Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs N.Nagendra Reddy @ Vishnu @ on 22 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY ( C.C.H.61 )
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2016
: PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A.,Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No. 462/2005
Complainant :- The State of Karnataka,
By Uppar Pet Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused:- 1. N.Nagendra Reddy @ Vishnu @
Inder Kumar S/o Madan Mohan
Reddy, Aged about 24 years
R/at: Flat No.402, Nirmal Towers
New Bovinapalli, Secunderabad
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh State
(Split up case No.264/2010
registered against him. Later
died).
2 SC No.462/2005
2. Madan Mohan Raj @ Madan Raj @
Madan @ Daniel D'Souza @
Rajender S/o M.Jayaraj,
Aged about 30 years
R/at: No.501, J.P.Apartment
Cheetah Reddy Colony
New Bovinapalli, Secunderabad
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh State
(A2 is in Judicial Custody)
(By Sri.Shyam Sundar, Advocate)
Date of offence 10.01.2005
Date of report of offence 13.01.2005
Name of the complainant T.Venkatachalaiah
Date of commencement of 25.02.2009
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 26.02.2016
Offences complained of Sec. 302 and 201 R/w 34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 is dead.
Accused No.2 is found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri Shyamsunder, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 and 2 are charged and prosecuted for the offences punishable U/s. 302 and 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 3 SC No.462/2005
2. The substance of the accusation leveled against the accused are as follows:
On 10.1.2005 at about 4.00 p.m, Accused No.1 and 2 booked room No.204 of Mahalakshmi Deluxe Lodge, Balepete Main Road, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of Upparpet police station, Bengaluru, by giving false name and address and took their friend deceased Rajesh Arthum to the said room No.204 at 6.30 p.m with an intention to commit his murder and they committed murder of Rajesh Arthum by cutting and separate his head and thumb between 10.00 and 11.00 p.m and snatched his ICICI, Visa Card and Master Cards and took his head and two thumbs in black air-bag and traveled in Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing No.AP-10-AD-9815 and threw the bag containing head and two thumbs near the gate of Edga Maidan of Mominpura, Mysuru Road and poured petrol on the bag and lit fire with an intention to destroy the evidence.4 SC No.462/2005
3. On the basis of the first information statement given by CW1 T.Venkatachalaiah, Supervisor of Mahalakshmi Deluxe Lodge, Balepete Main Road, Bengalore on 13.1.2005, the police registered a case in Cr.No.50/2005 and went to Mahalakshmi Deluxe Lodge, Room No.204 and on receiving the foul smell emanating from the room, they opened the room, which was locked and thereafter in the presence of mahazar witnesses, drew mahazar in the room and seized plastic jug, blood stained shirt, blood stained white bed spread, hair found on the pillow, hair found on the chair and dust from the bed and the hair found on the TV, pillows, woolen blanket, cushion of the bed and blood from the floor, one towel from the toilet and particles of vomit and one pillow from the toilet room and another blanket and one blood stained towel, glass, arrival register from the lodge, receipt book and then took photograph of the dead body of Rajesh Arthum and prepared sketch of the place of occurrence and 5 SC No.462/2005 then shifted the dead body to the Victoria Hospital for inquest and then conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of Rajesh Arthum and then recorded statement of witnesses who were present at the time of inquest and then recorded statement of friends of Rajesh Arthum who gave missing complaint in Cr.No.8/2005 and then recorded statement of father and brother of the deceased and other witnesses and gave requisition to 9th ACMM, Bengaluru to draw blood of father and brother of deceased and went to the court along with technician and father of deceased Arthum Prakash and brother Arthum Thrishul and obtained blood for DNA test and thereafter conducted post mortem of the dead body of Rajesh Arthum and collected femur bone and clavicle bone, sternum, skin and hair of deceased and sent to Director, CDFD, Nacharam, Hyderabad. Thereafter, went to the room of deceased Rajesh Arthum on 17.1.2005 and seized shirt of the deceased by drawing mahazar. Thereafter gave requisition to 6 SC No.462/2005 the Bank Manager of ICICI to give information regarding the bank account of the deceased. On 22.1.2005, the police arrested accused No.1 Nagendra Reddy and recorded his voluntary statement and seized one Sony Erricson mobile, one Samsung mobile and one HSBC Bank Card from accused No.1 by drawing mahazar. On the basis of voluntary statement, the police proceeded towards the place where the accused thrown and burnt the air bag containing head and thumb of the deceased. On 23.1.2005, the police went to Edga Maidan, Mominpura, Mysuru Road and verified the place where the accused burnt the air bag by pouring petrol. But they did not find the air bag in the place and then they found burnt skull near the dust bin and they seized the skull by drawing mahazar and then recorded statement of witnesses. Then they went to Valki Deluxe Lodge, near Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru and seized the arrival register wherein the accused booked Room No.201 on 9.1.2005 and also seized the advance receipt 7 SC No.462/2005 book by drawing mahazar and recorded statement of witnesses. On 23.1.2005, they went near Gali Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Mysuru Road and searched for the knives used for the commission of offence and the thumbs. But they could not trace out the knives and thumbs of the deceased. Hence, they drew mahazar in the presence of mahazar witness. On 24.1.2005, the accused No.1 took the police to Malavalli Main Road, Kadalapura grama, Tea hotel of Rafi and recorded statement of Madhu and also they visited near Teresian college compound, Mysuru Road and searched for the shirt thrown by the accused No.1. But they did not trace out the shirt and drew mahazar in the place. On 31.1.2005, PSI Joseph and his staff arrested accused No.2 in Secunderabad and recorded his voluntary statement and they seized one Samsung mobile from accused No.2 by drawing mahazar. On 31.1.2005, PSI Krishna Kumar came along with accused No.1 from Delhi and submitted report along with 8 SC No.462/2005 mahazar and seized registers. On 31.1.2005, accused No.2 was produced before the court and obtained police custody of accused No.2 and on 1.2.2005, they taken accused to Mysuru and recorded statement of Kumari Ranjitha and also