Bangalore District Court
State By Police Inspector vs Unknown on 27 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE: BANGALORE CITY
CCH.NO 66
PRESENT
SRI.N.R.CHENNAKESHAVA B.A.,LL.B.,
LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2016
S C No. 243/2005
COMPLAINANT: State by Police Inspector,
Vidhana Soudha Police Station,
Bangalore.
Reptd by Public Prosecutor.
/ Vs /
ACCUSED :
1. Girish Lokanath Mattannavar
S/o Lokanatha Mattannavar, R/at
No.J-5, Karnataka University
Campus, Dharwad-03.
2. Guranna Sharanappa Ammapur
@ Guranna S/o Sharanappa,
Aged about 36 years, R/at
Yadrami, Jevargi Taluk, Gulbarga
District.
2 S.C.No.243/2005
3. V.Veeresh Babu @ Babu S/o
Gurappa, Aged about 20 years,
R/at Mandevala Village, Jeevargi
Taluk, Gulbarga.
Date of 01.11.2003
Commencement of
offences
Date of report of 01.11.2003
offences
Name of complainant Sri. T.V.Prabhakar PI
Date of recording of 30.07.2007
evidence
Date of closing of 13.07.2015
evidence
Offence complained of u/S. 4 and 5 of Explosive
Substance Act, 1908.
Opinion of the judge Acquittal
****
JUDGMENT
Inspector of Police, Vidhana Soudha P.S., Bangalore, has filed charge sheet as against A1 to A3, of the offences p/u/Sec.4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
3 S.C.No.243/2005
2. Brief facts of prosecution case are as follows:-
Police Inspector, Cubbon park Police station, has filed charge sheet against A1 to A3, of the offences p/u/Sec.4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, alleging that during the year 2003, A1 Girish Mattannavar was serving as Police Sub-Inspector at Yedrami Police Station. It is further alleged that about 4 months prior to 1.11.2003, A1 much worried that the politicians and bureaucrats are involving in corruption and hence, he pledged to remove corruption from the society. Therefore he decided that only way to eradicate corruption in the society, is by planting bombs in the Legislative House and to cause damage to public property and to harm the life of politicians, by causing alarm in their mind. Therefore A1 to achieve his ambitious illegal goal, on 30.7.2003 he visited Bengaluru and stayed in Room No.715 of Moti Mahal 4 S.C.No.243/2005 and then visited the spot at Legislative house, Bengaluru and prepared a rough sketch. Therefore, in order to reach his illegal goal and to prepare bombs, about 2 months prior to 1.11.2003, he purchased 25 gelatin sticks and 25 detonators for Rs.500/- from A3 V.Veeresh Babu, through A2 Guranna Ammapur. In the meanwhile A1 deputed for revolver/rifle shooting training camp at Bengaluru and hence A1 taking the very opportunity, has packed the explosive substances, like detonators and gelatin sticks, which he already purchased from A3 through A2 and on the night of 19.10.2003 he proceeded with his baggages from Gulbarga and on the very next morning i.e. on 20.10.2003, he landed at Bengalauru with his baggages and from 22.10.2003 till 1.11.2003 he stayed at Junior police officer's mess, Megarath road, Bengaluru. On 30.10.2003 A1 took Room No.103 for rent at Subhadra Lodge, Gangdhi Nagar, Bengaluru and to execute his 5 S.C.No.243/2005 proposed ambitious illegal goal, he prepared 3 bombs while he stayed in the said lodge. It is alleged that in order to plant those alleged bombs, A1 purchased Kavasaki Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-S-1962 from CW17 Dilip and helmet from CW22 Karthik.
3. On 1.11.2013 at about 2.00pm, A1 planted two bombs (Improvised Explosive devices) at public toilet situated at 2nd floor of Old Legislative House as well as another bomb on the steps running between 4th and 5th floor of Legislative House (Annexe) and that apart, he also attached timer to both bombs and thereafter he left the scene of offence in his motorcycle towards Sampangi Ramanagar and then at about 2.15pm, he made a telephone call to Bengaluru City police control room, through the STD booth of CW4 G.V.Ramakrishna Later these bombs were defused by the bomb squad.
6 S.C.No.243/2005
4. In connection with the alleged incident on 3.11.2003 I.O arrested A1 at S.C.Road, Bengaluru and thereafter on 8.11.2003 A2 and A3 were arrested by the I.O at Yadrami and Mandevala, respectively.
5. It is further alleged that A1 having knowledge that the bombs which are planted by him if exploded, it would cause damage to public property as well as life of general public and therefore, in order to cause loss and damage to the public property as well as life of general public, he purchased 25 gelatin sticks and 25 detonators for Rs.500/- from A3 V.Veeresh Babu, through A2 Guranna Ammapur and prepared the same and planted at L.H.Building. That apart, it is further alleged that A3 without obtaining any valid license from the concerned Authority, having stored the explosive substances, illegally sold the same to A1. That apart, A2 by obtaining explosive device from A3, 7 S.C.No.243/2005 had supplied the same to A1 and thereby A1 to A3 have committed the offences alleged.
6. Learned VIII ACMM, Bangalore, took cognizance of the offences p/u/sec. 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and then committed the case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Committal court has complied the provisions of Sec.207 and 209 of Cr.P.C. Upon receipt of entire committal records, this case is numbered as SC No.243/2005 and then the case has been made over to this court, for disposal in accordance with law. A1 to A3 are on regular bail. After hearing, my learned predecessor has framed the charges and explained to A1 to A3, of the offences p/u/Sec. 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. However, A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty of the charges leveled against them and they claim to be tried. Hence the case has been posted for 8 S.C.No.243/2005 trial. Prosecution in all examined 61 witnesses as PW-1 to PW61, got exhibited 99 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P99, got identified M.O.1 to M.O.95 and closed its side. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 got exhibited on behalf of defense. After conclusion of evidence from prosecution side, A1 to A3 are examined as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. However, they denied the incriminating evidence placed against them by the prosecution and have not chosen to lead defense evidence
7. Heard argument from both side.
8. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.5 to M.O.14 are Explosive Substances, within the meaning of Sec.2 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908?
2) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that A3 Veeresh by unlawfully possessing 9 S.C.No.243/2005 explosive substance i.e. gelatin sticks and detonators and about two months prior to 1.11.2003, he sold the same to A1 for Rs.500/- and transmitted the same to A1 through A2 Guranna and thereby A3 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908?
3) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that about months prior to 1.11.2003 A1 Girish Mattannavar after purchasing 25 gelatin sticks and 25 detonators from A3 Veeresh and then A2 by transmitting those explosive objects, has delivered the same to A1 and thereby A2 has committed the offence p/u/Sec.5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908?
4) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that A1 being PSI, having believed that there exits wide spread corruption prompted and nurtured by politicians and bureaucrats and hence with an intention to eradicate corruption, in his perception, he conducted a pre survey of Legislator's house at Bengaluru on 30.7.2003 and thereafter A1 to A3 with their common intention A1 by unlawfully procuring 25 gelatins sticks and detonators from A3 Veeresh through A2 Guranna while serving as 10 S.C.No.243/2005 PSI, at Yadrami and on 20.10.2003 A1 in furtherance of his determination came to Bengaluru and by staying in Room No.103, Subhadra lodge, Gandhinagar, has prepared 3 bombs (Improvised explosive devices) and possessed the same under suspicious circumstances and not for lawful object and thereby A1 committed an offence p/u/Sec.5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908?
5) Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that A1 Girish Mattannavar after preparing bombs, on 1.11.2003 at about 2.00pm planted two bombs in a public toilet at II floor, Legislator's house, and planted another bomb near staircase linking 4th and 5th floor of legislators house, with an intention to damage the public properties and to cause serious injuries to public at large and thereby A1 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.4 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908?
6) What Order?
9. My answer to the above points are :
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative POINT NO.2 : In the Negative POINT NO.3 : In the Negative 11 S.C.No.243/2005 POINT NO.4 : In the Negative POINT NO.5 : In the Negative POINT NO.6 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: It is the case of prosecution that M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14 are explosive substances, within the meaning of Sec.2 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to prosecution, M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O. 14 were recovered under Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2 respectively, by PW60 T.V.Prabhakar; the I.O, in the presence of PW1 H.B.Shivanna, PW2.T.Dhanapal, PW3 K.P.Anjappa and PW31 Nandeesha, respectively. PW1 and PW2 are the attesters to Ex.P.1. Likewise PW3 and PW31 are the attesters to Ex.P.2. That apart, it is the case of prosecution that M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.5 to M.O.14 consists of two timers, Aluminium powder and 12 S.C.No.243/2005 Ammonium nitrogen mixture, electrical wires, shells, live gelatin stick and detonators respectively. To prove that M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.5 to M.O.14 are explosive substances, prosecution has relied FSL reports at Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.38 and the evidence of PW33 B.Puttabasavaiah, PW38 Mallesh, PW44 Dhanaraj Achar and PW59 Mahadevaiah; the experts attached to FSL, Bengaluru.
11. Ex.P.32 issued by PW33 B.Puttabasavaiah Scientific Officer, FSL, Bengaluru and the same has been countersigned by PW44 Dhanraj Achar, Asst Director, FSL, Bengaluru.
12. PW44 deposes that on 19.12.2003, he received 9 sealed articles which were found intact. PW44 further deposes that after receiving those articles, he directed PW33 to examine those articles 13 S.C.No.243/2005 and to issue report by giving his opinion. PW44 also deposes that as per his direction, PW33 examined those 9 articles and issued report at Ex.P.32. PW44 further deposes that after examination of those articles, again he packed those items and forwarded the same to chemical section, FSL, for further examination. PW44 also deposes that those 9 items includes M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14. In the cross examination, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence.
13. PW33 B.Puttabasaviah, scientific officer, deposes that after receipt of those 9 articles, he opened the seals and he found article No.2 in a plastic box covered with cloth, contained one detonator with two disconnected wires said to have been detached from bomb No.1 kept in cotton. Article No.3 found in a small plastic box covered with cloth contained one 14 S.C.No.243/2005 small clock with electric wires and one shell kept separately. Article No.5 found in plastic box covered with cloth and sealed containing one small clock with electric wires said to have been detached from bomb. Article No.6 kept in small plastic box covered with cloth contained one small clock with electric wires and one shell kept separately. Article No.8 kept in small plastic box covered with cloth contained with one detonator with two disconnected wire said to have been detached form bomb. Article No.9 kept in plastic box covered with cloth contained one small clock with electric wires and one shell. Article No.11 kept in plastic box covered with cloth containing one detonator with two wires. Article No.13 kept in small plastic box covered with cloth containing one detonator with two wires. Article No.15 kept in small plastic box covered with cloth contained one detonator with two wires. 15 S.C.No.243/2005
14. He further deposes that on detail examination of those articles under the supervision of PW44, the clocks marked at articles No.3, 6, 9 were found working condition. Bottom of detonators marked at articles No.2, 5, 8 were found tampered and it is not possible to decipher the mark due to heavy scratch marks at the place. Bottom of detonators marked at articles No.11, 13 and 15 read as E. PW33 deposes that he issued certificate with his opinion at Ex.P.32. In the cross examination of PW33, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. PW33 and PW44 at Ex.P.32, opine that the clocks marked at articles No.3, 6 and 9 were found working condition. Bottom of detonators marked at articles No.2, 5, 8 were found tampered and it is not possible to decipher the mark due to heavy scratch marks at the place. Bottom of the detonators marked as articles NO.11, 13 and 15 read as E. Upon careful scrutiny of 16 S.C.No.243/2005 evidence of PW33 and PW44, it disclose that after examination of those 3 clocks sent to FSL, which were found working condition. However, upon examination of detonators at FSL, it was unable to found marks at the bottom of those detonators, since those items tampered and it was not possible to decipher the mark due to heavy scratch marks at the place.
