Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru vs A1 Lalithamma on 19 February, 2026
KABC010141562025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act)
BENGALURU (CCH No.24)
Dated: This the 19th day of February, 2026
:PRESENT:
K.M. RADHAKRISHNA B.A.LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Special C.C.No.1048/2025
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
represented by the Police
Inspector,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bengaluru.
Now the Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru Urban Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
-Versus-
Accused : 1. Smt. Lalithamma,
D/o Late. Ramanna,
The Staff Nurse,
R/at : No.53,
2 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025
Siddena Hosahalli,
Madanayakanahalli,
Madavara Post,
Bengaluru North - 563123.
(By : Sri. Srinivasa A. E., Adv)
2. Smt. Ashalatha,
D/o Sundar,
The Staff Nurse,
R/at : No.2, A-Block,
K. C. General Hospital Quatres,
Bengaluru.
Permanent R/of :
Devi Prasad Nilaya,
Saliukere Post,
Brmahavar, Udupi District.
(By : Sri. Ravishankar K., Adv)
3. Smt. Kokila R.,
W/o Manohar,
Aged about 48 years,
The Staff Nurse,
R/at : No.24, Belaku,
APP Layout, 1st Cross,
Thindlu,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru.
(By : Sri. Venkataram Naik, Adv)
**** ****
3 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025
Date of offence 06.10.2020
Date of report of 06.10.2020
offence
Date of arrest of
the accused No.3 06.10.2020
Date of release on 09.10.2020
bail
Total period of 4 days
custody
Name of the Sri. Anjan Murthy B.,
complainant
Date of 09.10.2025
commencement of
recording evidence
Date of closing of 07.02.2026
evidence
Offences Under Section 7(a) of the
complained of Prevention of Corruption Act
Opinion of the As per the order
Judge
Sd/-
(K.M. RADHAKRISHNA),
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
4 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector Sri. Basavaraja G. Pullari from the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station of Bengaluru Urban Wing, has charge sheeted accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) in Crime No.40/2020 of the then Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, the ACB), Bengaluru Urban.
2. Allegations in brief are that, Smt. Rajini G., the pregnant wife of CW1 Sri. Anjan Murthy B., (for short, the informant) was, admitted at the K.C. General Hospital, Bengaluru city on 03.10.2020 as she was suffering from the laboring pain. At about 9.00 p.m, she had undergone the caesarean and gave birth to a child. An official staff in the operation theater has demanded and accepted an undue advantage of Rs.700/- from the informant. Further that, two nurses have received Rs.500/- each to shift the mother with the child to the maternity ward. On 05.10.2020, at about 11.00 a.m, the 1st and 2nd accused have demanded an undue 5 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 advantage of Rs.500/- each. On the same day, at about 5.15 p.m, the 3rd accused demanded Rs.500/- Again on 06.10.2020, the 1st and 2nd accused have reiterated their demand to give the treatment for his wife. On 06.10.2020 at about 6.15 p.m onwards at the maternity ward of K.C General Hospital, the 3rd accused had demanded and accepted Rs.500/- from the informant and was trapped by the ACB Police. Now, case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 to 3 have committed the afore-said offence.
3. Accused No.1 to 3 are represented by their respective counsels and have got enlarged on bail at the pre-cognizance stage. After registration of the case and service of summons, they have appeared before the Court. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. They have contested the case. The charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act has been framed, read over and explained the same to accused No.1 to 3 in the language known to them. As they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried, the trial of the case has been fixed.
6 Spl. C.C.No.1048/20254. To prove its allegations, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PW1 to 6 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to 29, apart the incriminating articles vide MO1 to 12. After closure of the prosecution evidence and getting compliance of Section 437(A), accused No.1 to 3 have been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. No evidence is adduced by them in support of their defence that, they are innocents.
5. Heard arguments from both side.
6. Point for consideration is :
Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 to 3 have demanded the undue advantage to provide the timely medical treatment to the wife of the informant Smt. Rajini G. on 05.10.2020 and 06.10.2020?, and on 06.10.2020 at about 6.15 p.m onwards, the 3rd accused had accepted Rs.500/- from the informant and and thereby, committed an offence 7 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act?
