above injury no.1, margins are clean cut.
(4) Incised - stab wound measuring 14 cms X 0.5 cm X cavity deep present over the left side of the chest wall above the level of 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th ribs exposing the protruded coils of intestine outside. Margins are clean cut. On dissection, the wound has penetrated with thoracic cavity cutting the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th ribs and piercing the lower surface of the left lung and entering into the abdominal cavity piercing the body of the stomach and anterior surface of the spleen with spillage of the stomach contents (partially digested rice meal) into the peritoneal cavity.
(5) Incised wound measuring 21 cms X 1 cm X muscle deep present over the lower back of the body situated 7 cms from sacro-iliac joint with tailing of wound towards the outer aspect of left side of the back. Margins are clean cut.
8) PW.20 has further deposed that all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. PW.20 has further deposed that S.C. No.543/2014 8 the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. PW.20 in the cross-examination has denied that no definite opinion can be given as to the cause of death. Therefore, the evidence of PW.20 goes to establish that death of deceased Sayeeda is a homicidal death. The prosecution has proved that the death of deceased Sayeeda is homicidal. Accordingly I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
9) Point Nos.2: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 had an illicit relationship with the deceased Smt.Sayeeda and since the accused No.1 did not perform the marriage of 2nd daughter of deceased Sayeeda, there was misunderstanding between them and the deceased Sayeeda had not entertained accused No.1 and refused his proposal to lead life as in the past, due to that the accused No.1 had demanded and threatened the deceased to give money by selling her house or to give share in her property and also suspected her of having illicit relationship with one Asgar and with an intention to commit the murder of deceased Sayeeda, on 1.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m., the accused No.1 secured the deceased Sayeeda on the foot path in front of the Telephone Exchange situated on 9th Main, Banashankari II Stage, Yarab Nagar, Bengaluru, and also secured accused Nos.2 to 4 and in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of deceased Sayeeda, the accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the deceased Sayeeda and strangulated her S.C. No.543/2014 9 with a rope and when accused No.3 held the rope, the accused No.1 took out a knife and pierced the deceased Sayeeda on her stomach and left waist and caused grievous injuries and when the deceased fell down, the accused Nos.2 and 4 held the hands of deceased Sayeeda, the accused No.1 slit the neck of deceased Sayeeda and the accused No.4 took the same knife and cut the neck of the deceased Sayeeda and committed her murder.
10) PW.1 to 3 are panchas to Inquest mahazar Ex.P1. PW.4 and 6 are Panchas to Ex.P2 Spot mahazar as well as eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.5 and 9 are eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.7 is Pancha to Ex.P6 Seizure mahazar, under which knife, jacket, hand gloves, pant and shirt have been seized at the instance of accused No.1 near a graveyard. PW.7 is also an eyewitness to the incident. PW.8 is a circumstantial witness. PW.10 is Pancha to Ex.P10 Seizure mahazar under which letter written by deceased has been seized. PW.11 and 12 are panchas to Ex.P1 Seizure mahazar under which Scooter bearing No.KA-05/H- 9654 and Honda Activa bearing No.KA-01/EP-6699 have been seized. PW.13 is the daughter of deceased, who has filed complaint as per Ex.P12 and also shown the spot at the time of preparing Ex.P2 Spot mahazar. PW.14 is the driver of Ambulance, who took the dead body from the spot to KIMS hospital. PW.15 is a Police Constable, who brought P.M. Report and eight articles from KIMS and handed over to the I.O. PW.16 is Pancha to Ex.P16 Seizure mahazar S.C. No.543/2014 10 under which Autorikshaw bearing No.KA-01/D-9120 containing bloodstains has been seized. PW.17 is a Police Constable, who carried 15 articles and handed over them in the office of FSL, Bangalore and filed report as per Ex.P17 and produced acknowledgment as per Ex.P18. PW.18 is a Doctor, who examined accused 1, 3 and 4 for the purpose of ascertaining their blood group. PW.19 is the PSI, who secured accused No.3 and produced before the I.O. and submitted report as per Ex.P22. PW.20 is a Doctor, who conducted P.M. Examination over the dead body of deceased Sayeeda and issued P.M. Report as per Ex.P23 and also examined knife MO.9 and gave opinion as per Ex.P24. PW.21 is an Engineer, who prepared Ex.P27 sketch map of the spot of the incident. PW.22 is an Officer of Tata, who issued application form, voter I.D., submitted by deceased at the time of obtaining mobile, which are Ex.P28 and 28(b) to (d). PW.23 is also another Officer of Telephone, who issued application form as per Ex.P29 to 31 taken at the time of connection to the mobile of accused No.1 and 4 and one Mr.Syed, son of Syed Aslam. PW.24 to 26 are the Investigating Officers. PW.27 is a Scientific Officer, FSL, Mysore, who examined MOs 1 to 15 and issued Report as per Ex.P57.