seized Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing No.AP-10-AD-9815 which was parked in front of Mysuru Railway Station. On 3.2.2005, they have obtained report from Victorial Hospital along with sample hairs of accused No.1 and 2. On 4.2.2005, they secured the skull of Rajesh Arthum and sent to CDFD, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh for DNA test. Then they went to Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh for search of the clothes of accused No.1 and 2. But they did not trace out the shirts and they drew mahazar. Then they went to Chandana Brothers Jewellers, Vijayawada and seized one bill book, bank charge slip from A.V.Reddy by drawing mahazar. On 4.2.2005, they went to Nagarjuna Lodge, Vijayawada and seized the arrival register by drawing mahazar. On 5.2.2005, they drew mahazar in Gulzar shop, 9 SC No.462/2005 Hyderabad and seized one Kamala design gold chain and one mango design gold chain by drawing mahazar. On 5.2.2005, the accused took to Dharma Jewellers, Pannam Complex, Secunderabad and seized one gold chain and one gold ring from the owner of the shop Shailesh by drawing mahazar and then they went to Room of accused No.2 at Gandhinagara, New Bakaram, House of Ramana Mohan and seized HSBC, HDFC, Nata Westvesco cards and Highway Low Limits card and GVC Fashions Pvt Limited Card by drawing mahazar. On 7.2.2005, they went to Poona and seized arrival Register in Ghanashyam Lodge by drawing mahazar. On 10.2.2005, they went to Food World Super Market Ltd., Basaveshwara Nagara, Bengaluru and seized two sample knives by drawing mahazar and then they went to Edga Maidan, Mominpura, J.P.Nagara and drew mahazar in the place where the accused burnt the air bag containing the skull and thumb. On 11.2.2005, they produced accused before the court and on 14.2.2005, they 10 SC No.462/2005 drew sketch of the spot with the help of PWD Executive Engineer. On 22.2.2005, they sent knives to FSL, Victoria Hospital for their opinion and on 15.3.2005, they sent arrival register and specimen hand writings to FSL for examination and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused.
4. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned magistrate and after complying the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for trial. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.462/2005 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused by issuing intimation to jail authorities. The matter was heard before charge. As the reasonable grounds existed, charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 and 2 11 SC No.462/2005 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
5. During the course of trial, accused No.1 absconded from Belgaum Jail and therefore, this court registered separate split case against accused No.1 in SC No.264/2010. As per the case records, Accused No.1 is dead now. So the trial was continued against accused No.2 only. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 39 witnesses as P.W.1 to 39 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.53 and M.O.1 to 32 and closed its side. After conclusion of trial, this court recorded the statement of accused No.2 u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence and he has not led any defence evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
7. The following points arise for my determination; 12 SC No.462/2005
1. Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased Rajesh Arthum met with homicidal death?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 was last seen in the company of deceased just prior to deceased found dead in room No.204 of Mahalakshmi Lodge, Balepet Main Road, Bengaluru?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 with a view to destroy the evidence after having committed the offence of murder, cut and separated the head of the deceased and his thumbs and kept in a black air bag and burnt the bag containing head and thumbs and blood stained clothes and thrown the knives and gloves and thereby caused disappearance of evidence?
13 SC No.462/2005
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 purchased gold items by using the bank cards of the deceased Rajesh Arthum and sold the gold items for money?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the chain of circumstances are conclusive in nature and exclude every hypothesis and points out only towards one proposed to be proved?
6. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the chain of circumstances are so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused No.2 and must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused No.2?
14 SC No.462/2005
7. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 is guilty of offences punishable U/s.302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC?
8. What order?
8. My finding on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 to 7 : In the negative.
Point No.8 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: In this case, CW1 T.Venkatachalaiah is the first informant and he is examined as PW1. He has deposed that he was working as cashier in Mahalakshmi Deluxe Lodge, Balepete Main Road, Bengaluru. On 13.1.2005 at about 10.30 a.m, when he came to the lodge to report for his duty, one Somashekar was cashier and his duty was from 10.30 A.M. to 5.30 p.m. At 10.30 A.M, when he reported for 15 SC No.462/2005 his duty, Cashier Somashekar informed that some foul smell was coming from Room No.204 and Somashekar had sent Sweeper Vikram to see what foul smell coming from Room No.204 and said Vikram peeped through Ventilator and told that a person was sleeping on cot covered with blanket and he informed Somashekar and said Somashekara in-turn informed him and he himself and Somashekara together went to Room No.204 and the door was locked from outside and foul smell was coming and then they together went to Upparpete police station and informed the same to the police and the police came to the lodge and secured two panchas and vidiographers and photographers and they went inside the room and they saw a person sleeping on the cot covered with blanket and the police removed the blanket and noticed the dead body and head and thumbs of both hands were cut and taken away and the blood was fallen on the bed. So CW1 saw the dead body in Room No.204.
16 SC No.462/2005
10. PW17 Vijaykumar, Senior Medical Laboratory Technologist, Pathology Department, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru has deposed that in the year 2005, he went to 9th ACMM Court, Bengaluru and drew blood of one Kishore and Prakash and he filled the forms as per Ex.P.17 and 18. Ex.P.17 is the identification Form for Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics of Arthum Prakash and Ex.P.18 is the identification Form for Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics Arthum Thrishul.