7. My finding on the above point is negative for the following :
REASONS
8. Point :- The informant herein is a practicing advocate at Bengaluru. On 03.10.2020 at about 9.00 p.m, his wife Smt. Rajini G. gave birth to a child at the K.C General Hospital of Malleshwaram. She was under the treatment as an in-patient in the maternity ward at the 1st floor of the hospital. Accused No.1 to 3 being the staff nurses, were attending the wife of the informant on shift basis. CW20 - Sri. N. Prathap Reddy is the Deputy Superintendent of Police from the then ACB. He deposes to have got registered the crime against accused No.1 to 3, vide the FIR at Ex.P18. The basis for which is the complaint at Ex.P2 dated 06.10.2020 lodged by the informant. PW6 Smt. Vijayalaxmi S. the Police Inspector is the trap laying officer (for short, the TLO) in this case. She deposes to have formed the team consisting of 8 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 herself, her officials, the informant, PW3 - Sri. N. L. Nataraj (for short, the shadow witness) and CW3 - Sri. Srinivasappa (for short, the pancha).
9. The evidence of TLO is that, on 06.10.2020, she has performed the pre-trap formalities as seen from the photographs marked at Ex.P5. She claims to have entrusted, the 3 currency notes with the denomination of Rs.500/- each to the informant after getting smeared them with the phenolphthalein powder. Of course, the prosecution has not examined the pancha(CW3) so as to avoid the repetition of evidence. Needless to say that, the informant and the shadow witness have, corroborated the evidence of the TLO and asserts the manner in which, the pre-trap formalities were conducted in their presence as detailed in the panchanama at Ex.P3. These formalities except the disputed conversation containing in CD at MO1 is not disputed by accused No.1 to 3.
10. As per the record and the undisputed evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trap was 9 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 laid on 06.10.2020 at about 6.15 p.m onwards by the TLO. Her evidence reveals that, she has conducted and concluded the trap formalities as observed in the photographs at Ex.P6 to 12. The tainted amount of Rs.500/- was admittedly, recovered from the table drawer of the 3rd accused at the maternity ward under the panchanama at Ex.P4. The TLO states to have carried out the major portion of the investigation. In the meanwhile it can be seen that, the entire case file was transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station of Bengaluru Urban wing, as the ACB came to be abolished. The Police Inspector PW5 - Sri. Basavaraja Pullahari from the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, deposes to have laid the charge sheet after concluding, the remaining part of the investigation. Allegations therein are as narrated in detail at para 2 herein above, for the ready reference.
11. Accused No.1 to 3 are not disputing their status, as public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. PW1 - Sri. K. B. Shivakumar is the Commissioner of the Health and Family Welfare 10 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 department. He admits the issuance of prosecution sanction vide the order at Ex.P1 dated 25.09.2024, against accused No.1 to 3. The learned defence counsel have testified his evidence at length in the cross-examination. Despite it, his competency and validity of the order at Ex.P1 is not at all disputed by them. The evidence of this witness makes obvious that, he had accorded the sanction after going through the investigation report and related documents. Therefore, no reasons are seen to sustain the defence contention that, this witness has not applied his mind properly before according the sanction.
12. This is a case of trap. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. In the case of this nature, the work pendency, the demand for the undue advantage and its acceptance by the accused public servant, plays the crucial role to decide the offence. Accused No.1 to 3 denies the chargesheet allegations as false and baseless. They asserts their false implication in the case and claims that, they 11 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 are innocents. Their respective counsel have put forth the defence that, there was no occasion for accused No.1 to 3 to demand for an undue advantage. Therefore, according to them, the question of paying it by the informant or acceptance by the accused would not arise. Thus, the burden of proving the allegation is obviously on the prosecution.
13. In so far as the pendency of work is concerned, it is not in dispute that, the wife of the informant was under the treatment since 03.10.2020 till 06.10.2020 at the maternity ward of the hospital. Accused No.1 to 3 were attending the wife of the informant and providing the treatment as directed by the concerned doctors on shift basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that, no work pending before them during 05.10.2020 to 06.10.2020. Thus the rest of the foundational facts to be established are, the demand for an undue advantage and its acceptance from the informant. As per the complaint at Ex.P2, the 1st and 2nd accused have demanded for Rs.500/- each at 11.00 a.m on 05.10.2020 and 12 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 06.10.2020 respectively. The allegation in the captioned subject of the complaint is that :
aQvÉì ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ®AZÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ElÄÖ ®AZÀ ¤ÃqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ aQvÉì ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjöPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀ PÉ.¹ d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæ £À¸ïðUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ.