15. It is the case of prosecution that PW33 and PW44 after examining M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14 have forwarded those objects to chemical section, FSL Bengaluru for further examination. Accordingly, those objects received by PW38 P.Mallesh, scientific officer, FSL, and then PW58 Mahadevaiah, Asst Director, Chemical Section has directed PW38 to examine those objects and accordingly PW38 has examined those objects and issued report at Ex.P.38. PW38 deposes that he received the articles as follows: 17 S.C.No.243/2005
1) Sealed plastic container covered with white cloth, which contains Aluminium and ammonium nitrate chemical mixture.
2) Sealed plastic container covered white cloth, which contains one live electrical detonator with leg wire.
3) Sealed plastic container covered with white cloth, which contained one clock, two electrical wires, one shell.
4) Sealed plastic container covered with white cloth which contain aluminum and ammonium nitrate chemical mixture.'
5) Sealed plastic container covered with white cloth, which contain one live electrical detonator with leg wire.
6) Sealed plastic container, covered with white cloth which contains one clock, two electrical wire, one shell.
7) Sealed plastic container covered with white cloth, which contains aluminium and ammonium nitrate chemical mixture.
8) Sealed plastic container covered with white cloth, which contain one live electrical detonator with leg wire.18 S.C.No.243/2005
9) Sealed plastic container, covered with white cloth, which contains two electrical wire and one shell.
10) Sealed plastic container, covered with white cloth, contained with one red colour plastic tube live gelatin stick.
11) Sealed plastic container, covered with white cloth, contained with live electrical detonator with leg wire.
12) Sealed plastic box covered with white cloth, contained one red colour plastic tube live gelatin stick.
13) Sealed plastic box covered with white cloth contained with one live electrical detonator with leg wire.
14) Sealed plastic box covered with white cloth, contained one live gelatin stick.
15) Sealed plastic box covered with white cloth, which contain one live electrical detonator with leg wire.
16. PW38 specifically deposes that he examined those articles scientifically. He deposes that samples 19 S.C.No.243/2005 found in articles No.1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14 are similar explosive composition mixture. Presence of explosive substance such as ammonium nitrate with aluminium powder and slurry using as gel and those mixture is known as slurry explosive.
1) Samples found in article Nos.2,5, 8, 11, 13
and 15 are live electrical detonator with leg wire.
2) Presence of explosive substances such as lead Azide lead styphnate, pentaerythitoal tetranitrate and aluminum were detected.
3) A systematic array of the items contained in article Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 could be used for constitute improvised explosives.
4) The quantum of explosive substances present in the above stated articles No. 1 found with 40, 8467 grams and articles No.4 found with 40, 3974 grams and 7 found with 40,3974 grams, which could be cause damage the area of 3 to 4 feet in radius.
20 S.C.No.243/2005
17. PW38 deposes that on 2.6.2004 he completed the examination of those articles and issued report at Ex.P.38 after countersigned by PW58 and then forwarded the same to the I.O, through the Director FSL.
18. PW38 specifically deposes that article No.3 and 4 which are already marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2 and articles Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 to 15 are marked as M.Os.8 to M.Os.20. Inspite of subjecting PW38 for cross examination on behalf accused, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence.
19. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW33, PW44 as well as PW38 and PW58 and also report at Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.38 issued by respective chemical examiners, FSL. Upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW32 and PW38, which clearly disclose that 21 S.C.No.243/2005 M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14 are explosive substances within the meaning of Sec.2 of Explosive substance Act, 1908. Suffice it to say, opinion given by the PW33 at Ex.P.32 as well PW38 at Ex.P.38, which cannot be discarded at all. More so PW33, PW44, PW38 and PW58 are experts. Hence I safely rely the evidence of PW33, PW44, PW38 and PW58, coupled with Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.38 to come to the conclusion that M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14 are explosive substances within the meaning of Sec.2 of Explosive Substances Act. For the forgoing reason I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. Point No.2 and 3: Since these two points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take down these two points together for discussion and answer. 22 S.C.No.243/2005
21. It is the case of prosecution that PW60 being the I.O in this case, has seized M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8 to M.O.11 under Ex.P.1 in the presence of PW1. H.B.Shivanna and PW2 T.Dhanapal. Likewise, PW60 by drawing Ex.P.2 at the scene of offence has seized M.o.5 to M.O.7 and M.O.12 and M.O.14 in the presence of PW3 K.P.Anjanappa and PW31 Nandeesha C.V.
22. Pw1 H.B.Shivanna being the attester to Ex.P.1, deposes that the I.O has seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P.1, in his presence. PW2 T.Dhanapal deposes that in his presence I.O has not drawn any mahazar nor seized any material objects. Since PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution as far as drawing up of Ex.P.1, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely 23 S.C.No.243/2005 before the court. PW60 deposes that he has drawn Ex.P.1 at the alleged scene of offence in the presence of PW1 and PW2. Upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW60, it discloses that he has seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P.1, in the presence of PW1 and PW2. Assuming that evidence of PW60 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW2 as far as recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2, at the same time very evidence of PW60 is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 as far as recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2. Hence, I safely rely the evidence of PW60 and PW1, to come to the conclusion that PW60 has seized M.o.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P.1. It is pertinent to note that PW60 deposes that he has seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P.1. It is also the case of prosecution that M.O.8 and M.O.11 are also part and parcel of M.O.1 and M.O.2.
23. It is further case of prosecution that PW60 has seized M.O.5 to M.O.7 and M.O.12 and M.O.14 24 S.C.No.243/2005 under Ex.P.2 in the presence of PW3 K.P.Anjanappa and PW31 C.V.Nandeesh. However, PW3 being the attester to Ex.P.2, has not supported the case of prosecution as far as alleged recovery of M.O.5 to M.O.7 and M.O.12 and M.O.14 by PW60. PW3 also denies his previous statement said to have been given by him at Ex.P.3 before I.O. Since PW3 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW3 also denies the suggestion that on 2.11.2003 under Ex.P.2, I.O. after verifying the spot, has seized aluminium and ammonium nitrate and other things in three plastic containers. PW31 C.V.Nandeesha supports the case of prosecution as far as recovery of M.O.5 to M.O.7 and M.O.12 and M.O.14 under Ex.P.2. He categorically 25 S.C.No.243/2005 deposes that I.O and police bomb squad visited the scene of offence and by drawing mahazar, I.O has seized clock, shell and wires. That apart, PW31 also identifies the timer, shell and wire at M.O.5 to M.O.7 respectively. In the cross examination of PW31, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. Suffice it to say, PW60 being the I.O categorically deposes that by drawing Ex.P.2 at the scene of offence, he has seized those M.Os. Upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and PW60, it clearly disclose that PW60 under Ex.P.1 has seized M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.8 to M.O.11. Likewise, PW60 also seized M.O.5 to M.O.7, M.O.12 and M.O.14 under Ex.P2 in the presence of PW31. Therefore, I hold that prosecution has proved the recovery of M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14 under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, respectively.
26 S.C.No.243/2005
24. On going through evidence of PW1, PW31 and PW60, it clearly disclose that Ex.P.1 has been drawn at Legislative house building and Ex.P.2 drawn at 2nd floor of Legislative House (annexe). Added to this, prosecution has also proved the recovery of M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.5 to M.O.14, in this regard, I have already discussed above. Hence, I hold that prosecution has successfully proved the scene of offence as well as recovery of M.O.1. M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14.
25. It is relevant to note that in every crime there involves motive, preparation and execution by the accused. According to prosecution, A1 had dejected about wide spread corruption in the society, which prompted and nurtured by politicians and bureaucrats and therefore with an intention of eliminate the corruption from the society, he decided to plant the bomb and explode the same in Legislative House, 27 S.C.No.243/2005 where Legislative Assembly members are staying. Therefore, according to prosecution very motive of the accused, is to cause loss to public property as well as life of general public.
26. According to prosecution accused with a clear motive of causing loss to public property as well as life of general public, to achieve his ambitious illegal goal, he prepared 3 bombs on 30.10.2003 at Subhadra lodge, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru and on 1.11.2003, by carrying those bombs and its accessories like timer etc. alleged to have planted two bombs in the public toilet, 2nd floor of old L.H.Building. That apart, A1 also planted another bomb in the steps connecting 4th and 5th floor of L.H.Annexe building and more so, he also pasted the pamphlets to the wall of elevator, which reads as 'THUS 'BEGINS THE REVOLUTION'.
28 S.C.No.243/2005
27. By answering point No.1, I have already come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the recovery of those bombs and it accessories i.e. M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14 under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 respectively in the presence of panchas.
28. It is the specific case of prosecution that A1 prepared those bombs by using explosive substances i.e. detonator and gelatin sticks and then he affixed timer to three bombs. It is also the case of prosecution that A3 had sold those detonators and gelatin sticks to A1, by transmitting the same through A2. In order to connect A3 that he had sold those detonators and gelatin sticks to A1 and transmitted the same through A2, prosecution has failed to place any iota of convincing and cogent evidence, except the evidence of PW60, the I.O.
29 S.C.No.243/2005
29. According to prosecution, PW60 upon interrogating A3, he confessed that he owns a compressor and he is carrying on blasting of rock beds and therefore in order to blast the rock beds, he is using detonators and gelatin sticks and those detonators and gelatin sticks were supplied to him by a person from Rajasthan.
30. According to prosecution, A3 given his voluntary statement at Ex.P.93 to the fact that about 2 months prior to the alleged incident, he was approached by A1 and asked him to supply detonators and gelatin sticks in order to blast rockbeds at his village and hence, he agreed to supply detonators and gelatin sticks through A2 and after lapse of 4 - 5 days, he had sent 22 detonators and 25 gelatin sticks to A1 through A2. To implicate A3 and A2 in this case that A3 had supplied detonators and gelatin sticks to A1, 30 S.C.No.243/2005 through A2, absolutely prosecution has failed to place any iota of convincing and cogent evidence.