11) PW.1 to 13 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.1 to 3 have deposed that the police have not conducted Inquest mahazar over the dead body of deceased Sayeeda and did not prepare the Report in their S.C. No.543/2014 11 presence as per Ex.P1. PW.1 to 3 have been treated as hostile. Nothing material has been elicited by the learned Public Prosecutor in their cross-examination. PW.4 and 6 are Panchas to Ex.P2 Spot mahazar. PW.4 has deposed that the police have not seized any articles in his presence. PW.6 has deposed that Banashankari Police have not conducted Spot mahazar in his presence and they have also not seized any articles under the Mahazar Ex.P2. PW.4 and 6 are also eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.4 and 6 have also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.4 has deposed that he has not seen the incident. PW.6 has deposed that he has not seen the incident took in between the accused and the deceased Sayeeda. PW.4 and 6 have been treated as hostile and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. PW.5 is an eyewitness to the incident. PW.5 has deposed that he has not seen the incident took in between the accused and the deceased Sayeeda. PW.9 is also an eyewitness to the incident. PW.9 has deposed that he has not seen the incident took in between the accused and the deceased Sayeeda and he do not know how the deceased Sayeeda died. PW.5 and 9 have been treated as hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor has cross- examined them at length and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination. PW.7 is a Pancha to Ex.P6 Seizure mahazar and an eyewitness. PW.7 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 has deposed that he has not seen the incident took in between S.C. No.543/2014 12 the accused as well as the deceased in front of his Gobi Manchurian stall. He has further deposed that the accused have not led him along with the police to show the place and also they did not produce any articles in his presence before the police as per Mahazar Ex.P6. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 3 took the police and panchas near a graveyard and accused No.1 produced knife, jacket, hand gloves, pant and shirt and they have been seized under Mahazar Ex.P6 in the presence of PW.7. PW.7 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined PW.7 at length and nothing material has been elicited in the cross- examination. As per the case of prosecution, PW.8 is a witness before whom the deceased Sayeeda had stated regarding accused No.1 giving life threat to her. PW.8 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor has cross- examined him at length and nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination.
12) PW.13 is the daughter of deceased. She has partly supported the case of the prosecution. PW.13 has deposed that her marriage was performed by accused No.1 and he is her step father. She has further deposed that marriage of her sister Najiya was performed by her father Syed Allauddin and accused No.1 has not contributed anything to the said marriage. She has further deposed that subsequent to the marriage of Najiya, there was S.C. No.543/2014 13 difference arose in between her mother and accused No.1 and they were compromised and were residing together in their house. PW.13 has further deposed that on 1.1.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., her sister Najiya informed her that her mother died on the road near Yarabnagar BSNL office and she went and saw the dead body wherein there were stab injuries on the neck and thereafter she filed complaint as per Ex.P12. PW.13 has deposed that she has not stated specifically in her complaint Ex.P12 regarding assault made by which person over the person of her mother. PW.13 has been treated as hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her at length and nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination. The evidence of PW.13 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
13) PW.10 is a Pancha to Ex.P10 Seizure mahazar, under which a letter stated to be written by deceased has been seized along with a photo. PW.10 has deposed that about two years ago, when he went to Banashankari Police Station, the police obtained his signature on a writing and he has identified his signature on Ex.P10 and deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P10. PW.10 has been treated as hostile and nothing material has been elicited in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor.
14) PW.11 and 12 are Panchas to Ex.P1 Seizure mahazar under which Bajaj Scooter bearing No.KA-05/H-
S.C. No.543/2014 14 9654 and Honda Activa bearing No.KA-01/EP-6699 has been seized, which were produced by accused No.1. PW.11 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the said aspect and they have been treated as hostile and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor.
15) PW.14 is a Ambulance driver and he has deposed that on 1.1.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. Banashankari police telephoned him and asked him to come near Telephone exchange at 9th Main, Yarabnagar and he went there and he saw one lady was dead and there was a rope tied around her neck and there was a cut near her neck and stomach was slit upon and he and police took the dead body of the said lady to KIMS Hospital and he do not know who killed her and he do not know how she was killed.
16) PW.15 is the ASI, who brought P.M. Report and eight articles from KIMS Hospital. PW.16 is a Pancha to Ex.P16 Seizure mahazar under which Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-01/D-9120 used by the accused to travel after the incident has been seized. PW.16 has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of the said Autorickshaw as per Ex.P16 Seizure mahazar. PW.17 is a Police Constable, who carried 15 articles to FSL and handed over them in the office of FSL. PW.18 is a Doctor, who examined accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and he has deposed regarding examination of accused S.C. No.543/2014 15 Nos.1, 3 and 4 and regarding their blood group. PW.19 is a PSI, who secured accused No.3 and produced before the I.O. PW.21 is an Engineer, who prepared sketch of spot as per Ex.P27.
17) The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the call details as per Ex.P28(c) shows call made by accused No.1 to the deceased on 31.12.2013 and on 1.1.2014 and therefore there was a connection between the deceased and the accused No.1. Merely because, there is a phone call between accused No.1 and the deceased on 31.12.2013 and 1.1.2014 will not establish the guilt of accused No.1 as it is the case of the prosecution that there was a relationship between the accused No.1 and the deceased Sayeeda and the same has also been admitted by PW.13 daughter of deceased Sayeeda.
18) PWs. 24, 25 and 26 who are Investigating Officers have deposed in detail regarding the investigation done by them. PW.27 is a Scientific Officer, FSL, Mysore, who examined MOs 1 to 50 and issued Report as per Ex.P57. In Ex.P57 it is mentioned that presence of human bloodstains were detected in Articles 2 to 14 and it was 'A' blood group. The seizure of the said articles has not been proved. Therefore, the evidence of PW.27 will not help the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
S.C. No.543/2014 16
19) The eyewitnesses PW.4 to 7 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of official witnesses even taken on their face value will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the Negative.
20) Point No.3: For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following;
ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
MOs.1 to 8, 10 to 15 are worthless are ordered to be destroyed and MO.9 one metal knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State, after the appeal period is over and if appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by him, the same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of January, 2019).
(SHIVASHANKAR B. AMARANNAVAR) Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.543/2014
17
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Mohammed Aneef
PW.2 : Nishanth
PW.3 : Sikander
PW.4 : Amjad
PW.5 : Jabiullah
PW.6 : Selvam
PW.7 : Thimmaiah
PW.8 : Smt.Salma
PW.9 : Ramaswamy
PW.10: Byataraju
PW.11: Gangadhar
PW.12: Praveen
PW.13: Mahiya
PW.14: Jayanth
PW.15: S.Krishnappa, ASI
PW.16: Kutub
PW.17: Vasudev. B.R., Police Constable PW.18: Dr.Mahalakshmi PW.19: Manju, PSI PW.20: Dr. Naveen Kumar .P PW.21: Ramu, AE, BBMP PW.22: Ravi Naronha PW.23: Stanley Agnalo PW.24: B.K. Shekar, Police Inspector S.C. No.543/2014 18 PW.25: Krishna T.T., PSI PW.26: H.S. Jagadisha, Police Inspector PW.27: Dr. Chandrashekar LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITTED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Inquest mahazar
Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b): Signature of PW.2
Ex.P1(c): Signature of PW.3
Ex.P1(d): Signature of PW.25
Ex.P2: Spot mahazar
Ex.P2(a): Signature of PW.4
Ex.P2(b): Signature of PW.6
Ex.P2(c): Signature of PW.13
Ex.P2(d): Signature of PW.25
Ex.P3 : Statement of PW.4
Ex.P4 : Statement of PW.5
Ex.P5 : Statement of PW.6
Ex.P6: Seizure mahazar
Ex.P6(a): Signature of PW.7
Ex.P7 : Statement of PW.7
Ex.P8 : Statement of PW.8
Ex.P9 : Statement of PW.9
Ex.P10: Seizure mahazar
S.C. No.543/2014
19
Ex.P10(a): Signature of PW.10
Ex.P10(b): Signature of PW.13
Ex.P10(c): Signature of PW.25
Ex.P11: Seizure mahazar - PF.4/2014
Ex.P11(a): Signature of PW.11
Ex.P11(b): Signature of PW.12
Ex.P12 : Complaint
Ex.P12(a): Signature of PW.13
Ex.P12(b): Signature of PW.25
Ex.P13: Further Statement of PW.15
Ex.P14: Report of PW.15
Ex.P14(a): Signature of PW.15
Ex.P15 : Notice
Ex.P15(a): Signature of PW.16
Ex.P16: Seizure mahazar - PF.6/2014
Ex.P16(a): Signature of PW.16
Ex.P17: Report of PW.17
Ex.P17(a): Signature of PW.17
Ex.P18: Acknowledgment
Ex.P19: OPD Card of accused No.1
Ex.P20: OPD Card of accused No.3
Ex.P21: OPD Card of accused No.4
Ex.P22: Report of PW.19
Ex.P22(a): Signature of PW.19
Ex.P23: P.M. Report
Ex.P23(a): Signature of PW.20
Ex.P23(b): Signature of PW.20
Ex.P24: Opinion given by PW.20
S.C. No.543/2014
20
Ex.P24(a): Signature of PW.20
Ex.P25: Sample Seal
Ex.P25(a): Signature of PW.20
Ex.P26: Requisition given to BBMP
Ex.P27: Rough sketch
Ex.P27(a): Signature of PW.21
Ex.P28: Letter given by TATA Teleservices Ltd.,
Ex.P28(a): Signature of PW.22
Ex.P28(b) & (c): Annexures to Ex.P28
Ex.P29: Copy of Application of Airtel
Ex.P29(a): Call details
Ex.P30: Copy of Application of Airtel
Ex.P30(a): Call details
Ex.P31: Copy of Application of Airtel
Ex.P31(a): Call details
Ex.P32: Voluntary Statement of Accused No.3
Ex.P33: Voluntary Statement of Accused No.1
Ex.P34: Voluntary Statement of Accused No.4
Ex.P35: FIR
Ex.P35(a): Signature of PW.25
Ex.P36 to 39: Photographs of deceased
Ex.P40 to 48: Photographs of deceased
Ex.P49: Report of PW.25
Ex.P50: Letter given to Jayanagar RTO
Ex.P51: Letter given to Koramangala RTO
Ex.P52: 'B' Extract issued by Jayanagar RTO
Ex.P53: 'B' Extract issued by Koramangala RTO
Ex.P54: 'B' Extract issued by Koramangala RTO
S.C. No.543/2014
21
Ex.P55: Letter of ACP to Nodal Officer, TATA Docomo
Ex.P56: Letter of ACP to Nodal Officer, Airtel
Ex.P57: Certified copy of FSL Report
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITTED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
MO-1: Yellow coloured top with reddish Brown stains MO-2: A multi-coloured multi-designed Veil MO-3: A multi-coloured multi-designed Pant MO-4: A purple coloured Kacha MO-5: A while coloured Bra MO-6: A pair of black coloured slipper MO-7: Green coloured nylon rope MO-8: Bloodstains in a bottle MO-9: One metal knife MO-10: One pair of hand gloves MO-11: One Jerkin MO-12: One Shirt MO-13: One Pant MO-14: Seat cover of Autorickshaw MO-15: Mud bloodstains
Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*sk Digitally signed by SHIVASHANKAR SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA AMARANNAVAR DN: cn=SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA BASAPPA AMARANNAVAR,ou=HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT AMARANNAVAR OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2019.01.08 15:15:45 IST