14. Interestingly, the informant has never spoke about this captioned subject throughout the proceedings. It is seen that, no investigation is even carried out by the TLO in this regard. Despite the allegation as such, the informant has not specified the names of those nurses who held the threat and demanded the bribe. No doubt, the informant in the evidence has reiterated the allegation of demand dated 05.10.2020 against the 1st accused. But as per the document of the prosecution at Ex.P29, this accused who was on leave on 05.10.2020. This truth is also admitted by the informant in his cross-
examination at para 21. Wherein, he states that, FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆöÃj¹zÀ zÉÆöõÁgÉÆöÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖ ¥ÀÅl 114 gÀ°è£À PÀvÀðªÀå zÀÈÃrPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ, PÉ.¹ d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ ªÉÊzÀöÊQÃAiÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀB05.10.2020 gÀAzÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆöævÀ¼ÀÄ gÀeÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. With this, the very allegation of 13 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 demand against the 1st accused proved to be an utter false.
15. Admittedly, the wife and children of the informant were shifted from the operation theater to the general ward No.43 on 03.10.2020 itself. The demand for the undue advantage is alleged to have made by the 2nd accused on 05.10.2020 and 06.10.2020. This allegation stands disproved with the following cross-examination admission of the informant at para 23.
"£À£Àß ¥Àwß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß D¥ÀgÉõÀ£ï yÃAiÉÄÃölgï ¤AzÀ ªÁrðUÉ ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¹zÀ §½PÀ, 2£Éà DgÉÆöævÀ¼ÀÄ £À¤ßAzÀ ®AZÀ PÉýögÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ¥ÀwßUÉ CUÀvÀå«zÀÝ OµÀzÉÆöÃ¥ÀZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß 2£Éà DgÉÆöævÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ1 gÀ ¤¦.13 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ °¦PÀgÀtzÀ°è 2£Éà DgÉÆöæAiÀÄÄ ¤¢ð¥ÀëÖªÁV gÀÆ.500/- ®AZÀPÁÌV ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¤d".
In view of the above, there exists no reason to believe the allegation against the 2nd accused. By which, his conduct of making false allegations gets unfurled.
16. In so far as the 3rd accused is concerned, the allegation in the complaint is that, she has 14 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 demanded Rs.500/- from the informant on 05.10.2020 at about 5.15 p.m. But, himself contradicts this allegation at para 2 of his evidence with the statement that, the 3rd accused has demanded at 12.30 p.m on 05.10.2020. That apart, the prosecution's document at Ex.P29 reveals that, the 3rd accused was discharging her duty in the 2nd shift commencing from 2.00 p.m to 8.00 p.m during 03.10.2020 to 06.10.2020. Now the question which naturally arises is, what more evidence is required to disbelieve this allegation?. This circumstance inspires to believe the defence stand that, the allegation as such against the 3rd accused has been roped for unknown reasons. In the light of the above discussion, the conversations deposed to have recorded by the informant in his mobile is a matter of great suspicion.
17. Still the learned Public Prosecutor relies on the electronic evidence and the opinion of the voice analyst PW4 - Sri. Chaturmuka V. S to prove the allegation of demand. MO1 is the CD containing the alleged conversation of accused No.1 to 3. According 15 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 to the informant, originally he had recorded the conversation at MO1 in his mobile. The TLO claims to have got it transferred to the CDs through his official CW12 with the help of a laptop. But, as admitted by PW4, the CD at MO1 is mixed with the voice of a third person and the background noises. The CD at MO1 is said to have contained the alleged trap conversation of the 3rd accused. The informant states to have recorded it being present in the maternity ward of the hospital between 4.15 p.m to 6.30 p.m on 06.10.2020. Interestingly, the informant at para 16 of his cross-examination states that, £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÆvÀ£Ár¹AiÉÄà E®.è Now the question is as to how, can he record the conversation of accused No.3 having not spoken?. These are the compelling circumstances to hold that, the very conversations must be of manipulation in nature or created for the case purpose.