31. It is the case of prosecution that on 9.11.2003, PW60 has seized 49 gelatin sticks and 51 detonators from the house of A3, at his instance, under Ex.P.28, in the presence of panchas PW27 Mahadevappa and PW28 Buddappa. Contents of Ex.P.28 disclose that PW60 said to have been seized those explosive substances in the presence of PW27 and PW28. However, at Ex.P.28, the time of drawing mahazar not mentioned and it is kept blank. That apart, PW27 and PW28 the attesters to Ex.P.28, have turned hostile. PW27 and PW28 they do not know about A1 to A3 and also the house of A3, nor, the I.O has drawn mahazar in front of the house of A2. Added to this, PW27 and PW28 depose that they were not summoned by the police near the house of A2. PW27 31 S.C.No.243/2005 deposes that on a day during night hours, police took his signature in blank paper. PW28 deposes that PSI Nelogal PS, took his signature at Ex.P.28 on a day during night hours. Since, PW27 and PW28 have not supported the case of prosecution, they are subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating them as hostile witnesses. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from their mouth to hold that under Ex.P.28, PW60 had seized detonators and gelatin sticks from the house of A3. PW60 deposes that at the instance of A1, on 9.11.2003 he arrested A3 and then he interrogated A3 and at that juncture he given his voluntary statement at Ex.P.93 and at the instance of A3, he recovered 50 gelatin sticks and 52 detonators from the house of A3, under Ex.P.28, in the presence of panchas PW27 and PW28. It is important to note that though PW60 has seized those gelatin sticks and detonators under Ex.P.28 in the presence of panchas, 32 S.C.No.243/2005 at the instance of A3, at the same time, very evidence of PW60, is not corroborated by the evidence of PW27 and PW28. That apart, PW27 and PW28 also deny their previous statement said to have been given by them before PW60, at Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 respectively. In my view, since the evidence of PW60 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW27 and PW28, as far as the alleged seizure of those gelatin sticks and detonators from the alleged possession of A3 under Ex.P.28, very evidence of PW60 is not at all safe to hold that A3 had possessed gelatin sticks and detonators. Therefore, certainly it cannot be held that A3 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Further I am of the view that since the prosecution has failed to prove that A3 had possessed 52 gelatin sticks and 50 detonators at his house, question of holding that A3 had transmitted those gelatin sticks and detonators to A1 through A2 33 S.C.No.243/2005 Guranna, which cannot be acceptable at all. Hence, to implicate A2 that he had transmitted the gelatin sticks and detonators to A1, which cannot be acceptable at all, since to connect A2 that he alleged to have been delivered the alleged gelatin sticks and detonators, absolutely there is no iota of evidence placed against A2. Hence, I am of the considered view, that A2 cannot be connected to the guilt circumstances.
32. Though it is the case of prosecution that at the instance of A3, 52 gelatin sticks and 50 detonators were seized from the house of A3 under Ex.P.28, in the presence of PW27 and PW28, at the same time, the same is not proved, as per Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, on this count also it cannot be held that prosecution has proved the alleged recovery of those 52 gelatin sticks and 50 detonators from the possession of A3. Therefore, in the above circumstances, certainly, 34 S.C.No.243/2005 it cannot be held that A2 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.5 of the Explosive Substance Act. For the forgoing reasons I answer point No.2 and 3 in the 'Negative'.
33. Point Nos.4 and 5: Since these two points are interconnected with each other, for the sake of convenience, I would like to take down these two points together for discussion and answer.
34. It is alleged that A1 with an intention to plant bombs at Legislative House, Bengaluru, he procured 25 gelatin sticks and detonators from A3 through A2, while he was serving as PSI, Yadrami PS and thereafter on 30.10.2003 with an intention to plant the bombs at Legislative house, he prepared 3 bombs by staying at Subhadra Lodge, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, and he possessed those devices not for lawful object and 35 S.C.No.243/2005 thereby he committed an offence p/u/Sec.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. That apart it is also alleged that A1 after preparing 3 bombs, on 1.11.2003 at about 2.00pm planted two bombs (IED) in a public toilet at II floor, LH, old building and planted another bomb (IED) on the staircase linking 4th and 5th floor of LH (Annexe), with intention to cause loss to public properties and to cause injury to general public and thereby A1 has committed an offence p/u/Sec.4 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908
35. By answering point No.1, I have come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the recovery of 3 bombs and its accessories at M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.5 to M.O.14. Now the question is, whether A1 has planted those three bombs in the respective scene of offence, as mentioned at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. It is 36 S.C.No.243/2005 relevant to note that in order to connect the guilt of A1, prosecution has relied following circumstances:
1) On 27.7.2003 A1 had came to Bengaluru and stayed two days in Room No.718 and another two days in room No. 715 of Hotel Moti Mahal, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru.
2) A1 had attended revolver shooting training at Bengaluru and in this connection he stayed in Junior Police Officers Mess Megrath Road, Bengaluru, from 22.10.2003 till 31.10.2003.
3) A1 in order to prepare bombs, on 30.10.2003 stayed in room No.103, Subhadra lodge, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru and he prepared 3 bombs and thereafter on 1.11.2003 at about 2.00pm, he left the room along with bombs and proceeded in motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA--03-S-1692 (M.O.4) and planted two bombs in public toilet at II floor, L.H, Bengaluru and another bomb near staircase linking 4th and 5th floor of L.H. (Annexe).37 S.C.No.243/2005
4) A1 in order to plant bombs, had purchased M.O.4 motorcycle and the same was seized by PW60 at the instance of A1 under Ex.P.91 in the presence of panchas CW12 Sathish and CW13 Kumar and that apart, A1 after planting the bombs at L.H, has proceeded in motorcycle towards Sampagirama Nagara and made telephone call from a public telephone booth, belongs to CW4 G.V.Ramakrishna, informing the Police Control Room that somebody planted bombs in L.H. However, A1 while leaving the said telephone booth, has left his helmet at M.O.3 in the said telephone booth itself. PW9 P.Sunil Kumar, who was managing the STD booth, has informed police control room, stating that the person who telephoned to police control room, has left his helmet in the telephone booth. Therefore on the basis of recovery of helmet at M.O.3 and that apart on the basis of tracing out of said motorcycle, I.O has managed to implicate A1 that he has made the said telephone call to police control room.38 S.C.No.243/2005
5) A1 while undergoing revolver/Rifle shooting training at Bengaluru, had stayed at Junior Police Officer Mess, Megrath Road, Bengaluru from 22.10.2003 to 31.10.2003.
6) A1 had procured gelatin sticks and detonators from A3 through A2 at Yadrami and on 19.10.2003 he carried the same along with other material objects while he came to Bengaluru, for revolver shooting training and he kept in room No.11 of Junior Police Officer Mess and on 3.1.2003 the same were seized at his instance under mahazar at Ex.P.4.
7) A1 had also illegally possessed gelatin sticks and detonators and other material objects at his official residence at Narona and on 7.11.2003 the same were seized at his instance, by PW60, under mahazar at Ex.P.15.
8) A1 purchased M.O.3 helmet from PW12 Karthik.
36. Based on the above circumstances, prosecution implicated A1 to this case. Hence, now the 39 S.C.No.243/2005 point before the court is whether prosecution is able to prove all these circumstances against A1. Now, I would like to discuss the above circumstances placed by the prosecution, in order to connect the guilt of A1.
37. It is the specific case of prosecution that during the time of alleged incident A1 was serving as PSI at Narona PS. According to prosecution, A1 having believed that there is wide spread corruption, prompted and nurtured by politicians and bureaucrats and hence with an intention to eradicate corruption, in his perception, by applying leave he came to Bengaluru on 30.7.2003 and stayed in room at Moti Mahal, from 27.7.2003 to 31.7.2003 and during these period he conducted pre survey of legislator's house, on 30.7.2003. Hence, now the point that before the court is that whether prosecution proves the very first circumstance.
40 S.C.No.243/2005
38. In order to connect this circumstance, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW20 Jagadish, partner of Hotel Moti Mahal and PW21 Narasimha Murthy, the receptionist cum cashier of the said hotel.
39. PW20 deposes that since the year 1971, he is running Moti Mahal, wherein PW21 Narasimha Murthy is working as receptionist. He further deposes that earlier he had not seen A1 and he do not know about A1 that he took room for rent in the hotel. PW20 also deposes that by seeing photo of A1 in the daily news, he came to know about A1. PW20 deposes that he was not interrogated by the I.O nor he given previous statement to the I.O. Since PW20 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness. In spite of it nothing much contrary elicited from his 41 S.C.No.243/2005 mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. That apart, PW20 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.25 said to have been given by him before the I.O. However, PW20 admits the suggestion that residence arrival report at Ex.P.26 has been issued from his hotel. It is pertinent to note that at Ex.P.26 name of A1 is mentioned and for rent he took Room No.715 and the date and time mentioned as 27.7.2003 at 12.40PM. PW20 in his cross examination admits the suggestion that he cannot say that whether A1 had stayed in the hotel, as per entries made at Ex.P.26.
40. PW21 deposes that he is working as receptionist in the said hotel, since 20 years. PW21 further deposes that he do not know about A1 and he do not remember that A1 had came to the lodge along with Vidhana Soudha police to the hotel. However, PW21 deposes that about 4 years ago Vidhana Soudh 42 S.C.No.243/2005 police came to the lodge and they saw the entries in the Register wherein name of A1 Girish Mattanavar and his address has been mentioned and at that juncture they took the copy the same.. However, at that juncture A1 was not accompanied by the police. PW21 admits the suggestion that Ex.P.26 pertains to Moti Mahal. Since PW21 not categorically supported the prosecution case, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. It is pertinent to note that whether PW60 accompanied A1 to the said hotel on the said day, even PW60 in this regard has not whispered in his evidence that he accompanied A1 to hotel Moti Mahal and more so to hold that from 27.7.2003 and 30.7.2003, A1 had stayed at Moti Mahal, prosecution has failed to elicit any iota of convincing and cogent evidence from the 43 S.C.No.243/2005 mouth of PW20 and PW21. Assuming that Ex.P.26 speaks that on 27.7.2003 room No.718 has been allotted to A1, at the same time it evidentiary value is concerned, PW20 and PW21 not much speaks about the very document. Suffice it to say even PW60 being the I.O has not adduced any evidence in this regard. That apart, the alleged signature of A1 at Ex.P.26 is also not identified by the I.O. It is relevant to note that PW60 has not whispered about Ex.P26 that he has seized the same from PW20. Suffice it to say PW60 has also not whispered that PW20 has given his previous statement before him. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove the very first circumstance in order to connect the guilt of A1.
41. 2nd circumstance relied by the prosecution is that, A1 had come to Bengaluru on 20.10.2003 and in this connection A1 stayed at Junior Police Officer Mess, 44 S.C.No.243/2005 Megarath Road. PW36 B.S.Shivaram PC 253 deposes that in connection with attending revolver/ rifle shooting training, A1 reported duty on 20.10.2003 at 6.30PM before the concerned Authority. To prove that A1 had stayed in the Junior Police Officers Mess, Prosecution has relied the documents at Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.48, details of rooms allotted to the police officials at Junior Police Officer Mess. Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.48 disclose that from 24.10.2003 till 1.11.2003 in the Junior Police Officers Mess, many police officials stayed in the room which was allotted to them. Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.48 clearly disclose that room No.11, has been allotted to A1 and he stayed in the said room from 24.10.2003 to 1.11.2003. However, it is the case of prosecution that from 22.10.2003 till 31.10.2003, A1 stayed in the Mess. To prove this circumstance, prosecution has also examined PW36 B.S. Shivaram and PW41 B.B.Harapanahalli. PW36 deposes that he 45 S.C.No.243/2005 was working at Junior Police Officer Mess during the year 2002 to 2003 and at that point of time, PW41 B.B.Harapanahalli, PC Nagesh Murthy and P.C.Reddy were also working in the Mess. He deposes that they use to allot the rooms to the police officers for their stay in the Mess, after verifying I.D. card as per order of superiors. That apart, he use to enter the name and other details of police officials in the Register and obtain their signature, while allotment of rooms to them. PW36 also deposes that on 22.10.2003 he allotted room No.24 to A1. PW36 further deposes that he made official entries in the Register and obtained signature of A1. PW41 B.P.Harapanahalli deposes that he is discharging duty in the Mess during the year 2003 to 2004. He deposes that on 22.10.2003 at about 6.30 AM, he was approached by A1 and asked to allot room. PW41 further deposes that he allotted Room No.11. PW41 deposes that A1 stayed in the said room till 46 S.C.No.243/2005 1.11.2003. On going through evidence of PW36 and PW41, it disclose that there is inconsistencies as far as allotting of particular room to A1. PW36 deposes that room No.24 was allotted to A1; however, PW41 deposes that room No.11 was allotted to A1. Coming to Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.48, it disclose that room No.11 was allotted to A1 in the said Mess. Assuming that there is inconsistencies with regard to stay of A1 in the particular room, at the same time Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.48 disclose that A1 was allotted with room No.11 in the said Mess. That apart, Ex.P.74 supports the prosecution case that A1 was deputed to attend the revolver/rifle shooting training at Bengaluru and in this connection on 20.10.2003 at about 6.30PM, A1 reported to duty. Therefore, in my view, evidence of PW36 and PW41, coupled with Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.48 and Ex.P.74, which are prima facie sufficient to hold that A1 stayed in room No.11 in the Junior Police Officer Mess 47 S.C.No.243/2005 during the relevant period. Hence, I hold that prosecution has proved the 2nd circumstance that A1 stayed at Junior Officer Mess, Bengaluru, from 22.10.2003 to 1.11.2003 for attending revolver/rifle shooting training.