11. PW39 C.H.Venkateshwara Goud in his evidence has deposed that he has been working as Technical examiner, Center for DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics, Hyderabad and he has further deposed that he has submitted DNA typing report dt.28.10.2005 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division, Bengaluru City, and said report is marked as Ex.P.52. He has further deposed that on 17.1.2005, his office received letter from Deputy Commissioner of Police, West 17 SC No.462/2005 Division, Bengaluru requesting to conduct DNA test of bones with tissues of unidentified body of deceased and blood sample of deceased and reference blood samples of Arthum Prakash and Artham Thrishul. He also received skull without mandible of the deceased on 7.2.2005. He has further deposed that he has examined the source of exhibits and submitted a detailed report as per Ex.P.52. He has further deposed that the result of the examination is that DNA profiles of the sources of exhibit A (bone with tissue) and exhibit B ( Blood sample of deceased) are identical and matching with the DNA profile of the source of exhibit C (Arthum Prakash) and the paternal alleles in the source of exhibit A (bone with tissue) and source of exhibit B (Blood sample of the deceased) are accounted in the source of exhibit C (Arthum Prakash) and the DNA profile of the sources of exhibits A and B are also comparable with the DNA profile of the source of Exhibit D (Arthum Trishul). He has further deposed that Artham Prakash 18 SC No.462/2005 is the biological father and Artham Trishul is the biological brother of the deceased. Hence, from the report of DNA submitted by PW39 and on perusal of the evidence and looking into the report Ex.P.52 clearly establishes that the deceased Rajesh Arthum is the biological son of Arthum Prakash and biological brother of Arthum Trishul.
12. CW70 Dr.K.H.Manjunath, Professor, Annapoorna Medical College, Salem, Tamilnadu, is examined as PW24. In his evidence, he has deposed that on 15.1.2005, he was working in Victoria Hospital and he conducted Post Mortem of deceased Rajesh Arthum and Post Mortem report is marked as Ex.P.25. In the Post Mortem report, he has mentioned about the external injuries found on the dead body as under:-
(1) Decapitating chop wound present at the level of upper pact of neck situated 4.5 cms above the supra sternal notch anteriorly and posteriorly at the level of lower border of cervical-6 vertebra. 19 SC No.462/2005
Margins of the wound is clean cut. Wound is filled with dried blood clots and dark pigments. The underlying skin, muscles, carotids, jugular vein, nerves and upper portion of thyroid cartilage is completely severed. The diameter of the wound measures 13 cm.
(2) Oblique incised wound present over right intraclavicular region measuring 3 cm X 0.5 cm X skin deep, with tailing upwards for a length of 1 cm. It is situated 03 cms below middle of clavicle. (3) Right hand shows chop injury with thumb missing.
The wound extends from the distal thenar area upto the base of right index finger measuring 6.5 cm X 3 cm X bone deep. The underlying First metacarpal bone shows cut fracture. Margins of the wound is clean cut. Wound filled with dried blood clots.
20 SC No.462/2005(4) Oblique incised wound present over outer aspect of right index finger near its root, measuring 2.5 cm X 2 cm X bone deep.
(5) Left hand shows chop injury with thumb missing.
The wound extends from distal thenar area upto the base of the left index finger measuring 4.5 cm X 2.5 cm X bone deep. The underlying first metacarpal bone shows cut fracture. Margins of the wound is clean cut. Wound filled with dried blood clots.
The following articles are collected and preserved as per the police request and handed over to the concerned police in a sealed and labeled manner along with sample seal.
(1) Blood and viscera for chemical analysis. 21 SC No.462/2005
(2) Piece of skin with plenty of hair over an area of 3 cm X 2 cm from right side of lower abdomen.
(3) Middle and lower third of left femur with muscle attachment.
(4) Sternum and right clavicle preserved. Note: C7-T1 vertibrae bones with surrounding structures are preserved for further alignment of the superior cervical vertebrae of the head and remaining vertebrae are recovered by the police and submitted for examination and comparison.
13. PW24 Dr.K.H.Manjunath has also furnished opinion regarding skull bone submitted to him as per Ex.P.26. All this ocular evidence coupled with Post Mortem report and expert evidence leads to the only inference that in the case in hand death is homicidal in nature. There seems to be no serious dispute regarding the cause and nature of death. Deceased 22 SC No.462/2005 Rajesh Arthum met with homicidal death. Therefore, this court can safely come to the conclusion that the deceased Rajesh Arthum met with homicidal death. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Affirmatively.
14. Point No.2 to 7:- So far as the allegation of complicity of accused No.2 in the murder of deceased Arthum Prakash is concerned, this court has to go through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the last seen circumstances and the purchase of gold items by using the credit cards of deceased Rajesh Arthum and sale of gold items.
15. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has examined all together 39 witnesses out of 94 witnesses and evidence of PW2 is very clear that he had seen the accused No.2 coming to Mahalakshmi lodge and went to room No.204, wherein the deceased and accused No.1 booked the room on the date of incident and accused 23 SC No.462/2005 No.2 came to Mahalakshmi lodge with air bag containing knives, gloves, liquor. He has argued that the prosecution has proved that accused No.2 went to Mahalakshmi Lodge and joined the company of deceased and accused and No.1 and the last seen circumstances proved by the prosecution with the help of evidence of PW2. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the police seized the arrival register, receipt book and other register through Mahalakshmi Lodge which clearly establishes that the accused No.2 went to Mahalakshmi Lodge along with deceased and accused No.1. He has further argued that before the incident, the accused No.1 and 2 stayed in Valki Lodge, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore and after the incident, the accused No.1 and 2 took the credit cards of the deceased and went to Hyderabad and purchased gold from Chandana Brothers, Vijayawada, and also purchased gold chain, ring from Dharma Jewellers, Pannam complex, Pali Market and the police have seized gold items from Sunrise 24 SC No.462/2005 Jewellers, Simpri, Poona by drawing mahazar and the police also went to Foodworld Supermarket, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bangalore and seized the sample knives and also recorded statement of persons in Food World, identifying the accused. He has further argued that PW34 Shailesh Bora identified accused No.2 by saying that he came to his shop and sold one gold chain and one gold ring by saying that he is a software engineer. He has further argued that all these evidence clearly shows the involvement of accused No.2 in the commission of murder of Arthum Prakash. He has further argued that I.O. has clearly deposed about the circumstances in which the accused committed murder of deceased Rajesh Arthum and the prosecution has also proved motive behind the commission of murder and the preparation made by the accused and conduct of the accused after the commission of murder as they absconded.