18. Ex.P13 and 21 are the transcriptions of the conversations in the CD at MO1 and 7. Ex.P27 and Ex.P25 are the related certificates under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. As admitted by the 16 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 TLO in her cross-examination at para 18, these certificates does not contain the names of the original devices from which the conversations was got transferred, the computer used to get transfer the same to CDs and their working conditions. Therefore, I am to rely on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. V Anwar's case, to sustain the defence contention that, the disputed conversations at MO1 and 7, their respective transcriptions at Ex.P13 and 21 would not assume, even the status of secondary evidence. Therefore, the opinion of the voice analyst PW4 in his report at Ex.P19 as hereunder has to be discarded being not trustable.
The disputed speeches of the 3rd accused in MO1, 7 and her sample speeches at MO9 are similar.
The speeches of the informant in MO1, 7 and his sample speeches at MO8 are similar.
The disputed speeches of accused No.1 in MO1 and her sample speeches at MO10 are similar.
The disputed speeches of the 2nd accused in MO1 and her sample speeches at MO11 are similar.
17 Spl. C.C.No.1048/202519. Admittedly, accused No.1 and 2 were not present in the spot on the day of trap. They have not accepted the tainted money from the informant nor it was recovered from them. As the allegation of demand against them stands disproved, the question of accepting the prosecution stand that, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, would not survive for the consideration. However, it is the 3rd accused alone, who is facing the allegation of acceptance. She denies it, as false and baseless. According to her, the informant has planted the money inside the table drawer and made her to be scapegoat. Therefore the question is as to, whether the 3rd accused had really accepted the disputed amount from the informant?.
20. The prosecution relies on the evidence of the informant and shadow witness to prove the acceptance. The informant deposes that :
Initially he along with the shadow witness, went inside the maternity ward of the hospital. By the time, the 3rd accused 18 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 was inside. On her demand, he gave Rs.500/- to her. She took it, in her left hand and kept inside the table drawer by her right hand. He gave the pre-
determined signal. Following the same, the TLO came inside with the team members and took the 3rd accused into custody. The TLO has got washed both the hands of the 3rd accused with the sodium carbonate colorless solution. The solution turned into pink colour as found at MO5 and 6 respectively.
21. The shadow witness in his evidence reiterates the evidence of the informant. He states as if, he was present at the spot and witnessed the happenings. Whereas, in the cross-examination at para 13, this witness admits the truth that, he did not go inside the maternity ward along with the informant. He remained outside from 4.50 p.m to 6.20 p.m. The TLO also admits this fact in her cross- examination at para 23. That means, the alleged payment by the informant and its acceptance by the 3rd accused was not seen by the shadow witness. Thus, the evidence of the informant suffers from the corroboration of any kind. There exists no reason to 19 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 believe the acceptance of tainted money by the 3rd accused in the absence of demand.
22. In view of the above, the immediate explanations of the 3rd accused found at Ex.P23 given to the TLO at the spot as hereunder, assumes the considerable significance to rule out the payment by the informant :
zÀÄqÀÄØ £Á£ÀÄ vÉUÉözÀÄPÉÆöAr®è.ªÀiÁvÉæ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ vÉUÉözÀÄPÉÆö¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉý, £À£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°è zÀÄqÀÄØì ¨ÉÃqÀªÉAzÀögÀÆ PËAlgï £À°è §AzÀÄ vÉUÉözÀÄPÉÆö½î JAzÀÄ ºÉý, J£ÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À PÉÆöqÀzÉà PÉÊAöiÀÄ°è ElÄÖºÉÇöÃzÀ D ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀå (informant). £À£ÀUÉ UÁ§jAiÀiÁV J£ÀÆ vÉÆöÃZÀzÉà C°è ©¸ÁrzÉ.
The alleged transcription of the trap conversation is at Ex.P21. Wherein, the manner in which the informant is seen to have repeatedly insisted the 3rd accused to speak about the money and his efforts of compelling her to accept it, amidst the resisting voice of a third person. It surely strengthens and supports the defence put forth by the 3rd accused.