42. Third circumstance which prosecution relies is, from 30.10.2003 till 2.00PM on 1.11.2003, A1 stayed at Room No.103, Subhadra Lodge, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru and during the relevant period he prepared 3 bombs. To prove that A1 stayed in the said hotel, prosecution relied evidence of PW7 V.Ganapathi, Receptionist, PW8 Nanjunda, Room Boy and PW32 Veerabadraiah, Watchman, attached to said Subhadra Lodge. PW7 deposes that since 5 years, he is working as receptionist at Subhadra Lodge. He further deposes that at no point of time, he had seen A1 to A3. He also deposes that, he use to enter in the Register about the 48 S.C.No.243/2005 details of customers by receiving advance sum and then he issues receipt and allot the room in the hotel. PW7 specifically deposes that while allotting the room, he use to enter the date, time of allotment of room to the customer and he also enter the date and time of departure of customer from the room and then he prepares the bill and other miscellaneous charges. PW7 deposes that as against the accused he has not given previous statement before I.O. Since PW7 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness and inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW7 denies the suggestion that he has given his previous statement at Ex.P.7 before the I.O.
43. PW8 Nanjunda Room boy, Subhadra Lodge categorically deposes that he do not know about the 49 S.C.No.243/2005 accused. That apart, PW8 deposes that during the year 2003, police have not come to Subhadra Lodge. Since PW8 has not supported the prosecution case, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. He also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.8 said to have been given by him before the I.O. It is important to note that PW60; the I.O, has not whispered in his evidence that during the relevant period i.e. from 30.10.2003 till 2.00Pm on 1.11.2003, A1 had stayed at Room NO.103 at Subhadra Lodge, for the purpose of preparing 3 bombs. On the other hand, evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW32 disclose that A1 had not at all stayed in the said hotel during the relevant period. Suffice it to say, to strengthen the case that from 30.10.2003 till 2.00Pm on 1.11.2003, A1 stayed at 50 S.C.No.243/2005 room No.103, of Subhadra Lodge is concerned, prosecution has failed to place any iota of convincing and cogent evidence. Added to this prosecution has not placed any documentary evidence that during the relevant period A1 stayed in room No.103 at Subhadra lodge. Hence, without placing any iota of convincing evidence, case of prosecution that A1 had prepared 3 bombs during the relevant period, which cannot be believed at all. Therefore, I hold that above circumstance relied by the prosecution, which goes against the very root of case of prosecution and will not assist the prosecution in connecting the guilt of A1.
44. Fourth circumstance, which the prosecution relies is that A1 in order to plant bombs at L.H., he used M.O.4 motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-S-1692. According to prosecution, PW22 Prathap was the registered owner of M.O.4. Later PW22 handed over 51 S.C.No.243/2005 M.O.4 to his Manager PW30 Gajendra Kumar. Later PW30 sold M.O.4 to PW10 B.N.Srinath. Then PW10 sold M.O.4 to PW11 Dilip.R. In turn PW11 sold M.O.4 to A1 for a sum of Rs.16,000/-. According to prosecution, PW60 being the I.O in this case has seized M.O.4 under Ex.P.91. On going through evidence of PW60, it disclose that he said to have been seized M.O.4 under Ex.P.91 in the presence of panchas CW12 Sathish and CW13 Kumar. However these two witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, prosecution has relied sole testimony of PW60, to prove the alleged recovery of M.O.4. Ex.P.91 disclose that on 3.11.2003 PW60 has seized the said motorcycle from the alleged possession of A1 in the premises of Vidhana Soudha police station. In my view, without placing any corroborative evidence to the evidence of PW60, it is not at all safe to believe the version of PW60 that he alleged to have seized M.O.4 52 S.C.No.243/2005 under Ex.P.91. That apart, PW60 deposes stray sentence that under Ex.P.91, he has seized M.O.4 from the alleged possession of A1. It is pertinent to note that M.O.4 pertains to accused is concerned, prosecution has not placed any documentary evidence, except the say of PW60 that A1 had purchased M.O.4 from PW11 R.Dilip. However, in this regard to evidence that PW11 sold M.O.4 to A1 is concerned, prosecution has failed to place any iota of evidence. PW11 deposes that about 4 years ago A1 come forward to purchase M.O.4. Hence, he sold M.O.4 to A1, for a sum of Rs.16,000/-. PW11 further deposes that at the time of he purchasing M.O.4, it Registration Certificate stood in the name of Deenadayal. He also deposes that R.C.Book and Transfer Form, Insurance certificate were handed over to him by Anjali Auto Consultant. PW11 deposes that he was contacted by A1 through telephone. PW11 also deposes about sale of M.O.4 53 S.C.No.243/2005 Rs.16,000/- in favour of A1 and at that juncture A1 received relevant documents pertains to M.O.4. PW11 further deposes that he issued Delivery Note. However, to evidence that M.O.4 has been registered in the name of A1 is concerned, prosecution has not placed any iota of evidence, except placing M.O.4. PW11 deposes that after few days, Sanjayanagar police telephoned his father and asked to come over to the police station. Hence, he and his father have been to Sanjayanagar police station and at that juncture, he revealed the police about the registration number of his motorcycle and also selling M.O.4 to A1. Hence, police have asked him to produce the documents pertains M.O.4 and therefore he produced Delivery Note pertains to M.O.4 and that juncture, by seeing Delivery Note, they traced out the address of A1 and they left the spot. PW11 deposes that later he was accompanied by police officials to M.G.Road police quarters, wherein he found 54 S.C.No.243/2005 M.O.4 and at that time he was inside the room. PW11 deposes that at the material point of time, he has given statement before I.O and also identified M.O.4. In the cross examination, PW11 deposes that RC pertains to M.O.4 was not transferred in his name. That apart PW11 deposes that said Dinadayal has not affixed his signature at Form No.29 and 30. Suffice it to say, PW11 admits the suggestion that while police have took Delivery Note from him, they have not drawn mahazar and while handing over the Delivery Note, Deenadayal being the R.C.Holder was not summoned by the police. Evidence of PW23 disclose that PW23 Deenadayal was the Registered owner of M.O.4, who sold M.O.4 in favour of PW30 Gajendra Kumar for Rs.13,500/- and after that PW30 sold M.O.4 to PW24 C.N.Sridhar, PW24 Sridhar. Inturn PW24 sold M.O.4 in favour of PW10 M.Srinath, who in turn sold the same to PW11 Dilip and then PW11 Dilip sold the same to A1. In this regard, 55 S.C.No.243/2005 PW23, PW30, PW24 and PW10 were examined by the prosecution and they depose about selling of M.O.4 in favour of respective purchaser. Hence, I need not discuss much about evidence of PW23, PW30, PW24 and PW10. However, at the same time, though PW60 being the I.O in this case alleged to have been seized M.O.4, under Ex.P.91, at the same time, A1 purchased M.O.4 from PW11 is concerned, absolutely, prosecution has not placed any convincing and cogent evidence, since no documents placed by the prosecution to evidence that at the material point of time, A1 was the registered owner of M.O.4 and he has signed Transfer Form No.29 and 30 under motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the fourth circumstance.
45. It is the case of prosecution that A1 in order to achieve his ambitious illegal goal, to plant bombs at 56 S.C.No.243/2005 L.H, he proceeded in motorcycle at M.O.4, from Subhadra lodge to the alleged scene of offence i.e. L.H and at that juncture he was wearing helmet at M.O.3. Further according to prosecution, accused after planting alleged bombs at L.H, he proceeded in M.O.4 by wearing M.o.3 towards Sampagiramanagara and he made a telephone call from public telephone booth of CW4 G.V. Ramakrishna and at about 1.45 PM he alleged to have made a telephone call to police control room. However, after making telephone, he left M.O.3 in the STD booth itself and after 10 minutes again he returned near the said telephone booth and enquired with PW9 Sunil Kumar about M.O.3. At that juncture PW9 told A1 that he do not know the timing of arrival of the said telephone booth operator and hence immediately A1 left the said place. However, at that juncture PW9 noted down the registration number of M.O.4 and M.o.3. Therefore, on the basis of said 57 S.C.No.243/2005 information, PW60, has managed to recover MO.3 under Ex.P.12 in the presence of PW9 Sunil Kumar and PW22 Prathap. In order to prove the alleged recovery of M.O.3, prosecution has relied the evidence of PW9 and PW22 Prathap and also evidence of PW60.
46. PW9 Sunil Kumar and PW22 Prathap, the attesters to Ex.P.12 have not whispered in their evidence that PW60, alleged to have been seized M.O.3 under Ex.P.12 in their presence. Since PW9 and PW22 have not supported the case of prosecution, as far as the recovery of M.O.3 under Ex.P.12, they are subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating them as hostile witnesses. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from their mouth to hold that PW60 being the I.O in this case has seized M.O.3 under Ex.P.12 in their presence. That apart, PW9 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11, said 58 S.C.No.243/2005 to have been given him before PW60. Likewise PW22 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.27 said to have been given by him before the I.O. PW60 deposes that he has seized M.O.3 under Ex.P.12 in the presence of PW9 and PW22. However, at the same time, evidence of PW60 to the effect that he has seized M.O.3 under Ex.P.12 in the presence of PW9 and PW22, is not corroborated by the evidence of PW9 and PW22. In My view, since evidence of PW60 that he alleged to have been recovered under Ex.P.12, is not corroborated by the evidence of PW9 and PW22, certainly it is not at all safe to hold that PW60 has recovered M.O.3 under Ex.P.12. That apart, A1 also takes defense that PW60 has cooked up M.O.3 for the purpose of the case. Hence, under such circumstances, I hold that prosecution has also failed to prove the 4th circumstance, in order to implicate the A1 in this case. 59 S.C.No.243/2005
47. It is case of prosecution that at the time of alleged incident A1 alleged to have been used M.O.3 and on that basis, PW60 has managed to trace out A1 to implicate him to this case. To strengthen this aspect, prosecution has examined finger print experts. In my view, since the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of M.O.3, evidence of PW56 Narayanappa, Finger Print Expert and his report at Ex.P.75 will not any way assist the prosecution case to implicate A1. Therefore I need not rely the evidence of PW56 and his report at Ex.P.75 pertains to M.o.3. i.e. alleged finger prints of A1 and CW4 G.B.Ramakrihsna, found over at M.O.3.