25 SC No.462/2005
16. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that except the evidence of PW2, there are no witnesses to prove the last seen circumstances. He has argued that as per the evidence of PW2, accused No.2 came to Mahalakshmi Lodge along with accused No.1 and deceased Rajesh Arthum, but PW2 has deposed that he gave statement once before the police and he has not given further statement before the police identifying the accused No.2 in the police station after the arrest. Therefore, he has argued that the evidence of PW2 cannot be believed. He has argued that the police have not seized ICICI Card of the deceased which was used by the accused No.2 for purchase of gold items in the name of Rajesh Arthum. He has argued that the police have not seized knives used for the alleged murder of Rajesh Arthum. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence to point out the guilt of the accused No.2. On all these grounds, he has argued that the 26 SC No.462/2005 prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the following decisions:-
1. 1993 SCC (Cri) 520 (Anant Bhujang Rao Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra)
2. 1991 SCC (Cri) 538 (Hardyal and Prem Vs. State of Rajasthan)
3. 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551 (Arjun Marik and others Vs. State of Bihar)
4. 2002 SCC (Cri) 498 (Hasan Murtza Vs. State of Haryana)
5. 1992 SCC (Cri) 980 (E.Balakrishnama Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)
17. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra). In this decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given guidelines as to how the circumstantial evidence cases shall be dealt with. They are enumerated below:- 27 SC No.462/2005
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused i.e., to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
(5) There must be chain of evidence so complete as not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human 28 SC No.462/2005 probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These principles are also called as "Panchasheel" in circumstantial evidence cases.
18. Now let me go through the documents produced by the prosecution. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement given by CW1 T.Venkatachalaiah, who is the Supervisor in Mahalakshmi Deluxe Lodge on 13.1.2005 at about 11.45 a.m. Ex.P.2 is the Panchanama drawn by T.Vijaykumar, Police Inspector in the presence of witnesses V.Jagannathan and Nagaraj, drawn in Mahalakshmi Lodge, Room No.204 on 13.1.2005. Ex.P.3 is Arrival Register (M.O.18). Ex.P.4 is the Receipt Book (P.N.6237) of Mahalakshmi Lodge; Ex.P.5 is the Inquest Mahazar of Rajesh Arthum conducted by PW37 T.Vijay Kumar in the presence of witnesses Chandrashekar, Armugam, and Aslum. Ex.P.6 is Mahazar dt.17.1.2005 drawn in House No.J94, Post Master Compound, Anjaneya Block, 29 SC No.462/2005 Sheshadripuram by T.Vijaya Kumar, Inspector, in the presence of witnesses T.Raju and Manju to seize the shirt of Rajesh Arthum. Ex.P.7 is the Mahazar dt.23.1.2005 drawn in Mominpura Edga Maidan Entrance, Mysuru Road, the place where the head and thumb of the deceased burnt. Ex.P.8 is the Mahazar dt.10.2.2005 drawn in Food World Super Market Ltd., Basaveshwara Nagara, in the presence of witnesses B.Manju and Basavaraju. Ex.P.9 is the Mahazar dt.22.1.2005 drawn in Upparpete police station allegedly recovering two mobile phones and HSBC Bank card from Accused No.1. Ex.P.10 is the Statement of PW11 Mukram; Ex.P.11 is the Statement of PW13 C.N.Venkatesh; Ex.P.12 is the Mahazar dt.23.1.05 drawn at Valki Deluxe Lodge by seizing a) arrival register 2) advance receipt and 3) receipt; Ex.P13 to 15 are the Bill books, Ex.P.16 is the mahazar drawn near Garbage Tank near Terisian college compound, Bannuru-Mysuru Road; Ex.P.17 is the identification form of Arthum Prakash and 30 SC No.462/2005 Ex.P.18 is the identification form of Arthum Trishul; Ex.P.19 is the Mahazar dt.10.2.2005 drawn near Mominpura Edga Maidan, Mysuru Road; Ex.P.20 is the Mahazar dt.1.2.2005 drawn in the parking area of Railway Station Mysuru seizing Bajaj Pulsar bike bearing No.AP-10-AD-9815; Ex.P.21 is the Report submitted by PC 8135, Ex.P.22 is the Report submitted regarding arrest of accused No.2 submitted by PSI Y.Joseph on 30.1.2005; Ex.P.23 is FIR; Ex.P.24 is the Report of PW23- Gangadharaiah; Ex.P.25 is P.M.Report; Ex.P.26 is the opinion of Dr.K.H.Manjunath regarding Skull bone; Ex.P.27 is the report of examination of weapon submitted by Dr.K.H.Manjunath, Ex.P.27(a) is the report of PC 4927 Mahalingegowda, Ex.P.28 is the report of Ramaiah-PW25; Ex.P.29 is the Mahazar dt.4.2.2005 conducted in Chandana Brothers Jewellers, Vijayawada; Ex.P.30 is the Bill book; Ex.P.31 is the statement of PW31-A.V.Reddy; Ex.P.32 is statement of PW32 Harish ; Ex.P.33 is the Mahazar 31 SC No.462/2005 dt.5.2.2005 drawn in Dharma Jewellers, Pannam Complex, Secunderabad; Ex.P.34 is the letter of Dr.C.M.Muralidhar regarding collection of hair samples of A1 and A2; Ex.P.35 is sketch of place of occurrence; Ex.P.36 is voluntary statement of A1; Ex.P.37 is mahazar dt.23.1.2005; Ex.P.38 is voluntary statement of A2; Ex.P.39 is Mahazar dt.30.1.2005 regarding seizure of Samsung mobile phone from A2; Ex.P.40 is the report of Krishna Kumar, PSI, Ex.P.41 is the mahazar dt.27.1.05 drawn in Hotel Paradise Deluxe Lodge, New Delhi; Ex.P.42 is the receipt for key; Ex.P.43 is the mahazar dt.4.2.2005 drawn in the vacant land of corporation of Gopa Krishnaiah Veedhi, Vijayawada; Ex.P.44 is the mahazar dt.6.2.2005 drawn at Nagarjuna Lodge, Vijayawada; Ex.P.45 is the register; Ex.P.46 is the mahazar dt.5.2.2005 drawn in Guljar House, Andhra Pradesh; Ex.P.47 is the mahazar dt.5.2.2005 drawn in the rented house of A2; Ex.P.48 is the mahazar dt.7.2.2005 drawn in Ghanshyam Lodge, Poona, 32 SC No.462/2005 Ex.P.49 is the mahazar dt.7.2.2005 drawn in Sunrise Jewellers, Simpri, Poona, Ex.P.50 is the report of HC 387 R.V.Basavaraj, Ex.P.51 is already marked as Ex.P.8; Ex.P.52 is the Report of Director of CDFD, Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Ex.P.53 is the letter dt.16.1.2005 from Deputy Commissioner of Police to the Director of CDFD, Hyderabad.
19. Whether accused No.2 had a role in committing said crime is the point for determination. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence by means of drawing presumptions, inferences and conclusions based on the relevant facts. Now let me go through the oral evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of CW8-N.Harish who has been examined as PW2, who was the cashier of Mahalakshmi Deluxe Lodge as on the date of alleged incident. In his evidence, he has deposed that 33 SC No.462/2005 on 10.1.2005, he was on duty as cashier in Mahalakshmi Lodge from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. on the next day. He has further deposed that when he was in cash counter at about 6.30 p.m, two persons came and shown receipt of Rs.500/- and told that they booked room at 4.00 p.m. So he gave arrival register to enter their names and address and they have written the name as Vishnu, Poona. He has further deposed that he allotted Room No.204. He has further deposed that when they about to proceed towards Room No.204, they told that another person will be coming by holding a black air bag and send him to Room No.204. He has further deposed that at 7.30 p.m, one person came with black air bag enquiring about the persons who booked room No.204. He has further deposed that he sent him to Room No.204. He has further deposed that at 8.30 p.m, the person who signed the register and the person came at 7.30 p.m., came near the cash counter and at that time, the room boy 34 SC No.462/2005 asked them as to whether they are going to check out the room and they told that they will come after sending his friend to the bus-stand. He has further deposed that he told them that if extra person remains in the room, they have to pay extra charge. He has further deposed that the person came along with black air bag gone out of the lodge with black air bag. He has further deposed that the person came with black air bag is the accused No.2 who is before the court. He has further deposed that on the next day morning, he went to home by handing over the charge to CW7 Somashekara and he was on leave for two days and only came to know about the incident on 13.1.2005 at 12.00 Noon. He has further deposed that the murder might have committed by the person who signed the register and Accused No.2. This is the only evidence adduced by PW2. During the course of cross- examination, he has deposed that he gave statement only once before the police. He has further deposed that he did not 35 SC No.462/2005 visit Room No.204 on the date of alleged incident. He has further deposed that once he had gone to the police station, the police shown one person and second time, the police shown two persons. Whether the evidence of PW2 could be believed to establish the last seen circumstances of accused No.2 with the deceased is the point for consideration. According to the evidence of PW2, he had not seen the accused No.2 with the deceased. He had seen the accused No.1 with the deceased at 6.30 p.m. He had seen the accused No.2 at 7.30 p.m. holding the black air bag and again he had seen the accused No.2 only at 8.30 p.m. According to PW2 at 8.30 p.m, the accused No.2 gone out from the lodge with same black air bag. As per the voluntary statement recorded by the police, the present accused No.2 did not go to Mahalakshmi Lodge along with accused No.1 and deceased. He came along with liquor, coco-cola, sprite, gloves and knives in the air bag. It cannot be believed that within one 36 SC No.462/2005 hour after accused No.2 entered Room No.204, they had consumed liquor and deceased vomitted and they washed the dress of the deceased and then deceased slept and then they committed murder and washed blood which was fallen to the ground and then accused No.2 gone out from lodge. As per the charge sheet, the incident occurred on 10.1.2005 between 10 to 11 p.m. As per the version of P.W.2, the Accused No.2 gone out of lodge with air bag at 8.30 p.m. If that is the case, the accused No.2 could not be present in Room No.204 at the time of alleged commission of crime. It is not the case of the prosecution that the incident occurred between 7.30 to 8.30 p.m. PW2 has deposed that he gave the statement before the police only once. He visited police station twice. So, it cannot be believed that he identified the accused No.2 in the police station and gave further statement before the police. Therefore, the entire evidence of PW2 raises doubt about the presence of accused No.2 in Mahalakshmi Lodge. Therefore, 37 SC No.462/2005 no importance could be attached to the evidence of P.W.2 regarding last seen theory canvassed by the prosecution. Assuming that accused No.2 had taken entry to the room No.204 on 10.1.2005, no evidence is available at what time murder had taken place and at what time, the accused No.2 left the room. According to PW2, he saw accused No.2 at 7.30 p.m. when he asked about accused No.1 and the deceased. Again he saw accused No.2 at 8.30 p.m. But there is no evidence to the effect that by that time, murder had taken place in room No.204.
20. Now let me go through the evidence of other witnesses CW1 Venkatachalaiah is examined as PW1. He is not eye witness to the incident. He had seen the dead body on 13.1.2005. So his evidence is in no way helpful to the prosecution.
21. CW5 Armugam is examined as PW3. He is the inquest mahazar witness and he has deposed that the police 38 SC No.462/2005 shown him the dead body in Mahalakshmi lodge. CW4 Chandrashekar is examined as PW4. He is also inquest mahazar witness. CW6 Aslum is examined as PW5. He has deposed that he went to Mahalakshmi lodge and saw the dead body in Room No.204. So evidence of PW3 to 5 are in no way helpful to the prosecution.
22. CW10 Ramana is examined as PW6, who is sweeper in Mahalakshmi Lodge. He has only stated about seeing of the dead body on 13.1.2005.
23. CW20 Srinivasa Rao is examined as PW7, who is owner of House No.J.94 wherein the deceased was residing on rent. He has deposed about missing of the deceased Rajesh Arthum and he has also deposed about identification of dead body in Victoria Hospital on 14.1.2005.
24. CW7 Ramakrishna Rao is examined as PW8, who is Software engineer and roommate of deceased Rajesh 39 SC No.462/2005 Arthum and he has deposed about missing of Rajesh Arthum on 10.1.2005 and he has deposed about lodging of missing complaint to the police on 12.1.2005. He has also deposed about the identification of the dead body in Victoria hospital.
25. CW21 Manja is examined as PW9 who is mahazar witness to Ex.P.6. He has deposed about seizure of shirt belongs to deceased Rajesh Arthum in House no.J94, P.M.Compound, Anjaneya Block, Sheshadripuram.
26. CW26 Manja is examined as PW10. He has deposed about Ex.P.7 Mahazar. He has deposed that on 23.1.2005, police took him near Edga Maidan, Mysuru Road and he has deposed that the Accused No.1 shown the head of deceased Rajesh Arthum. He has deposed about the seizure of head of Rajesh Arthum. At that time, the accused No.2 was not arrested and he was not present. He has also deposed about the mahazar Ex.P.8. Ex.P.8 is the mahazar drawn near 40 SC No.462/2005 the place where the accused allegedly thrown the knives to the drain.
27. CW24 Makrum is examined as PW11. He is the mahazar witness to Ex.P.9. Ex.P.9 is the mahazar drawn when the police seized two mobile phones and ATM Card from accused No.1 on 22.1.2005.
28. CW28 Mataf is examined as PW12. This witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise CW29 Venkatesh C.N. is examined as PW13 and CW30 Murthy is examined PW14. Both the witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and they have not stated that the police seized the head near Edga maidana, Mysuru Road.
29. CW30 Chandru.M.K. is examined as PW15. He is Manager of Valki Deluxe Lodge. According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 came from Hyderabad to Bangalore 41 SC No.462/2005 on 9.1.2005 and booked Room No.201 in Valki Lodge to make preparation for committing murder of Rajesh Arthum. Ex.P.12 is the mahazar drawn in Valki lodge. Ex.P.12 is silent about the time of check in. Ex.P.13 is the advance receipt, Ex.P.14 is the bill book, Ex.P.15 is arrival register. As per Ex.P.13,14 and 15, one Rajendra booked the room No.201. According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 booked the room in the name of Rajendra and accused No.2 had written the arrival register. According to the prosecution, the hand writing finds place in Ex.P.15 arrival register of Valki lodge belongs to accused No.2. As per this register, the Room No.201 was booked on 9.1.2005 at 8.00 a.m. But PW15 has deposed that the room was booked on 9.1.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. If really the hand writing belongs to Accused No.2, the Investigation Officer could have referred the register to the hand writing expert for comparison of hand writings. But PW37, the investigation officer during the course of cross-examination 42 SC No.462/2005 has categorically stated that they have not send the documents seized from Valki lodge to the hand-writing expert to verify as to whether the hand-writing finds place in Ex.P.15 belongs to Accused No.2. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.2 came along with accused No.1 to Bangalore and stayed in Valki lodge before committing murder of Rajesh Arthum. During the course of cross- examination, PW15 has deposed that he cannot say the name of the accused who came along with police.
30. CW38 N.Srivardhana examined as PW16.
According to this witness, the police called him to police station on 24.1.2005 and shown accused No.2 and another accused in the police station and then the police took him to Bannuru Road, Mysuru-Malavalli in Qualis Vehicle near Terishian college compound, after search, they did not trace out the head and thumb of the deceased. He has deposed about drawing of mahazar Ex.P.16. But surprisingly, the 43 SC No.462/2005 accused No.2 was arrested on 30.1.2005. The presence of accused No.2 on 24.1.2005 is far away from truth. Therefore, evidence of PW16 cannot be believed that the accused No.2 was present in the police station and he was present when they had gone to Bannuru Road for search of head and thumb.
31. CW69 Vijaykumar senior Medical Laboratory Technologist examined as PW17. He has deposed about the drawing of blood of Kishore and Prakash before 9th ACMM Court for DNA Test.
32. CW66 M.S.Harish is examined as PW18. He has deposed that the police took accused No.2 and another accused to Mahalakshmi lodge and in his presence, they have told that they murdered one person in the lodge and later burnt the head by pouring petrol. But as per the mahazar Ex.P.19, the accused No.2 had not gone to Mahalakshmi lodge. He has not stated that the police took him to Edga 44 SC No.462/2005 Maidan and drew mahazar after search of head. Ex.P.19 is the mahazar drawn near Mominpura, Edga maidan. There is no reference of fact of accused No.1 and 2 taken them to Mahalakshmi Lodge.
33. CW46 Mahesh is examined as PW19. He has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution regarding seizure of Pulsar Bike as per Ex.P.20. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of this witness to prove his participation in the preparation of mahazar.
34. CW88 Ramakrishna Setty is examined as PW20. He is police constable deposed that he had taken the seized property to FSL. CW81 Joseph, Sub-Inspector of Upparpete police station, is examined as PW21, He has deposed about arrest of accused No.2 on 30.1.2005 at Sicunderabad in apartment. CW74 Pandurangaiah, HC.,is examined as PW22. He has deposed about handing over of sealed properties to CDFD, Hyderabad. CW71 Gangadharaiah is examined as 45 SC No.462/2005 PW23. He has deposed about the transmission of FIR to the court on 13.1.2005. Testimony of police does not establish the involvement of the accused No.2 in the alleged incident or his complicity in the murder of Rajesh Artham.
35. CW70 Dr.K.H.Manjunath is examined as PW24 who has conducted post mortem of deceased Rajesh Arthum. CW87 Ramaiah, retired ASI, is examined as PW25. He has deposed about handing over the skull to CDFD, Hyderabad and submission of his report as per Ex.P.28. CW89 Mahalingegowda, HC of Upparpet police station is examined as PW26. He has deposed about the handing over of the documents to FSL Bengaluru. The evidences of Police officials are formal in nature.
36. CW79 Umakantha is examined as PW27, who assisted I.O. to proceed towards Delhi. He has deposed about seizure of arrival register in Hotel Paradise deluxe lodge. According to this witness, the accused No.1 taken them and 46 SC No.462/2005 shown the hotel Paradise, wherein he stayed after the incident.
37. CW67 Shivakumar is examined as PW28. He has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and Ex.P.19 mahazar. CW80 Poojaiah, HC., is examined as PW29. He has deposed about the recovery of head near Edga Maidan.
38. CW72 R.V.Basavaraj is examined as PW30. He has deposed about shifting of the dead body to Victoria Hospital on 13.1.2005 and handing over of the dead body to the relatives on 15.1.2005.
39. CW52 A.V.Reddy is examined as PW31. He is the owner of Chandran Brothers Jewellers shop. He has deposed about the seizure of bill book, credit card bank statement. But he has not identified the person who came along with the police.
47 SC No.462/2005
40. CW53 N.Harish, who is worker in Chandan Brothers is examined as PW32. He has deposed that the police brought two persons and drew mahazar by saying that they purchased gold by using credit card. He has also deposed about seizure of bill book. But he has not identified the accused persons. He has turned hostile.
41. CW91 Shashidar is examined as PW33 who is project leader of Sathyam Computers. He has only deposed that Rajesh Arthum was working under him.
42. CW57 Shylesh is examined as PW34. He is the owner of Dharma Jewellers at Secunderabad. In his evidence, he has deposed that the accused No.2 came to his shop and sold gold chain and gold ring. He has also deposed that after 3-4 months, the police came with accused No.2 and recovered gold chain and gold ring. He has also identified gold chain and gold ring marked as M.O.29 and 31 and drawing of mahazar Ex.P.33. As per Ex.P.33, the police recovered the property i.e., 48 SC No.462/2005 gold chain and gold ring on 5.2.2015 to prove that the accused No.2 sold gold ring and gold chain after purchasing the same by using the credit card belongs to deceased Rajesh Arthum. As per the case of prosecution, the accused No.2 might have sold the gold chain and gold ring after the incident i.e., on 10.1.2005. But this witness has deposed that the accused No.2 came to the shop in the month of February 2005. But according to the police, the accused No.2 went to the said shop in the month of January 2005. But he has not produced any receipt book for having purchased gold chain and gold ring from accused No.2. Therefore, the evidence of PW34 in no way helpful to the prosecution to show that accused No.2 purchased gold chain and gold ring by using the credit card of the deceased and sold to Dharma Jewellers, Secundarabad.
43. CW92 Gangadhara is examined as PW35 who is retired PSI, has deposed about the receipt of missing 49 SC No.462/2005 complaint on 12.1.2005. CW68 Dr.Muralidhar Medical Officer, Govt Hospital, K.R.Puram, examined as PW36. He has deposed that he went to the court and collected the blood of Arthum Prakash and Arthum Trishul for DNA Test.
44. CW93 T.Vijay Kumar is the Investigation officer is examined as PW37. In his evidence, he has deposed about the investigation and his duty. During the course of cross- examination, he has deposed that on 18.1.2005, he obtained statement of ICICI Bank. But the said statement is not marked in this case. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not seized ICICI Card of deceased which was used by the accused No.2 for purchase of gold chain. He has further deposed that he has not sent arrival register of Nagarjuna Rest House, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh for comparison of hand-writing of accused No.2. He has further deposed that he has not seized the ICICI Card which was 50 SC No.462/2005 referred in Ex.P.47 mahazar from accused No.2 to show that he has purchased gold items by using the said ICICI Card.
45. CW95 Mallappa Mudavi, Police Inspector examined as PW38. He has stated about the receipt of DNA typing report from CDFD, Hyderabad as per Ex.P.52. CW94 C.H.Venkatesh Goud is examined as PW39. He has deposed about submission of DNA typing report marked as Ex.P.52.
46. As a result, no worthwhile evidence is adduced before the court to prove the accusation leveled against the accused. On perusal of all these evidences, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to produce reliable evidence to connect the accused No.2 to the alleged material objects produced before the court. The prosecution has not established the motive behind committing of murder of Rajesh Arthum. The prosecution has not proved preparation made prior to the incident. The prosecution has not examined CW9 Nagesh Room Boy in this case. According to the prosecution, this 51 SC No.462/2005 room Boy Nagesh took the accused No.1 and the deceased to the room No.204 on 10.1.2005. The quality of evidence of PW2 is not sufficient to establish the last seen circumstances. Last seen does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime. According to PW37, item No.1, 2 and 6 bank cards shown in PF No.56/2005 which belongs to accused No.2. So only because accused No.2 purchased gold items and sold it, it cannot be said that he used the bank card of deceased Rajesh Arthum for purchase of gold items after the commission of murder of Rajesh Arthum. There being no definite evidence regarding the time of death, it is not safe to relate the death of the deceased with accused No.2. The circumstances canvassed by the prosecution is not conclusively proved and established by the prosecution so as to exclude the possibility of innocence of accused No.2. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring 52 SC No.462/2005 home the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer point No.2 to 7 in the negative.
47. Point No.8:- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Accused No.2 is found not guilty and acting under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
Accused No.2 is set at liberty. However, he is directed to execute personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of this court as required U/s.437(A) of Cr.P.C., to appear before the higher court as and when said court issued notices in respect of any appeal filed against this judgment and it shall be in force for a period of six months.
53 SC No.462/2005
Mo.1 to 19, 24 to 27 are ordered to be destroyed as worthless and M.O.20 to 23 and 28 to 32 are ordered to be confiscated to the state, after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to Judgment writer, transcribed by him, revised and corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of March, 2016) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURES :
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 T.Venkatachalaiah
PW2 N.Harish
PW3 Armugam
PW4 Chandrashekar
PW5 Aslam
PW6 Ramana
PW7 A.Srinivasarao
PW8 Ramakrishna Rajakonda
PW9 Manja S/o Venkataramu
PW10 Manja S/o Bairegowda
PW11 Mukram Pasha
PW12 Mahatab
PW13 Venkatesh
PW14 Murthy
PW15 M.K.Chandru
54 SC No.462/2005
PW16 S.Srivardhana
PW17 Vijay kumar
PW18 Harish
PW19 Mahesh
PW20 Ramakrishnashetty
PW21 Joseph, S.I.,
PW22 Pandurangaiah, HC4797
PW23 Gangadharaiah, ASI
PW24 Dr.K.H.Manjunath
PW25 Ramaiah, Retired ASI,
PW26 Mahalingegowda, HC
PW27 Umakantha, HC
PW28 Shivakumar
PW29 Poojaiah, HC 453
PW30 R.V.Basavaraj, ASI
PW31 A.V.Reddy
PW32 N.Harish
PW33 Shashidhar
PW34 Shailesh Bora
PW35 C.S.Gangadhar, PSI
PW36 Dr.C.M.Muralidhar
PW37 T.Vijaykumar
PW38 Mallapa Mudavi, PI, ISD
PW39 C.H.Venkateshwara Goud,
Technical examiner
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW37 55 SC No.462/2005 Ex.P.2 Panchanama Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.3 Arrival Register (M.O.18) Ex.P.3(a) Page No.1164 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Vishnu Ex.P.4 Receipt Book (P.N.6237) Ex.P.4(a) Entry in Ex.P.4 Ex.P.5 Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.5(c) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.5(d) Signature Ex.P.6 Mahazar dt.17.1.2005 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.7 Mahazar dt.23.1.2005 Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.8 Mahazar dt.10.2.2005 Ex.P.8(a) Signature Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.9 Mahazar dt.22.1.2005 Ex.P.9(a) Signature Ex.P.10 Statement of PW11 Mukram Ex.P.11 Statement of PW13 C.N.Venkatesh Ex.P.12 Mahazar dt.23.1.05 Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.13 Bill book (advance receipt book) Ex.P.13(a) Portion in Ex.P.13 56 SC No.462/2005 Ex.P.14 Bill book Ex.P.14(a) Portion of Ex.P.14 Ex.P.15 Bill book Ex.P.15(a) Portion of Ex.P.15 Ex.P.16 Mahazar dt. 24.1.05 Ex.P.16(a) signature of PW16 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.17 and 18 Form No.1 (identification form) Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.19 Mahazar dt.10.2.2005 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.20 Mahazar 1.2.2005 Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.21 Report Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.22 Report Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.23 FIR Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.24 Report of PW23 Ex.P.25 Post Mortem Report Ex.P.26 Report-Opinion regarding Skull bone Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.27 Report -examination of weapon report Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.28 Report of Ramaiah-PW25 Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.29 Mahazar dt.4.2.2005 57 SC No.462/2005 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW31 Ex.P.29(b) Signature of PW32 Ex.P.29(c) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.30 Bill book Ex.P.30(a) Portion marked in P.No.4 Ex.P.31 Statement of A.V.Reddy-PW31 Ex.P.32 Statement of Harish -PW32 Ex.P.33 Mahazar dt.5.2.2005 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.34 Letter of Dr.C.M.Muralidhar Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW36 Ex.P.34(b) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.35 Sketch of place of occurrence Ex.P.35(a) Signature Ex.P.36 Voluntary statement of A1 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.36(b) Signature of accused Ex.P.37 Mahazar dt.23.1.2005 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.38 Voluntary statement of A2 Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.38(b) Signature of A2 Ex.P.39 Mahazar dt.30.1.2005 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.40 Report of Krishna Kumar Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.41 Mahazar dt.27.1.05 Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.42 Receipt for key 58 SC No.462/2005 Ex.P.43 Mahazar dt.4.2.05 Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.44 Mahazar dt.4.2.2005 Ex.P.44(a) Signature Ex.P.45 Register Ex.P.45(a) Portion marked in Ex.P.45 Ex.P.46 Mahazar dt.5.2.2005 Ex.P.46(a) Signature Ex.P.47 Mahazar dt.5.2.2005 Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.48 Mahazar dt.7.2.2005 Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.49 Mahazar dt.7.2.2005 Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW37 Ex.P.50 Report of HC 387 R.V.Basavaraj Ex.P.50(a) Signature Ex.P.51=Ex.P.8 Already marked as Ex.P.8 Ex.P.52 Report of Director, CDFD, Hyderabad Ex.P.52(a) Signature Ex.P.53 Letter dt.16.1.2005 from Deputy Commissioner of Police to the Director of CDFD, Hyderabad.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Nil List of M.O. marked for the prosecution :
M.O.1 Plastic jug
M.O.2 Full Arm Shirt
M.O.3 Bed sheet
M.O.4 Hairs
59 SC No.462/2005
M.O.5 Hairs
M.O.6 Dust
M.O.7 Hairs
M.O.8 Pillow
M.O.9 Woolen blanket
M.O.10 Cushion bed
M.O.11 Box containing the blood collected from
the floor
M.O.12 Towel
M.O.13 water containing vomit contents
M.O.14 Pillow
M.O.15 Woolen blanket
M.O.16 Blood stained towel
M.O.17 Glass
M.O.18 Underwear
M.O.19 Waist thread
M.O.20 Mobile
M.O.21 Mobile
M.O.22-23 Two knives
M.O.24-25 Packets containing hairs
M.O.26 Shirt identified by Sunny Tailor
M.O.27 Key
M.O.28 Mango design chain
M.O.29 Kamal design chain
M.O.30 Ordinary chain
M.o.31 Ring
M.O.32 Cash of Rs.3000/-
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru