Bangalore District Court
City Market P S vs A1 Sharavana Alias Kiri on 2 April, 2026
KABC010296012019
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of April 2026.
S.C.No.1401/2019
COMPLAINANT: State by
City Market Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Sharavana @ Kiri,
S/o.Late Pandu,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at.No.589, 4th Cross,
2nd Main, Janatha Colony,
Haleguddadahalli,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.M.G.S., Advocate)
2. M.Vinod @ Vinod Kumar,
S/o.Late Masila Mani,
Aged about 27 years,
2 S.C.No.1401/2019
R/at.No.224,
Mangamma Market,
Near Sulabh Toilet,
Anandapura,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.R., Advocate)
3. Murali @ Setu,
S/o.Ganesha,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at.No.292, 1st Main Road,
Near Ravina Plaza,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.N.K., Advocate)
4. R.Rajkiran @ Chintha,
S/o.Ravi,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at.No.10, 1st Cross,
Binnymill Road,
Doreswamynagar,
Cottonpet,
Bengaluru.
5. Shaik.J. Shoyab @ Raheem
@ Shaik,
S/o.Shiak Javid,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.5/1, 3rd Floor,
1st Main Road, 8th Cross,
Valmiki Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.J.H., Advocate)
6. S.Aravind,
S/o.Shivakumar,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.32, 1st Cross,
3 S.C.No.1401/2019
1st Main, Bandenagara,
Hale Bayyappanahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.J.H., Advocate)
7. Sanjay @ Dubbaki,
S/o.Chandran,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at.No.25, 2nd Cross,
Doreswamy Garden,
Anjanappa Garden,
Cotonpet,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.J.H., Advocate)
8. G.Velu,
S/o.Govindappa,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at.No.365, 2nd Cross,
2nd Main, Janatha Colony,
Hale Guddadahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.R.K., Advocate)
9. G.Devaraja,
S/o.Govindappa,
Aged abput 37 years,
R/at.No./121, 1st Cross,
2nd Cross, Janatha Colony,
Hale Guddadahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.R.K., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the alleged offences punishable 4 S.C.No.1401/2019 under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, it was made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
That on 14.05.2019 at about 8-45 p.m., at the first floor of East Gate, S.K.R.Market, within the limits of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 9 being the members of an unlawful assembly with common object to commit the crime, they were holding deadly weapons like longs, iron pipes in their hands, committed rioting and in furtherance of their object to commit the murder of deceased Bharath, the accused No.1 had assaulted on his head, back side of the head, back right side of the ear and left hand, the accused No.2 had assaulted deceased Bharath on the head, neck, left ear, right hand, right thumb, the accused No.3 had 5 S.C.No.1401/2019 assaulted the deceased Bharath on the head, back, back side of ear, elbows and both the hands, the accused No.4 had assaulted deceased Bharath on the head, both the hands, back, behind the back and right shoulder causing the death of Bharath. Further the accused after committing the murder of Bharath, in order to destroy the evidence, had gone to the house of C.Ws.37 and 38 situated at Tamil Nadu and took bath and burnt the blood stained clothes. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
4. On securing the presence of the accused Nos.1 to 9, my learned predecessor has framed the charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The accused Nos.1 to 9 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case has examined 18 witnesses from P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked 62 documents from Exs.P.1 to 62 and M.Os.1 to 7. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused Nos.1 to 9 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them.
6 S.C.No.1401/2019The accused Nos.1 to 9 have chosen not to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution has proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 14.05.2019 at 8-45 p.m., there was enmity between accused No.1 and Bharath regarding business and in furtherance thereof, the accused have criminally conspired holding deadly weapons in their hands with common object to commit the crime and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date and time at first floor of West Gate, S.K.R.Market Complex, within the limits of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru accused in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of Bharath had formed an unlawful assembly and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 143 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused in furtherance of their common object to commit the crime, have committed rioting and 7 S.C.No.1401/2019 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 r/w.
Section 149 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, the accused being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to commit the crime were holding deadly weapons like longs, iron pipes in their hands have committed rioting and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 148 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused being the members of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of Bharath, have assaulted him with deadly weapons on all parts of the body causing grievous bleeding injuries and committed the murder of Bharath and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
6. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place the accused after committing the murder of Bharath, with common object to destroy the evidence, had gone to the house of C.Ws.37 and 38 at Tamil Nadu and took bath and burnt the blood stained clothes and thereby the 8 S.C.No.1401/2019 accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC ?
7. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative,
POINT No.2 - Negative,
POINT No.3 - Negative,
POINT No.4 - Negative,
POINT No.5 - Negative,
POINT No.6 - Negative,
POINT No.7 - As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
8. POINTS Nos.1 TO 6: Since all these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.05.2019 at about 8-45 p.m., at the first floor of East Gate, S.K.R.Market, within the limits of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 to 9 being the members of an unlawful assembly with common 9 S.C.No.1401/2019 object to commit the crime, they were holding deadly weapons like longs, iron pipes in their hands, committed rioting and in furtherance of their object to commit the murder of deceased Bharath, the accused No.1 had assaulted on his head, back side of the head, back right side of the ear and left hand, the accused No.2 had assaulted deceased Bharath on the head, neck, left ear, right hand, right thumb, the accused No.3 had assaulted the deceased Bharath on the head, back, back side of ear, elbows and both the hands, the accused No.4 had assaulted deceased Bharath on the head, both the hands, back, behind the back and right shoulder causing the death of Bharath. Further the accused after committing the murder of Bharath, in order to destroy the evidence, had gone to the house of C.Ws.37 and 38 situated at Tamil Nadu and took bath and burnt the blood stained clothes. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Appu is younger brother of deceased Bharath and also the complainant. He has identified his signature on the complaint (Ex.P.1) and mahazar (Ex.P.2). He stated that prior to the death of his brother Bharath, he was selling lemons in City Market and he was in his house. In 2018 when he was in his house. He received a phone call informing that his elder 10 S.C.No.1401/2019 brother has been beaten, so he went to the market and by the time he went over there, his brother was shifted to the hospital. He then went to Victoria Hospital, where he received the information that his brother had died. He stated that the police took his signature on the complaint near the hospital. He stated that he does not know as to what is written in the complaint. He stated that he does not know the accused persons. He stated that he signed the mahazar at time of receiving the dead body. He stated that the police did not seize any property in his presence. He stated that he has not given statement to the police. He stated that he is seeing the accused for the first time before the court and earlier to it, he has not them.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has identified 20 photographs of dead body of his brother (Exs.P.3 to 22). At the time of receiving the dead body he has signed the receipt (Ex.P.23). He has denied having given a statement (Ex.P.24) regarding identification of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that as he has compromised with the accused persons and so he is deposing falsely before the court.
11 S.C.No.1401/201911. P.W.2-Sri.Rama has stated that he has identified his signature on the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2) and notice (Ex.P.25). He statedthat he does not know as to what is written in the mahazar. The police did not seize any property in his presence. He has not given any statement to the police. He stated that on 20.05.2019 he has put his signatures that can be seen on the material objects in the Police Station.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.26.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Subramani has identified his signature on the mahazar (Ex.P.2) and notice (Ex.P.25). He stated that about 5 years ago, he was doing business in the market, but he does not know as to what had taken place. The police called him to the Police Station and took his signatures on Exs.P.2 and 25, but he does not know as to what is written in the said documents. He stated that the police did not seize any properties in his presence, but has identified M.Os.1 to 4 i.e., blood stained cotton, marble stone powder, right leg hawai chappal, sample blood collected at the spot.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution 12 S.C.No.1401/2019 case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied the suggestion that the police seized M.Os.1 to 4 in his presence at the time of conducting mahazar (Ex.P.2). He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.30.
13. P.W.4-Smt.Priya is the wife of the deceased person. She has stated that about 6 years ago her husband had died in City Market and the same was informed to her by her brother-in-law over the phone. She went to the market and then to Vani Vilas Hospital. Her brother-in-law informed that somebody had killed her husband. Her deceased husband had sustained injuries on his head, hands, legs and other parts of the body. She has given a statement to the police. She has identified the photographs of her deceased husband (Exs.P.3 to 22). She has not given any statement to the police regarding identifying the accused.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor she has been treated as hostile. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. She has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.31.
14. P.W.5-Sri.Shiva has not identified his signatures 13 S.C.No.1401/2019 on the notice and mahazar.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Hutchanna, Retired P.S.I., has stated that on 14.05.2019 when he was on night duty at 8-00 p.m., he appeared before C.W.57 who deputed him to night duty. At 10-15 p.m., C.W.57 took him to K.R.Market stating that a murder had taken place at the eastern side of the market. He along with C.W.43 were deputed to protect the place of offence. In this regard he has given his statement.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that he has not furnished any documents to show that on the alleged date and time, he was on duty. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely before the court.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Veera has stated that he does not know the deceased person and also accused persons. He stated that the police did not enquire with him. He stated that he has not gone to the court to give his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He stated that he does not know anything about the case. He has 14 S.C.No.1401/2019 identified his signature on the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.34). He stated that he does not know as to what statement he had given to the learned Magistrate.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He stated that he does not know that he has given the statement (Ex.P.32) to the learned Magistrate. He denied that he had taken part in TIP and he has signed Ex.P.34 and he has given statement as per Ex.P.35. He has denied the suggestion that he has identified the accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in Parappana Agrahara during TIP. He has denied the suggestion that even though he has witnessed the incident, he is deposing falsely before the court.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Mohammed Tafiq has stated that he does not know the deceased person and also accused persons. He stated that the police did not enquire with him. He stated that he has not gone to the court to give his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He stated that he does not know anything about the case. He has identified his signature on the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.37). He stated that he does not know as to what statement he had given to the learned Magistrate.
15 S.C.No.1401/2019As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He stated that he does not know that he has given the statement (Ex.P.37) to the learned Magistrate. He denied that he had taken part in TIP and he has signed Ex.P.38 and he has given statement as per Ex.P.36. He has denied the suggestion that he has identified the accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in Parappana Agrahara during TIP. He has denied the suggestion that even though he has witnessed the incident, he is deposing falsely before the court.
18. P.W.9-Sri.K.Raja has identified his signature on the notice (Ex.P.43) and mahazar (Ex.P.44). He stated that he does not know as to where he signed the documents. He stated that he has signed them in the Police Station. He stated that the police did not seize any property in his presence. He has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.45.
16 S.C.No.1401/201919. P.W.10-Sri.Pradeep.S. has identified his signature on the notice (Ex.P.47) and mahazar (Ex.P.48). About four years ago, he signed the documents in the Police Station. He does not know as to what is written in the said documents. He stated that he does not know the accused No.1. The police did not take him to any place.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
20. P.W.11-Sri.Ajay has identified his signatures on the notice (Ex.P.49) and mahazar (Ex.P.50). He stated that he does not know its contents. As per the instructions of the police, he has put his signatures.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
21. P.W.12-Sri.Sathyavelu has identified his signatures on the notice (Ex.P.51) and mahazar (Ex.P.52). He does not know as to what is written in the said documents. He stated that he does not know the accused No.1. he was not taken to any spot.
17 S.C.No.1401/2019As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
22. P.W.13-Sri.Babu and P.W.14-Sanjay have stated that they do not know the deceased Bharath, C.W.1 and the accused. They do not know anything about the case.
As the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor they have been treated as hostile. In their cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. They have denied having statements to the police as per Ex.P.54 and Ex.P.56 respectively.
23. P.W.15-Sri.Manjunath.D.S. Head Constable has deposed about apprehending the accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 on 7.05.2019 at 4-00 a.m., in Thiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu State. At 12-00 p.m., he produced the accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 before the Investigating Officer and gave his statement. On 18.05.2019 at 1-30 p.m., they apprehended accused Nos.8 & 9 and produced them before the Investigating Officer at 1.45 p.m. On 23.05.2019 he along with C.Ws.50 and 51 have apprehended the accused Nos.2 and 3 at Rayan Circle 18 S.C.No.1401/2019 within the limits of Chamarajpet Police Station and produced them before the Investigating Officer at 4-30. On the same day evening at 6-00 p.m., they apprehended the accused Nos.5 & 7 and produced them in the Police Station at 6-30 p.m., and gave a statement. He has identified the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has apprehended the accused from the spot as stated by him in his examination in chief. He has denied the suggestion that as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer, he is deposing falsely before the court.
24. P.W.16-Sri.Muruga has identified his signatures on the notice (Ex.P.51) and mahazar (Ex.P.52). He stated that he does not know as to what is written in the said documents. He has put his signatures in the Police Station. He does not know the accused No.1 and he was not taken to any place.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
25. P.W.17-Sri.Sathish Kumar, Police Inspector has stated that on 18.07.2019 he received the case file 19 S.C.No.1401/2019 from C.W.57 and continued with the investigation. On 7.08.2019 on completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. On 16.10.2019 Yelahanka Tahsildar furnished the report pertaining to TIP and he has furnished the report (Ex.P.57) to the court. On 16.03.2020 he received the report (Ex.P.58) given by C.W.25. He has identified 3 choppers (M.Os.5 to 7).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, He has denied the suggestion that he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused.
26. P.W.18-Sri.Mayakannan has identified his signatures on the notice (Ex.P.60) and panchanama (Ex.P.61). About 6 years ago when he had been to the Police Station, he had not seen any person and as per the instructions of the police, he has put his signature. He does not know as to why his signatures are there on the M.Os. He has not identified the accused persons.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.62.
27. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is pertinent to note 20 S.C.No.1401/2019 that the complainant and other witnesses have not identified the accused. The seizure of the weapons from the possession of the accused is not proved as the seizure mahazar witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Also the spot mahazar witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Also the prosecution has examined P.Ws.7 and 8 as eye witnesses to the incident, but they have not supported the prosecution case.
28. In view of the evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that the death of Bharath is not in dispute, but the question before the court as to whether the accused have committed the murder. In this regard from the evidence placed before the court, at first it is pertinent to note that the identity of the accused is not proved. Also there is no evidence in support of the prosecution case. Even after granting sufficient opportunity, the Investigating Officer has not appeared before the court to lead evidence. Even otherwise from the evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that the evidence placed before the court is inconsistent and cannot be relied upon. Further the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused persons. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused who alleged to have committed 21 S.C.No.1401/2019 the alleged offences. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 to 9 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer the Points Nos.1 to 6 in the Negative.
29. POINT No.7: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 6 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 9 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 9 stand cancelled, subject to appeal.
M.Os.1 to 4 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed and M.Os.5 to 7 are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of April 2026) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
22 S.C.No.1401/2019ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Appu P.W.2 Rama P.W.3 Subramani P.W.4 Priya P.W.5 Shiva P.W.6 Hutchanna P.W.7 Veera P.W.8 Mohammed Toufiq P.W.9 K.Raja P.W.10 Pradeep.S. P.W.11 Ajay P.W.12 Sathyavelu P.W.13 Babu P.W.14 Sanjay P.W.15 Manjunath.D.S. P.W.16 Muruga P.W.17 Sathish Kumar P.W.18 Mayakannan
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.3
Exs.P.3 to 22 Photos of the dead body
Ex.P.23 Acknowledgment for having received
the dead body
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.24 Statement of P.W.1 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.25 Notice
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.25(b) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.26 Statement of P.W.2 (relevant portion)
23 S.C.No.1401/2019
Ex.P.27 Inquest
Ex.P.28 P.M.Report
Ex.P.29 FSL Report
Ex.P.30 Statement of P.W.3 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.31 Statement of P.W.4 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.32 Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.33 Statement of P.W.7 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.34 TIP document
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.35 Statement of P.W.7 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.36 Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.37 Statement of P.W.8 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.38 TIP letter
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.39 TIP letter
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.40 TIP letter
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.41 TIP letter
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.42 TIP letter
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.43 Notice
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.44 Mahazar
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.45 Statement of P.W.9 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.46 Sketch
Ex.P.47 Notice
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.48 Mahazar
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.49 Notice
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.50 Mahazar
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.51 Notice
Ex.P.51(a) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.51(b) Signature of P.W.16
24 S.C.No.1401/2019
Ex.P.52 Mahazar
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.52(b) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.53 Statement of P.W.13 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.54 Statement of P.W.13 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.55 Statement of P.W.14 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.56 Statement of P.W.14 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.57 Report of Tahsildar
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.58 Report
Ex.P.58(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.59 Sample Seal
Ex.P.59(a) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.60 Notice
Ex.P.60(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.61 Mahazar
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.62 Statement of P.W.18 (relevant portion)
List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Blood stained cotton M.O.2 Marble piece M.O.3 Sample cotton M.O.4 Chappal M.O.5 Chopper M.O.6 Chopper M.O.7 Chopper
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
RASHMI M
RASHMI Date:
M 2026.04.02
17:46:43
+0530