48. The sixth circumstance, which the prosecution relies is that, while A1 proceeding towards Bengaluru on 19.10.2003 to attend revolver/rifle shooting training camp, he also transported gelatin 60 S.C.No.243/2005 sticks and detonators along with him, in order to achieve his illegal goal, to plant bombs at L.H. It is the case of prosecution that on 3.11.2003, A1 has been arrested by PW60 and at that time of interrogation, A1 has given voluntary statement at Ex.P.90. Accordingly, A1 has led PW60 and panchas to room No.11 at Junior Police Officials Mess and at that juncture he produced M.O.15, M.O.16 and M.O.41 to M.O.95 in the presence of panchas PW4 Venkana Gowda Patil, PW5 Mallikarjuna and PW6 Rachappa. However, on going through evidence of PW4 to PW6, it does not disclose about the alleged seizure of M.O.15, M.O.16 and M.O.41 to M.O.95 under Ex.P.4 by PW60 in room No.11 of the said Mess. It is relevant to note that PW4 to PW6 have not whispered in their evidence that PW60 has seized those material objects at the instance of A1. Since PW4 to PW6 have not supported the case of prosecution, they are subjected to cross examination, 61 S.C.No.243/2005 by the prosecution, after treating them as hostile witnesses. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from their mouth to hold that they depose falsely before the court. More so, PW4 to PW6 also deny their previous statement at Ex.P.5, Ex.D2 and Ex.P6 respectively. Evidence of PW4 clearly disclose that on a day at about 3.30pm he was accompanied by PW60 to said Mess and at that time A1 was also present there. Upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW4 to PW6, it clearly disclose that PW60 has not at all recovered those materials objects as per Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of M.O.15, M.O.16 and M.O.41 to M.O.95 under Ex.P.4. PW6 Rachappa deposes that he do not know who has opened the door of the room. Evidence of PW6 disclose that before he reaching the alleged place of recovery at the Mess, police officials and A1 62 S.C.No.243/2005 were present there. No doubt, PW60 deposes about the alleged recovery of M.O.15, M.O.16 and M.O.41 to M.O.95. However, his evidence clearly disclose that he failed to recover those items at the instance of A1. More so, evidence of PW60 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW4 to PW6, who being attesters to Ex.P.4. Therefore, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of M.O.15, M.O.16 and M.O.41 to M.O.95 as per Sec.27 of Evidence Act. Hence, I hold that 6th circumstance, which is relied by the prosecution is not at all helpful to connect the guilt of A1.
49. Seventh circumstance, which is relied by the prosecution is that A1 has given his voluntary statement at Ex.P.90 before PW60 and on that basis, on 7.11.2003 PW60 has seized gelatin sticks and detonators, along with other material objects under Ex.P.15, in the official residence of A1 at Narona, in the 63 S.C.No.243/2005 presence of PW13 and PW14. It is pertinent to note that PW13 and PW14 being attesters to Ex.P.15 have not whispered in their evidence about alleged recovery of those materials objects at the instance of A1. However, PW60 deposes that he has seized 48 gelatin sticks and 16 detonators and other material objects in the official residence of A1 and after recovery of those 48 gelatin sticks, sample of detonator and gelatin stick were taken at M.O.16 and M.O.17 respectively and rest of gelatin stick and detonator were destroyed at Mangalore Explosive Disposal Lab. PW60 deposes that under Ex.P.15, he also seized M.O.33 to M.O.35, i.e.computer, key board, scanner, two speaker, head phone, UPS and typewriter.
50. I have carefully gone through evidence of PW13 and PW14, coupled with Ex.P.15, as well as evidence of PW60. As I already discussed above PW13 64 S.C.No.243/2005 and PW14; the attesters to Ex.P.15, have not whispered that PW60 has seized 48 items under Ex.P.15 in their presence, at the instance of A1. That apart evidence of PW60 does not disclose that he has seized the said M.Os at the instance of A1, as per Sec.27 of Evidence Act. Therefore, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of above material objects under Ex.P.15 at the instance of A1 from his official residence at Narona. Hence, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the above seventh circumstance.
51. The eighth and last circumstance, which prosecution relies is that A1 had purchased helmet at M.O.3 from the shop of PW12 Karthik. PW12 deposes that he is running a shop at Gandhi Nagar under the name and style 'Oriental sports'. PW12 deposes that he do not remember about the helmet alleged to have 65 S.C.No.243/2005 been purchased from his shop, by A1. Since, PW12 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. He also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.44, said to have been given by him before I.O. Hence, this circumstance is also goes against prosecution case.
52. According to prosecution, PW31 C.V.Nandeesh being water pump operator at LH, found a bomb on 2.1.2003 at about 2.00pm. Hence, he immediately informed PW3 K.P.Anjappa, stating that he found bomb in the staircase linking to 4th to 5th floor of L.H Annexe. Hence, PW3 telephoned the police about bomb found in L.H and later Bomb Squad rushed to the scene of offence and defused two bombs. However, 66 S.C.No.243/2005 PW3 in his evidence has not whispered that he has telephoned the police about bombs found in the staircase linking between 4th and 5th floor of LH Annexe. Hence, evidence of PW3 and PW31 is not at all helpful to the prosecution to connect A1. Hence, I need not much discuss about evidence of PW3 and PW31.
53. PW15 Veeranna PSI, Chowk PS, Gulbarga, deposes that from 17.8.2003 to 1.10.2003 he was incharge of Narona PS and during that period he was discharging duty as PSI Crime. PW15 also deposes that as per direction of SP, Gulbarga, A1 had been to Bengaluru for training on 19.10.2003. PW15 further deposes that from the said day onwards, he took charge of Narona PS from Parameshwar, H.C. PW15 deposes that at that time A1 handed over service revolver, live cartridges, dairy and walky-talky. It is deposed by PW15 that on 7.11.2003 I.O came along 67 S.C.No.243/2005 with A1 to Narona PS and then I.O visited official residence of A1 at Narona and seized copy of dairy at Ex.P.19 and documents at Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW15. In my view, evidence of PW15 is not helpful to the prosecution, in connecting the guilt of A1.
54. PW16 Kubera Gowda Patil PC-910, deposes that from year 1998 till Aug-2005 he served as PC at Station Bazaar PS and he was discharging duty as computer operator. He further deposes that on 6.9.2002 A1 took charge as probationary PSI at Station Bazaar PS. PW16 also deposes that after completion of probationary, on 5.2.2003 A1 was transferred to Yadrami PS as PSI. In my view evidence of PW16 is not of much important to connecting the guilt of A1. Hence, I need not much discuss about evidence of PW16.
68 S.C.No.243/2005
55. PW17 Siddanna, deposes that he do not know about Kini, Adv. PW17 further deposes that he also do not know about Kubera Gowda patil PC. It is deposed by PW17 that A1 has not handed over Rs.15,000/- to him and to give the same to Kubera Gowda Patil. Since PW17 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW17 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.22 said to have been given by him before PW60.
56. PW18 Prakash PC-251, Chincholi PS deposes that during the year 2002, he served as PC at station Bazaar police station and at that time A1 was posted at Station Bazaar PS, as probationary PSI during Aug- 69 S.C.No.243/2005 2002. In my view, evidence PW18 is not of much importance in this case in connecting the guilt of A1.
57. PW19 Pavan Kumar, Prop., Swetha Rubber Stamp and Name plate manufacturer, deposes that he do not know about A1 and he has not sold any rubber stamp to A1. That apart, PW19 deposes that he was not interrogated by the I.O nor he given statement against A1. Since PW19 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness, inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth that he deposes falsely before the court. He also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.24 said to have been given by him before I.O.
58. PW25 Shivanand, PC-923, Narona PS, deposes that during the year 2003 he was working as 70 S.C.No.243/2005 computer operator at Narona PS. He further deposes that on 3.11.2003 I.O had come to Narona PS. PW25 further deposes that he has given statement to I.O. In my view, evidence of PW25 is not much importance. Hence, I need not discuss much about the evidence of PW25.
59. PW26 Kallappa PC-764, Abzalpur PS deposes that during the year 1998 to 2005 he served as a Jeep driver at Narona PS. PW26 further deposes that at that time A1 was serving as PSI at Narona PS. PW26 also deposes that in the jeep he dropped A1 to Gulbarga Railway station from Narona to proceed towards Bengaluru. That apart, PW26 deposes that while A1 was proceeding towards Bengaluru on the said day he possessed with one suitcase and two bags. That apart, PW26 deposes that he also given the statement to the I.O. In the cross examination, PW26, nothing 71 S.C.No.243/2005 much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence.
60. PW27 Mahadevappa, deposes that he do not know about A1 to A3. That apart, PW27 deposes that no mahazar has been drawn by I.O near the house of A2 nor the I.O has seized any material objects. On the other hand, PW27 deposes that police have come to his house during night hours and took his signature in a blank paper. Since PW27 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. He also denies the suggestion that police by drawing mahazar at Ex.P.28 on 9.11.2003 near by the house of A2 Gurappa, have seized gelatin sticks and detonators. Added to this, PW27 also denies his 72 S.C.No.243/2005 previous statement said to have been given by him, at Ex.P.29, before the I.O.
61. PW29 Parameshwara, HC, 219, Narona PS deposes that from Janu2001 till Feb-2006, he served as HC at Narona PS. PW29 also deposes that on 6.9.2003 A1 took charge as PSI and on 19.10.2003 he had been to Bengaluru for training and that time A1 handed over dairy, revolver and walky-talky to him. In my view, evidence of PW29 is not of much importance.
62. PW34 K.T.Lakshmi Narasimhaiaha HC, Wireless West Divn, Control Room, deposes that he served as HC Wireless, Control room, from 1998 to 2005 in Central Control Room, Bengaluru. He further deposes that on 1.11.2003 he was on duty in B Shift from 1.00Pm to 8.00Pm and he received call from 100 C table at about 2.00PM and he was informed that 73 S.C.No.243/2005 some public by making phone call to 100 from phone No.2918495, informed that a bomb is fixed in LH. Hence, immediately through wireless, he contacted PSI of LH police out post,. PW34 deposes that 15 - 20 minutes later Kalaiah gave message that he did not find planting of any bombs. PW34 further deposes that he suspected and he made call to the said number 2918495 for the sintrex phone and at that time he came to know that the said phone call received from public telephone and hence he asked the concerned to be cautious when the such threatening bomb calls are received. However, he was told by the person who received the call that owner of the booth has locked the shop and left for lunch and he said that he will convey same to booth owner and asked him to make a call. It is also deposed by PW34 that 20 minutes later telephone booth owner made a call to him and informed that person who made the phone call from his 74 S.C.No.243/2005 booth, has left his helmet in the shop and he noted the reg.No of the vehicle No.KA-03-S-1692. Hence, he immediately through wireless he contacted PSI crime, S.P Nagar PS, asked him to rush to the spot immediately and he also gave message to PI of Vidhana Soudha PS to rush near LH immediately. PI After coming to the spot gave a message to him by informing that he rushed to LH and had seen some clocks and some suspicious items like bombs found near the toilet of LH. Thereafter, he gave message to the bomb squad through Master Control Room, to rush near the spot. He also informed the facts to all the senior officers.