23. It is not in dispute that, the shadow witness enters inside the maternity ward along with the 20 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 TLO. His cross-examination admission at para 14 is that, after the enters inside the ward, the informant himself has shown the tainted money in the table drawer to the TLO. This fact is confirmed by the TLO at para 23 of her cross-examination. In the situation of this nature inspires to reflect the truth admitted by the shadow witness in the cross-examination at para 15 that, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj 3£Éà DgÉÆöæ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ qÁæAiÀÄgï£À°èzÀÝ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉö¹zÀgÀÄ. D£ÀAvÀgÀ 3£Éà DgÉÆöævÀ¼À JqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §®UÉÊ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ zÁæªÀtzÀ°è vÉÆö¼É¹zÀögÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. Thus, the colour test would not assume any significance nor is helpful to the prosecution to prove the acceptance. Admittedly, the table drawer inside the ward was accessible to others too. If the absence of demand and the dubious conduct of the informant is taken into consideration, the possibility of planting the tainted money by the informant himself with the intention to make accused No.1 to 3 as scapegoats cannot be ruled out.
24. Even if the acceptance of money is believed to be true for the sake of arguments, it makes no offence under Section 7(a) of the PC Act in the 21 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 absence of demand as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta's case reported as (2023) SCC Online SC 280. Therefore and on the strength of the above discussion, I am to indicate the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge sheet allegations and bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the alleged offence, beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, I am to conclude that, this is a clear case of an acquittal. In the result, I pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, accused No.1 Smt. Lalithamma, accused No.2 Smt. Ashalatha and accused No.3 Smt. Kokila are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of (Amended Act, 2018) Corruption Act, 1988.
Their bail bonds shall stand
cancelled forthwith.
22 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025
MO1 to 11 being the worthless
materials shall be destroyed, the metal seal at MO12 shall be returned to the jurisdictional Lokayukta Police and the tainted money of Rs.500/- shall be confiscated to the state, after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr.3 directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2026) Sd/- 19.02.2026 (K.M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 : Sri. K. B. Shivakumar
PW2 : Sri. Anjana Murthy B.,
PW3 : Sri. N. L. Nataraj
PW4 : Dr. Chaturmukha V. S.,
PW5 : Sri. Basavaraj Pulahari
PW6 : Smt. Vijayalakshmi S.,
23 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Original Sanction Order dtd 25.09.2020 Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex P2 : Complaint dated 06.10.2020 Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P3 : Pre-trap mahazar dated 06.10.2020 Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P3(b) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P3(c) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P4 : Trap mahazar dated 06.10.2020 Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P4(b) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P4(c) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P5 : Photos taken during the pre-trap (12 in Nos.) Ex.P6 to 12 : Photos taken during trap time Ex.P13 : Transcription of audio conversation between complainant and accused persons Ex.P13(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P13(b) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P14 : Transcription of audio conversation sample voice of complaint Ex.P14(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P15 : Documents relating to work pendency Ex.P16 : Sample voice recording mahazar Ex.P16(a) : Signature of PW3 Ex.P17 : Chemical test report Ex.P18 : FIR Ex.P19 : FSL Report Ex.P19(a) : Signature of PW4 24 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 Ex.P20 : A certificate u/Sec.65(b) given by PW4 Ex.P20(a) : Signature of PW4 Ex.P21 : Transcription of conversation between accused & complainant Ex.P21(a) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P22 : Attested copy of attendance register Ex.P23 : Written explanation given by accused Ex.P23(a) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P24 : Transcription of sample voice of accused No.3 Ex.P24(a) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P25 : A certificate u/Sec.65(B) relating to voice sample of accused No.3 Ex.P25(a) : Signature of PW6 Ex.P26 : A certificate u/Sec.65(B) relating to trap mahazar Ex.P27 : A certificate u/Sec.65(B) given by CW12 Ex.P28 : Service particulars of accused No.1 to 3 given by Health & Family Welfare department Ex.P29 : Service particulars of accused No.1 to 3 given by Superintendent of K. C. General Hospital, Bengaluru.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1: One CD containing conversation between accused & complainant during pre-trap MO2: One bottle containing clear sodium carbonate solution 25 Spl. C.C.No.1048/2025 MO3: One bottle containing hand wash of witness during the pre-trap MO4: One bottle containing clear sodium carbonate solution MO5: One bottle containing left hand wash of accused No.3 MO6: One bottle containing right hand wash of accused No.3 MO7: One CD containing conversation between accused & complainant during trap-time.
MO8: One CD containing sample voice of the complainant MO9: One CD containing sample voice of accused No.1 during trap MO10: One CD containing sample voice of accused No.1 during trap MO11: One CD containing sample voice of accused No.2 during trap MO12: Metal seal List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
-Nil-
List of document marked on behalf of defence side
-Nil-
Sd/- 19.02.2026 XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.