63. PW48 G.Dharmaraj PC 5473 deposes that during the year 2003 he was working in control room. PW48 deposes that on 1.11.2003 while he was discharging duty at 2nd shift, at about 2.40, he received 75 S.C.No.243/2005 phone call from 2918495 from Sunil Kumar and informed that a person who telephoned to control room from STD booth, as again came to the STD booth. PW48 further deposes that when he tried to enquire the said person, he ran away from the scene along with his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-S-1692. PW48 also deposes that at that point of time, he informed about the person as well as registration number of the said motorcycle.
64. PW50 K Harish PC deposes that during the year 2003 to 2007, he served as PC in the police control room. He further deposes that on 1.11.2003 between 1.40pm to 1.50 pm, he received phone call that some body has planted bomb in LH. Hence, he immediately entered the said phone number in the log books.
76 S.C.No.243/2005
65. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW34, PW48 and PW30, who were discharging duty in police control room on the specific date and time. In my view, evidence of PW34, PW48 and PW50 is not of much importance, since PW34, 48 and 50 disclose that they received phone call about the alleged planting of bomb. Evidence of PW34 disclose that he informed about anonymous call. Evidence of PW48 disclose that he was informed by PW9 Sunil Kumar about the person who made anonymous call to the police control room and he also deposes that PW9 has informed about the registration number of the vehicle.
66. PW35 Vijay Parashuram Anchi, CPI, Jevergi circle, Gulbarga, deposes that from 14.10.2002 to 13.7.2004, he was discharging duty at CPI of Jevergi Circle and he had jurisdiction over Nelavagi, Jeveragi and Yadrami police station. PW35 further deposes that 77 S.C.No.243/2005 while A1 was serving as, PSI at Yadrami PS, he was found negligent in discharging his duty. PW35 also deposes that as against A1, he submitted reports on 9 occasions to the SP, Gulbarga, since A1 had not complied with the directions issued by the superiors in crime meetings in connection with the investigations of crimes of his PS. Evidence of PW35 discloses that A1 alleged to have been neglected in discharging of his duty and was not properly obeying the directions of superior police officers. In my view, very circumstance, is no way connected to this case. Hence, I need not discuss much about the evidence of PW35.
67. PW37 Amar Mokashi deposes that A1 was his classmate and were studying together from 8th std to PUC-II. In my view, evidence of PW37 is not at all helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt of A1. That apart PW37 has turned hostile and not supported 78 S.C.No.243/2005 the case of prosecution. Hence, he is subjected to cross examination by the prosecution, after treating him as hostile witness. In spite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. He also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.34, said to have been given by him before I.O.
68. PW39 Palaksha, PC 8430 deposes about transmitting FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Evidence of PW39 disclose that on 2.11.2003 as per direction of PI, Vidhana Soudha PS, on the same day at about 2.30Pm, he transmitted the FIR to the home office of IX ACMM, Bengaluru.
69. PW40 B.Chandrashekhar HC-3580, deposes that on 24.11.2003 as per direction of PI, he transmitted sealed box to FSL and then received endorsement from FSL. In my view, evidence of PW39 79 S.C.No.243/2005 and PW40 are not of much importance. Hence, I need not discuss much about the evidence of PW39 and PW40.
70. PW42 Rangaiah then PSI, Vidhana Soudh PS, deposes that on 1.11.2003 at about 3.30PM he received first information at Ex.P.49 from PW60 and hence, he registered the case in Cr.No.101/03 and then lodged FIR at Ex.P.50 the court.
71. PW43 Syed Nizamuddin PI deposes that from Sept-2002 till Feb-2004 he served as PI, Bomb Squad, attached to Commissioner of police, Bengaluru. PW43 also deposes with regard to defusing of alleged bombs said to have been found at LH. PW43 further deposes that on 2.11.2003 he again defused bomb, which was found near the staircase linking between 4th to 5th floor. 80 S.C.No.243/2005
72. PW46 M.P.Lingaraju, then PSI, Bomb Squad, deposes that he served as PSI in defusing of Bomb. Evidence of PW46, discloses that he defused the alleged bomb found at LH, as per the direction of ADGP. PW46 further deposes that on 5.2.2004 ADGP issued memo directing him to report at Vidhana Soudha PS. Hence, himself PC M.S. Venkateshappa, K.Sukumar,V.Narayanaswamy have been to Vidhana Soudha PS and reported before PI and after that PI has handed over 6 electrical detonators and he asked them to defuse those bombs. Hence, after examining those bombs through explosive detonator machine, it was found with explosive substance and therefore himself and other staff took those explosive detonators to Palace Ground and defused them.
73. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW43 and PW46, who depose with regard to defusing 81 S.C.No.243/2005 of bombs. In my view, evidence of PW43 and PW46 is not much importance, in view of my findings on the circumstantial evidence relied by the prosecution. Hence, I need not discuss much about the evidence of PW43 and PW46.
74. PW45 J.Rajendra Babu, PSI S.R.Nagar PS, deposes that on 1.11.2003 he was deputed to duty at Kanteerava Stadium and on the same day at about 2.50PM, he received phone call from Control Room and he was asked to rush near the STD booth, D.H.Road, behind Geo hotel . Hence, immediately he rushed there at about 3.00pm and then he enquired with PW9 Sunil Kumar, who told that anonymous person who approached in motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03- S.1692 and has left his helmet in the neighbouring shop and then he ran away from the scene. However, at that time, the shop where the anonymous person 82 S.C.No.243/2005 kept his helmet had left, was closed. Therefore, after enquiring about owner of the shop, he opened the door and seized the helmet by drawing mahazar and at that time Dog Squad also visited the spot. In my view evidence of PW45 is also not much helpful to the prosecution, to connect guilt of A1, in view of my discussion above circumstantial evidence placed by the prosecution.
75. PW47 Dr.Rajanna, Reader, Botany Sec., Bengaluru University, deposes that during the year Mar-2003 he was served as Reader Botany Sec., Bengaluru University. Prior to that, he served as a lecturer at Karnataka University. PW47 also deposes that while he was serving as lecturer, A1 was studying MSc and hence, he know about A1. PW47 deposes that after completion of Post graduation, A1 joined in Police Dept as PSI. PW47 further deposes that A1 after joining 83 S.C.No.243/2005 Police Dept, he has not met him. However, on a day during the year 2003 while A1 came to Bengaluru for training, he made a call through his friends and asked for lunch and after that on a day at about 11.00 AM, A1 met him at Majestic bus stand and informed him that he came to Bengaluru to purchase two wheeler and thereafter he accompanied A1 to the place where second hand vehicle being sold, wherein A1 has purchased motorcycle. Though PW47 deposes that A1 purchased motorcycle, at the same time, PW47 has not whispered about registration number of the said vehicle. In my view, evidence of PW47 is no way helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt of A1. Therefore, I need not much discuss about the evidence of PW47.
76. PW49 Anjanappa PSI, deposes that on 11.11.2003, he served as ASI at Vidhana Soudha PS. 84 S.C.No.243/2005 He deposes with regard to producing of A2 and A3 before the court under remand Application. In my view, evidence of PW49 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. Hence, I need not much discuss about the prosecution case.
77. PW51 Jagadish deposes that during the year 2003 he was working as cook under A1, at his official residence. In my view, evidence of PW51 is not of much importance. Hence, I need not discuss much about his evidence.
78. PW52 Hanumantharaya, ASI, Station Bazaar PS, deposes that he know A1 while A1 was working as a probationary PSI at station Bazaar PS, during the year 2002. PW52 further deposes that on 8.11.2003 CCB police visited Gulbarga and interrogated him. In my view, evidence of PW52 is not at all much 85 S.C.No.243/2005 importance. Hence, I need not much discuss about the evidence of PW52.
79. PW53 Basavaraju, car driver, deposes that he know that A1 served at Yadrami PS. However, PW53 deposes that he has not worked under A1, as a driver. Since PW53 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW53 also denies his previous statement at Ex.P.53 said to have been given by him before the I.O.
80. PW54 Narayanaswamy, Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban), deposes with regard to issuance of sanction order to prosecute A1 in this case. PW54 deposes that on 21.7.2004 he received 86 S.C.No.243/2005 requisition from Cubbon Park PS, along with FIR as well as mahazar, FSL report and voluntary statement of A1. PW54 further deposes that on perusal of those documents, it appeared that prima facie sufficient to hold that A1 has committed the offences. Hence, after scrutinizing documents, he issued sanction order at Ex.P.54, to prosecute A1. In the cross examination of PW54, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence.
81. PW55 K.Ramachandra SP, Gulbarga District, deposes with regard to forwarding 9 documents to I.O, pertains to A1. PW55 deposes that from 9.7.2003 to 12.5.2006 he served as SP at Gulbarga. On 7.11.2003 he received requisition from PW60 and after verification of requisition, he issued documents pertains to A1, which are marked as Ex.P.55 to Ex.P.74. PW55 in his cross examination admits the suggestion that during 87 S.C.No.243/2005 his tenure of service Ex.P.56 to Ex.P.68 were not issued. He also admits the suggestion that Ex.P.56 to Ex.P.74 are the certified copies.
82. PW59 Teja Rao Kheni, one of the circumstantial witness has not supported the case of prosecution. PW59 deposes that he know A1. PW59 further deposes that he has not accompanied A1 to any place. That apart, PW59 deposes that he do not know for what purpose A1 had came to Bengaluru. Added to this PW59 deposes that he do not know about Siddanna N Mudagi. PW59 specifically deposes that at no point of time, A1 sought financial assistance from him. Since PW59 has not supported the case of prosecution, he is subjected to cross examination, after treating him as hostile witness. Inspite of it, nothing much contrary elicited from his mouth to hold that he deposes falsely before the court. PW59 denies the suggestion that he 88 S.C.No.243/2005 has given his previous statement at Ex.P.87 before the I.O. PW59 denies the suggestion that since he had close friendship with A1 and paid Rs.15,000/- to A1 and A1 by taking the said sum of Rs.15,000/-, had been to Bengaluru.
83. PW60 T.V.Prabhakar then PI attached to Vidhana Soudha PS who is the first informant as well as I.O in this case, PW60 has conducted major portion of investigation in this case. In this regard, I have already discussed above. Hence, I need not much discuss about his evidence. PW60 in his examination in chief deposes that on 7.11.2003 under Ex.P.17 he had seized 46 material objects at M.O.34(1) to M.O.34(46). That apart, PW60 deposes that he also seized 11 documents under Ex.P.17 which are identified as M.O.34(11)(a) to M.O.34(11)(f). PW60 further deposes that under Ex.P.4, he had seized 46 items which are 89 S.C.No.243/2005 marked at M.O.42 to M.O.95. PW60 in his cross examination deposes that documents such as 'Thing to be considered during operation' and 'A step to transcend the dream and the corruption' and 'spirituality combating corruption' and 'who is responsible', which are seized under Ex.P.17, were not at all helped him for the investigation in this case. That apart PW60 also admits the suggestion that letter written by A1 to Mr.Sonu Mr.Singh and Jyothi were not at all helped him for the investigation in this case. PW60 also admits the suggestion that letter said to have been written to retd., Chairman KPSC, by A1 was also not helped for the investigation. Added to this, PW60 admits the suggestion that other documents which are seized by him like Indian secrete revolutionary agency and Misappropriation of breach of trust, counsel for a clean Indian, Cyber crime, Are you safe, were also not helped him for the investigation. 90 S.C.No.243/2005 Suffice it to say, PW60 admits the suggestion that Wings of Fire, document written by Bhagath Singh were also not helped for the investigation. PW60 denies the suggestion that though there was no enough materials on record available in this case, he falsely implicated accused to this case. PW60 further denies the suggestion that M.O.15, 16, 41 to 95 were nowhere helped for him for the investigation.
84. PW61 Jeethendranath, PI, Cubbonpark PS, deposes that on 14.11.2003 he took the case file from PW60, for the purpose of investigation. He further deposes that on 21.11.2003 he recorded the statement of PC-40173 Chandrshekar. On 27.11.2003 he recorded the statement of Jagadish and Narasimha Murthy at Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26 respectively. That apart, PW61 deposes that from the said witnesses, he took Xerox copies of T.P message at Ex.P.54, Ex.P.74 91 S.C.No.243/2005 to Ex.P.88, Ex.P.95 to Ex.P.97 from the concerned officials. PW61 deposes that on 22.11.2003 he took FSL report at Ex.P.32 along with invoices at Ex.P.36. PW61 in his cross examination admits the suggestion that 1.11.2003 PW60 has lodged the first information, however no general public have lodged first information pertains to this case. He also admits the suggestion that though the incident took place at two different places, he filed one charge sheet in connection with both incidents. PW61 also denies the suggestion that by giving false investigation report to District Magistrate, he took sanction order to prosecute A1. PW61 denies the suggestion that even though no Explosive substances were recovered in this case, he submitted false charge sheet against A1 to A3.
85. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 to PW61. NO doubt by answering Point No.1, I 92 S.C.No.243/2005 have already come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.5 to M.O.14 are Explosive substances. Further I also come to the conclusion that in order to connect guilt of circumstances to A1 to A3, prosecution has relied upon 8 circumstances. However, except 1st circumstance, that A1 had been to Bengaluru for revolver/rifle shooting training camp on 20.10.2003 and he stayed there till 1.11.2003, rest of circumstances are not proved by the prosecution. In this regard, I already discussed and answered those circumstances. In this connection I would like to discuss 3 prime circumstances. i.e.
1) According to the prosecution about 2 months prior to the alleged incident, on 27.7.2003 to 31.7.2003 A1 had came to Bengaluru to achieve his illegal goal and in order to conduct pre-survey of spot, on 27.7.2003 he 93 S.C.No.243/2005 came from Gulbarga to Bengaluru and stayed at Moti mahal till 31.7.2003. However, prosecution has failed to prove this circumstance. In this regard, I have already discussed above.
2) 2nd circumstance is that while accused was undergoing revolver/rifle shooting training at Bengaluru, he stayed at junior police officer mess, Megrath Road, Bengaluru, wherein he totally stayed 9 days at junior police officers mess. However, in this regard, prosecution has not placed any circumstantial evidence as against A1, about his conduct and his activity after training hours on each day. That apart, there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to the effect that during the said revolver/rifle shooting training period, A1 use to come out from his room and 94 S.C.No.243/2005 during his stay, other police officials have observed the activates of A1 or whether anybody have visited his room during those days. Admittedly on going through Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.48, it clearly disclose that there are about 30 other police officials stayed during the said period. Therefore, certainly, I.O should have examined any one of the officers out of those 30 inmates in the said Mess.
However, PW60 has not examined the inmates, for the reasons best known to him. That apart, prosecution has failed to place any iota of evidence that after training hours, A1 use to leave the room frequently. On the other hand, evidence of PW36 B.S.Shivaram PC 253 and PW41 B.B.Harapanahalli, who were in charge of Junior Police Officers Mess, only depose that A1 had stayed during the 95 S.C.No.243/2005 relevant period. Evidence PW36 and PW41 does not disclose that A1 frequently use to leave the room after training hours. More so, PW36 and PW41 not depose against A1 during the stay of A1 at Mess. More importantly, prosecution has not paled any evidence to the effect that on a particular day A1 left training camp to achieve his ambitious illegal goal in planting bombs at LH. In addition to that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of M.O.15, M.O.16, M.O.41 to M.O.95 under Ex.P.4 at the alleged instance of A1 from his room while he was undergoing revolver/rifle shooting training at Bengaluru. In this regard, I have already discussed the evidence of PW4 to PW6. However, prosecution has failed to prove the alleged 96 S.C.No.243/2005 recovery of M.O.15, M.O.16 and M.O.41 to M.O.95.
86. Prime circumstance relied by the prosecution is that A1 stayed at Room No.103, at Subhadra Lodge from 30.10.2003 to 1.11.2003 till 2.00PM and during this relevant period A1 alleged to have prepared M.O.1 to M.O.3. However, PW7 V.Ganapathi receptionist cum cashier and PW8 Nanjunda Room Boy attached to Subhadra Lodge, Gandhinagar, have not whispered in their evidence that A1 stayed during 30.10.2003 till 1.11.2003 till 2.00PM. These two witnesses also deny their previous statement said to have been given by them at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.38 respectively. It is the case of prosecution that A1 stayed at Subhadra Lodge from 30.10.2003 to 1.11.2003 till 2.00pm. Suffice it to say, on going through relevant portion of Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 which reads thus '¢£ÁAPÀ 1.11.2003 ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ 97 S.C.No.243/2005 ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è gÀƪÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ'. Therefore, in view of Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8, it appears that A1 vacated the room No.103 at Subhadra lodge only at 2.00PM on 1.11.2003. However, it is the case of prosecution that the anonymous call received at Police Control Room on the same day of planting bomb at LH at about 1.45PM on 1.11.2003. PW50 K.Harish then PC deposes that from 2003 to 2007 he served as PC in Police Control Room. He further deposes that on 1.11.2003 in between 1.40PM to 1.50PM, he received anonymous call at Police Control Room, stating that somebody have planted bomb at LH. More so, it is also case of prosecution that the said phone call has been made by A1 from the public telephone booth, at S.R.Nagar, which belongs to CW4 Ramakrishna. That apart, at the material point of time of receiving anonymous call at the police control room, PW9 Sunil Kumar was the STD booth operator. However, PW9 98 S.C.No.243/2005 deposes that at that juncture, he had been to his home, for having lunch.
87. Upon careful scrutiny of prosecution case, it clearly disclose that prosecution has simultaneously come up with 3 versions, which are as follows:
1) As per Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8, A1 had stayed in Subhadra lodge from 30.10.2003 from 1.11.2003 till 2.00PM.
2) 2nd version is that A1 had planted bomb on 1.11.2003 at about 1.40PM.
3) 3rd version is that A1 had telephoned to Police Control Room at about 1.45PM from the public telephone booth at S.R.Nagar, which belongs to CW4 Ramakrisha. Therefore, in view of above circumstances, certainly A1 cannot be connected to the guilt circumstance. On going through the above circumstances, certainly it 99 S.C.No.243/2005 cannot be believed at all that A1 had planted bomb at LH and he simultaneously at about 1.45pm had telephoned the police control room. Hence, I am of the considered view that based on these above circumstances, very case of prosecution is to be disbelieved.
88. Though it is the case of prosecution that A1 illegally possessed explosive substances like gelatin sticks and detonators while he had stayed at Junior Police Officer Mess, Bengaluru from 22.10.2003 to 1.11.2003 and which were recovered at the instance of A1 under Ex.P.4 in the presence of panchas and that apart at the instance of A1, PW60 also recovered gelatin sticks and detonators from his official residence at Narona, near Narona police station under Ex.P.15, At the same time, prosecution has failed to prove the same, In this regard, I have already discussed above. Added to this, it is case of prosecution that A1 100 S.C.No.243/2005 purchased motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-S-1692 from PW11 Dilip. However, this circumstance not proved by the prosecution. In this regard, I have already discussed above. It is also the case of prosecution that A1 purchased helmet from PW12 Karthik. However, this fact is also proved by the prosecution. In this regard, I have already discussed above.
89. It is pertinent to note that the very case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled position of law that when the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, then prosecution has to prove all the chain of circumstances pertains to the case, which the prosecution relies. In the present case on hand, though prosecution relies eight circumstances stated supra, it has proved only one circumstance out of eight circumstances, stated supra. The said circumstance is that A1 had attended 101 S.C.No.243/2005 revolver/rifle shooting training camp at Bengaluru from 20.10.2003 to 1.11.2003 and he stayed in the Junior Police Officers Mess, Megrath road, Bengaluru from 22.10.2003 to 1.11.2003. Except this circumstance, the prosecution has failed to prove the rest of circumstances stated supra, in order to connect the guilt of A1. Suffice it to say, evidence placed by the prosecution disclose with material contradictions and inconsistencies. In this regard, I have already discussed above. Therefore, based on the available evidence on record, connecting the guilt of A1 to A3 is not at all safe.
90. Viewed from any angle, I am of the considered view that A1 to A3 are entitled to an acquittal, since the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of A1 to A3, beyond all reasonable doubt, by placing convincing and cogent evidence. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I answer the above points 'Accordingly'. 102 S.C.No.243/2005
91. POINT NO.6: For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., A1 to A3 are acquitted of the offences p/u/Sec.4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Bail Bond of A1 to A3 and their Surety Bond stands cancelled.
Note:-M.O.3, M.O.4, M.O.33, M.O.34, M.O.36, M.O.37, M.O.39, M.O.40, M.O.42, M.O.46 to M.O.51, M.O.53, M.O.59, M.O.61 to M.O.64, M.O.67 to M.O.69, M.O.74 to M.O.77 are ordered to be confiscated to the State and rest of M.Os. being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed, after Appeal period is over.
*** (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27th day of June, 2016) (N.R. CHENNAKESHAVA ) LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
Ic* 103 S.C.No.243/2005 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW-1 H.B.Shivanna PW-2 T.Dhanpal PW-3 K.P.Anjanappa PW-4 Venkan Gowda Patil PW-5 Mallikarjunaiah PW-6 Rachappa PW-7 V.Ganapthi PW-8 Nanjunda PW-9 T.Sunil Kumar PW-10 Srinath PW-11 Dilip R. PW-12 Karthik PW-13 Vittala Shanthappa PW-14 Ramesh PW-15 Veeranna PW-16 Siddanna PW-17 Kuber Gowda Patil PW-18 Prakash PW-19 Pavan Kumar PW-20 Jagadish 104 S.C.No.243/2005 PW-21 Narasimha Murthy PW-22 Prathap PW-23 S.Deenadayalu Pw-24 Sridhar PW-25 Shivanand PW-26 Kallappa PW-27 Mahadevappa PW-28 Bandyappa PW-29 Parameshawara PW-30 Gajednra Kumar PW-31 C.V.Nadeesh PW-32 Veerabadraiah PW-33 B.Puttabasavaiah PW-34 K.T.Lakshmi Narasimhaiah PW-35 Vijai Parashuram Anchi PW-36 B.S.Shivaram PW-37 Amar Mukashi PW-38 P.Mallesh PW-39 Palakshappa PW-40 B.Chandrashekar PW-41 B.B.Harappanahalli PW-42 Ranaiah PW-43 Syed Neejamuddin 105 S.C.No.243/2005 PW-44 Dhanraj Achar PW-45 J.Rajendra Babu PW-46 M.P.Lingaraju PW-47 D.Rajanna PW-48 G.Dharmaraj PW-49 Anjanappa PW-50 K.Harish PW-51 Jagadish PW-52 Hanumantharaya PW-53 Basavaraju PW-54 Narayanaswamy PW-55 K.Ramachandra PW-56 Narayanappa PW-57 Shankarappa PW-58 Mahadevaiah PW-59 Sharanabasappa Khenee PW-60 Prabhakar PW-61 Jeethendranath LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Spot Mahazar (L.H. old) Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar (L.H. Annex) Ex.P.3 Statement of PW3 106 S.C.No.243/2005 Ex.P.4 Seizure mahazar (Mess) Ex.P.5 Statement of PW4 Ex.P.6 Statement of PW6 Ex.P.7 Statement of PW7 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW8 Ex.P.9 Statement of PW9 Ex.P.10 Further Statement of PW9 Ex.P.11 Further statement of PW9 Ex.P.12 Mahazar (Helmet) Ex.P.13 Statement of PW10 Ex.P.14 Statement of PW12 Ex.P.15 Mahazar ( Naroona) Ex.P.16 Statement of PW13 Ex.P.17 Mahazar Ex.P.18 Statement of PW14 Ex.P.19 Report of PW15 Ex.P.20 Station daily report Ex.P.21 Order of guard house of A1 Ex.P.22 Statement of PW17 Ex.P.23 Requisition letter to Postmaster Ex.P.24 Statement of PW19 Ex.P.25 Statement of PW20 Ex.P.26 Receipt of Hotel Motimahal 107 S.C.No.243/2005 Ex.P.27 Statement of PW22 Ex.P.28 Mahazar ( A3 residence) Ex.P.29 Statement of PW27 Ex.P.30 Statement of PW28 Ex.P.31 Statement of PW32 Ex.P.32 Report of FSL Ex.P.33 Sample seal Ex.P.34 Statement of PW37 Ex.P.35 Report of FSL Ex.P.36 Requisition sent to FSL Ex.P.37 Sample seal Ex.P.38 Report of FSL Ex.P.39 Sample seal Ex.P.40 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.41 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.42 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.43 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.44 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.45 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.46 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.47 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.48 Details of allotment of rooms at mess Ex.P.49 Report of I.O 108 S.C.No.243/2005 Ex.P.50 F.I.R Ex.P.51 Report of SHO Ex.P.52 Statement of PW51 Ex.P.53 Statement of PW53 Ex.P.54 Permission letter to prosecute Ex.P.55 Letter containing the particulars of training.
Ex.P.56 A1's practical training Ex.P.57 Practical training letter Ex.P.58 Another training letter Ex.P.59 Another training letter Ex.P.60 Another training letter Ex.P.61 Station Bazaar police station letter Ex.P.62 Station Bazaar training letter Ex.P.63 S.P Office training letter Ex.P.64 DAR Office training letter Ex.P.65 Leave sanction letter Ex.P.66 29 leave E.L. granted letter Ex.P.67 Charge memo Ex.P.68 Memo Ex.P.69 Memo Ex.P.70 Memo Ex.P.71 Memo 109 S.C.No.243/2005 Ex.P.72 Memo Ex.P.73 Letter dt.10.11.2003 Ex.P.74 T.P.Message Ex.P.75 certificate Ex.P.76 Original finger prints Ex.P.77 Original finger prints Ex.P.78 Letter dt.19.11.2003 to FSL Ex.P.79 Letter to finger print expert Ex.P.80 photos Ex.P.81 Photos Ex.P.82 Original finger prints of CW4 Ex.P.83 Original finger prints of CW4 Ex.P.84 opinion Ex.P.85 FSL Opinion Ex.P.86 Sample seal Ex.P.87 Statement of PW59 Ex.P.88 Finger print report Ex.P.89 P.F.No.104/03 Ex.P.90 Voluntary statement of A1 Ex.P.91 Seizure mahazar ( Motorcycle) Ex.P.92 P.F.No.106/03 ( 12 documents of vehicle) Ex.P.93 Voluntary statement of A3 Ex.P.94 Mahazar ( A1' brothers) 110 S.C.No.243/2005 Ex.P.95 T.P. Messages, det.5.10.2003 Ex.P.96 T.P.Messages dt.17.10.2003 Ex.P.97 Obtaining of revolver shooting training to A1 Ex.P.98 Requisition to defuse the detonators dt.24.12.2003 Ex.P.99 Report for defusing detonators dt.5.2.2004 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED MO-1 Timer MO-2 Timer, two wire & Shell MO-3 helmet MO-4 motorcycle MO-5 Time piece MO-6 Shell MO-7 Plastic box containing detonator MO-8 Plastic box containing aluminium and ammonium nitrate mixture 1st bomb.
MO-9 Plastic box containing two wires of 1st bomb MO-10 Plastic box containing aluminium and ammonium nitrate mixture of 1st bomb MO-11 Plastic box containing two wire of 2nd bomb MO-12 Plastic box containing aluminium and ammonium nitrate mixture of 111 S.C.No.243/2005 3rd bomb MO-13 Plastic box containing detonator MO-14 Plastic box containing timer, two wire and Shell MO-15 4 gelatin stick MO-16 3 detonator ( Jr. Police mess) MO-17 sample gelatin sticks MO-18 5 pamphlets MO-19 Identity card MO-20 Wellness pass MO-21 Internet card MO-22 Two small dairy MO-23 I com system card MO-24 Century bank ATM Slip MO-25 Note pad MO-26 Century bank deposit slip MO-27 Photo receipt MO-28 Visiting card of Baburao MO-29 Visiting card MO-30 Pocket dairy MO-31 4 detonator, table clock, mini clock and electric wire MO-32 Sample detonator MO-33 Computer, key board, scanner, two speaker, UPSC and Head phone 112 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-34 46 items seized under Ex.P.17 MO-34(1) Plastic cover and small dairy MO-34(2) Caravan Fancy Note book & small pocket dairy MO-34(3) 2001 year dairy MO-34(4) Student long notebook MO-34(5) Post card written by Sambavami MO-34(6) P.G.Post card written by P.G.Reddy MO-34(7) Inland letter written by Reddy MO-34(8) Inland letter written by Sonu Mister MO-34(9) Inland letter written by P.Govardhana MO.34(10) Letter written to Jyothi MO-34(11) Dairy written by A1' s lover MO-34(12) Yellow tissue paper written as things to be considered during operation MO-34(13) Yellow color tissue paper letter written as FEARO-30 MO-34(14) Typed letter written to N.Vittala MO-34(15) Letter written to retd KPSC Panchagatti MO-34(16) Letter written to Chief Vigilance MO-34(17) A Step to transcend the dream MO-34(18) Letter as The corruption and spirituality 113 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-34(19) Letter written to his father, as respected & Inspiring dad MO.34(20) Leave extension letter MO-34(21) Computer printout as N.Vittal Combating Corruption MO-34(22) Indian Secret Revolutionary agency ISRA, who is responsible written letter MO-34(23) Carbon copy letter written to respected teacher MO-34(24) Document written in English MO-34(25) Vindya Notebook sheet written in English MO-34(26) Letter written as crores of rupees fraud committed by Sharada Finance company MO-34(27) Letter written as I am pending in kannada MO-34(28) Internet account as Council for clean India N.Vital central vigilance commissioner MO-34(29) 50 crores fraud, Engineer suspended paper cutting. MO.34(30) The third eye paper cutting MO-34(31) Indian race in corruption filed paper cutting MO-34(32) Cyber crime are you safe, The time of India paper cutting 114 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-34(33) Election, so what ask slum voters d1.4.11.01 paper cutting MO-34(34) KSFC businessmen finance paper cutting MO-34(35) Power play dt.4.11.2001 paper cutting MO-34(36) Willpower, Nov.2001, the competition master paper cutting MO-34(37) Complaint written to Lokayuktha against K.R.Hospital for asking money from people MO-34(38) We the 3 million politician, times of India paper cutting MO-34(39) Kuft, copper and jihad written publication MO.34(40) Dattu.K and other 4 people phone number MO-34(41) Chapter -I explosive Accessories and communication MO-34(42) Printing paper Supreme Aluminium instantaneous electric detonator MO-34(43) Syndicate bank passbook MO-34(44) Black colour file written as ISRA Bomb, corrupts to be aware MO-34(45) Sony floppy 115 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-34(46) Rubber Stamp written as ISRA MO-34(11a) Doc. written as Secret Revolutionary MO-34(11b) Doc. written as ISRA-Indian Secrete revolutionary MO-34(11c) Doc. written as Khab Thak Sahegee MO.34(11d) Membership form for Indian Secret revolutionary agencies MO-34(11e) Who is responsible Xerox copy of document MO-34(11f) ISRA Indian Secret revolutionary agency, membership form MO-35 Typewriter MO-36 Steel classic secure 8 levers 70 mm steal lock MO-37 Computer printer MO-38 Doc.pertains to motorcycle MO-39 English book Andlop declare MO-40 Maximum Gorky book MO-41 Detonators 4 wires MO-42 Table clock MO-43 1 ½ feet wire MO-44 2 red colour paper MO-45 Nippo Pen torch 116 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-46 Two Nokia Mobile phone box MO-47 Floppy MO-48 Floppy MO-49 Floppy MO-50 Floppy MO-51 Cell phone, charger and sim card MO-52 Brown colour Cello tape MO-53 F.M. Radio MO-54 Cutter MO-55 Pen torch shell MO-56 Pen torch shell MO-57 Pen torch shell MO-58 Marker pen MO-59 Scissor MO-60 Fevikwick tube MO-61 Steal scale MO-62 Screw driver MO-63 Screw driver MO-64 tester MO-65 One pair plastic glows MO-66 Black colour purse MO-67 Spectacles MO-68 Spectacles 117 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-69 Spectacles MO-70 Natural remains green colour dairy MO-71 Note book MO-72 Hand book MO-73 Deta bank clear book plastic file MO-74 Shaping India of our dreams English book written by K.C.Agrawal MO-75 Bhagath Singh book MO-76 Samsung Camera MO-77 Oxford English mini Dictionary MO-78 A.R. Electronics visiting card MO-79 One pair police uniform, MO-80 Red colour shoe and socks MO-81 Pair of white slipper MO-82 Canvas shoe MO-83 Dt.1.11. 03 Samyuktha Karnataka, daily, MO-84 Dt. 1.11.03 Prajavani, daily MO-85 Dt. 1.11.03, Udayavani daily MO-86 Dt.2.11.03 Deccan Herald Daily MO-87 Navy blue colour pant and green colour shirt 118 S.C.No.243/2005 MO-88 Vijaya Times, Daily MO-89 Sanjay times, Daily MO-90 White colour jubba MO-91 Mysore sandal talcum powder MO-92 Mysore sandal talcum powder MO-93 Hand note book MO-94 Detonator MO-95 Detonator LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE Ex.D.1 Relevant portion of statement of PW1 Ex.D.2 Relevant portion of statement of PW5 Shivanna LIST OF MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(N.R. CHENNAKESHAVA ) LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
*ic 119 S.C.No.243/2005 Judgment pronounced, vide separately, ORDER (N.R. CHENNAKESHAVA ) LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE.