Bangalore District Court
State By vs Ajay @ Ajmol on 8 April, 2022
KABC010215482015
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SRI.KASHIM CHURIKHAN.
B.A., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of April 2022.
S.C.No.1079/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by
Parappana Agrahara Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Ajay @ Ajmol,
S/o.Balan,
24 years,
C/o.Srinivas,
Masjid Road,
Hebbagodi,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru.
Native place :
Nedaganda Village,
Chemambalam,
Puyavattapar Post,
S.C.No.1079/2015
2
Pambadamar Taluk,
Idigi District,
Kerala State.
(By Sri.G.H., Advocate)
2. Basruddi,
S/o.Mohammed M.K.
45 years,
C/o.Yellamma Building,
Near Hebbagodi Bus Stand,
Hebbagodi,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru.
Native place :
Arikad Village,
Erakad Post,
Kannanur District,
Kerala State.
(By Sri.H.R.K., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore as the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, this case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
S.C.No.1079/2015 3
3. The brief facts of prosecution case are as under:
That on 29.05.2015 at about 11-00 a.m., at House No.443/1, 3rd Cross, Hosa Road, Chennakeshava Nagar, within the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention to steal away the golden ornaments belongs to Smt.Akhilandeshwari, entered into the house. The accused no.1, who was having illegal intimacy with her, pressed her nose and mouth by hands and the accused No.2 pretended with deceased to have sexual intercourse, hold her hands in order to help the accused No.1 in causing asphyxia with an intention to murder Smt.Akhilandeshwari knowing the fact that said act will cause death of Smt.Akhilandeshwari and committed the murder of Smt.Akhilandeshwari.
4. After committal of the case and on securing the presence of accused, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 35 and M.Os.1 to 26. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them and they have not chosen to adduce defense evidence.
S.C.No.1079/2015 4
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 29.05.2015 at about 11-00 a.m., at House No.443/1, 3 rd Cross, Hosa Road, Chennakeshava Nagar, within the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention to steal away the golden ornaments belongs to Smt.Akhilandeshwari, entered into her house, the accused no.1, who was having illicit relationship with her, pressed her nose and mouth by hands and the accused No.2 pretended with her to have sexual intercourse, hold her hands in order to help the accused No.1 in causing asphyxia with an intention to her murder knowing the fact that said act will cause death of a person and committed the murder of Smt.Akhilandeshwari and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?
2. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative, POINT No.2 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 : In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the landlord of the deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari namely Sri.V.Krishnappa as P.W.1. who is the informant filed the report to the police as per Ex.P.1. He has deposed before the court that S.C.No.1079/2015 5 deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari was his tenant. On 2.06.2015, the neighbouring persons came and told him that there is bad smell emitting from his rented house, he went to the house and saw that it was locked, he lodged report to the police. The police came to the spot and peeped through window and break open the door lock, there was deadbody of Smt.Akhilandeshwari in the house. The police drew panchanama Ex.P.2 and took the lock and key as per M.O.1. He has deposed that he does not know other facts of the case and whether the police have seized other materials.
The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile and cross examined him. In the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that the police have seized 4 sealed packets contain bangle pieces-M.O.2, Hairs-M.O.3, empty cover of Moods Condom- M.O.4. He has stated that he has not seen the accused visiting the house of deceased. He has denied that in spite of knowing the fact that the accused used to visit the house of deceased, he deposed false evidence in order to help the accused.
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has stated that he does not remember at what time he has given report to the police. He has stated that somebody has written Ex.P.1 and he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1.
S.C.No.1079/2015 6
8. P.W.2-Sri.Paramananda K. Mytri, Police Constable, who carried M.Os.5 and 6-blood samples of accused No.2, samples of scalp hair-M.O.7 and sample hairs of accused No.2-M.O.8 for FSL Examination. He has stated that on 27.06.2015, he has collected M.Os., from the Doctor and submitted the same before SHO with report Ex.P.3. he has collected the Medical Certificates as per Exs.P.4 and 5. On 7.07.2015, he has collected the deceased's viscera bottle from Victoria Hospital and produced the same before SHO along with report Ex.P.6. On 14.08.2015, he has collected the deceased clothes from the hospital and produced before SHO along with report Ex.P.7. The Pubic Hairs of the deceased are marked at M.O.9, Scalp Hair at M.O.9(a), Black colour bra at M.O.10, Green colour nighty at M.O.11, black colour underwear at M.O.12, outer part of vaginal swab of deceased at M.O.13, inner part of vaginal swab at M.O.14. On 19.08.2015 and 27.08.2015, he has produced the articles to FSL for examination and received the acknowledgement as per Exs.P.8 and 9 respectively.
During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that he did not carried the articles for FSL Examination. He has denied that he has created M.Os., for the purpose of this case.
S.C.No.1079/2015 7
9. P.W.3-Sri.Manjunath Lamani, Head Constable has deposed before the court about apprehension of the accused No.1. On 9.06.2015, he and C.Ws.21 to 23 were in Madiwala Market, they have apprehended the accused No.1 and produced him before the SHO along with report Ex.P.10.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that they have not apprehended the accused No.1 nor produced him before the SHO.
10. P.W.4-Sri.Muniraju and P.W.6-Smt.Suguna have deposed before the court that they are running Tailoring Shop nearby the house of deceased. They have deposed that two years back, deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari met them and enquired about the rented house. They had shown the house in first floor with the permission of its owner and she has occupied the house on rent basis. They do not know who were residing and visiting the house. They do not know th cause of death of Smt.Akhilandeshwari. They do not know who has committed the murder.
The prosecution has treated these witnesses as hostile and cross examined them. During the course of cross examination, they have denied that the accused were visiting to the house of deceased. They have S.C.No.1079/2015 8 further denied that on 29.05.2015, two persons came to the house of deceased and after 4-5 days, there was foul smell emitting from the house of deceased. They have denied that they had informed about the said fact to the landlord. They have denied that the police came, open the lock and saw the deadbody of Smt.Akhilandeshwari. They have denied that they have given statements before the police as per Exs.P.11 and 13 respectively.
11. P.W.5-Dr.M.P.Pradeep Kumar has deposed that on 1.03.2015, on the requisition of Parappana Agrahara Police, he has conducted post mortem of the deceased from 4-30 to 5-15 p.m., and he found the clothes and articles on the body, which were already marked at M.Os.10 to 12. After conducting P.M.Examination, he had issued the P.M.Report at Ex.P.12. He has noticed that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. He has collected the vaginal swab, scalp hair, pubic hair. He has stated that the death is due to smoothering of closure of mouth and nostrils. He has examined the accused and collected blood samples. There is injury on the right index finger and shoulder of accused No.1. The accused examination reports are marked at M.Os.4 and 5.
In the cross examination by the accused, he has denied that he has not collected the hairs or blood samples from the accused.
S.C.No.1079/2015 9
12. P.W.7-Smt.Dhanalakshmi has deposed that she does not know the name of the landlord/owner of the premises. She does not know the names of the accused. She has seen the deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari and she was residing her upstairs house. She has stated that there was smell emitting from the house of deceased. She has not seen who were attending the house of deceased and she has not seen the accused.
The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined her. In the cross examination by the prosecution, she has denied that the accused used to visit the house of deceased. She has denied that the accused have committed murder of the deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari . She has further denied that she has given statement before the police as per Ex.P.14.
13. P.W.8-Sri.Sagayam and P.W.9-Sri.David are mahazar witnesses. They have stated that they have not seen the accused. On 11.06.2015, they had been to the Police Station to lodge the report, the police took their signatures. The police have not seized any articles in their presence from the possession of accused.
The prosecution has treated these witnesses as hostile witnesses and cross examined them. In the S.C.No.1079/2015 10 cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that the accused led them to the Hotel run by accused No.2 at Ammayamma Building. They have denied that in their presence, the police have seized rold-gold artciels, two mobile phone in the hotel room under mahazar Ex.P.15. They have denied that the police took them to the vacant place besides the hotel and the accused No.1 has produced the key bunch and seized the same under mahazar Ex.P.16. They have denied that to help the accused, they have deposed false evidence.
14. P.W.10-Smt.Lavanya, daughter of the deceased. She has deposed that 4 years back, her mother was dead. After hearing the death, she came to Bengaluru from Salem and she has not seen any injury on her body. She was not residing with her mother. She does not know whether any person was attending the house to see her mother. She has not seen the accused. She does not know who has murdered her mother.
The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined her. In the cross examination by the prosecution, she has denied that the accused were visiting her mother's house and they had illicit relationship with her. She has further denied that the accused resorted to commit murder and robbed th artificial ornaments and other things. She has denied that the police have shown the accused to S.C.No.1079/2015 11 her and she has given statement before the police as per Exs.P.17 and 18.
15. P.W.11-Sri.Shivan and P.W.12-Sri.R.Gopikrishnan are Inquest Mahazar witnesses. They have stated that they have visited Victoria Hospital and the police have taken their signatures on the Inquest Panchanama- Ex.P.19. They have stated that they have not seen the body due to decomposed state. They do not know how she was dead.
The prosecution has treated these witnesses as hostile witnesses and cross examined them. In the cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that the assailants have murdered Smt.Akhilandeshwari and locked the house and went away.
16. P.W.13-Sri.Radhakrishnan, father of the deceased has deposed that 4 years back, he has received message from Parappana Agrahara Police that her daughter was seriously ill. He went to Victoria Hospital and see the body. The body was decomposed. He does not know the cause of her death.
The prosecution has treated this witness as hostile witness and cross examined him. In the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that somebody was with her daughter in the hosue and murdered her.
S.C.No.1079/2015 12
17. P.W.14-Sri.Venkataramana and P.W.15- Smt.Mangamma, neighbours of the deceased have deposed that they are residing in the same floor and they have not seen the male persons coming and going to her house. They have not seen the accused visiting her house. They have stated that 2-3 years back, there was foul smell emitting from her house and the door was locked, it was informed to the owner, who in turn informed to the police. They have not seen her. They do not know the cause of her death.
The prosecution has treated these witnesses as hostile witnesses and cross examined them. In the cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari was having beauty conscious and used to make up herself and wearing rold gold ornaments. They have denied that the accused were used to attend her house. They have further denied that they have seen the accused in her house. They have denied that the accused have committed her murder. They have further denied that they have given statements and further statements before the police as per Ex.P.20 to 23 respectively.
18. P.Ws.16-Sri.Deekshith.M.I. & P.W.17-Sri.Darshan, Spot Mahazar witnesses are turned hostile. They are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution.
S.C.No.1079/2015 13 During the course of cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that in their presence, the police have opened the door lock of the house of deceased and noticed the deadbody of Smt.Akhilandeshwari. They have denied that the police have seized M.Os.1 to 4 in their presence.
19. P.W.18-Sri.Prashanth Babu, Police Inspector was SHO as well as Investigating Officer in this case. He has deposed that on 2.6.2015 at 7-30 p.m., the first informant came to the Police Station and lodged the report Ex.P.1, he has registered the crime and sent FIR- Ex.P.24 to the court. He has visited the spot and drew spot mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of panchas by breaking open the door lock. He has collected the blood stains on the lock, broken glass bangles pieces, Moods Condoms, which are marked at M.Os.1 to 4. He has prepared sample seal M.O.15 and transmitted the body to hospital. He has submitted P.F.-Ex.P.25. On 3.06.2015, he has recorded the statements of witnesses. The Inquest Panchanama is marked at Ex.P.19. He has deputed his staff to trace out the accused and his staff have produced the accused No.1 before him with report Ex.P.10. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and the portion connected to discovery is marked at Ex.P.26. On 10.06.2015, he had deputed his staff to trace out the accused No.2 and they have produced him with report S.C.No.1079/2015 14 Ex.P.22. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.2 and the portion connected to discovery is marked at Ex.P.28. The accused Nos.1 and 2 took them to the spot and shown the hotel and produced two mobile phones-M.Os.16 and 17, the accused No.2 has shown 4 rold-gold bangles at M.O.18, 2 rold-gold chain at M.O.19, one rold-gold chain at M.O.19, one rold-gold chain with locket at M.O.20, one rold-gold ring at M.O.21. The accused No.1 has shown interlock and key at M.O.22. He has seized these articles under mahazar Ex.P.15 in the presence of panchas and submitted the P.Fs.-Exs.P.29 and 30. He has recorded further statements of witnesses. He found teeth bite injury on the hand of accused No.1 and sent him to the hospital to get treatment and opinion. The Doctor has examined and give opinion as per Exs.P.4 and 5. The letter issued by the Doctor is marked at Ex.P.31. He has collected scalp hair and pubic hairs of the accused Nos.1 & 2 and submitted P.F.-Ex.P.32. On 7.07.2015, C.W.19 has produced the deceased viscera bottle and submitted the same in P.F.-Ex.P.33 and on 14.08.2015, C.W.19 has produced the clothes of deceased and other articles and submitted the same in P.F.-Ex.P.34. He has sent the articles for FSL Examination. He has completed the investigation and laid charge sheet. On 4.02.2020, his successor in office has produced the FSL Report. He has stated that C.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have given their statements and further statements S.C.No.1079/2015 15 before the police as per Exs.P.14, 22 & 23, 20 & 21, 13 & 25, 11 and 17 & 18 respectively. Four photographs of the deadbody are marked at M.Os.23 to 26.
During the course of cross examination by the accused, he has denied that the first informant has not lodged the report to the police as per Ex.P.1. He has denied that the witnesses have not given statements before him as per Exs.P.14, 22 & 23, 20 & 21, 13 & 25, 11 and 17 & 18. He has denied that no panchanama was drew on the spot in the presence of panchas. He has denied that the accused have not given voluntary statements regarding discovery of articles. He has denied that he has created the article to make convenient to the case. He has denied that he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.
20. Let me to appreciate the materials placed on record. The owner of the rented house in which deceased Smt.Akhilandeshwari was staying would not come forward to support the prosecution case that the accused steal away the gold ornaments of the deceased, have committed her murder and fled away with ornaments. This witness P.W.1 has nothing stated against the accused in the evidence before the court. Even in the cross examination by the prosecution, he has not supported the prosecution case against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1-Informant does not come to help the prosecution case.
S.C.No.1079/2015 16
21. P.Ws.2 and 3 are Police Officials. Their evidence is formal in nature regarding collection of materials from the Doctor and produced them before the Investigating Officer and apprehension of the accused.
22. P.Ws.4 and 6 are husband & wife doing Tailoring Business in the same premises, wherein the deceased was staying, P.Ws.7, 14 and 15 are also staying at the same building, have not stated incriminating evidence against the accused that the accused are the persons, who committed the murder of deceased for the purpose of stealing away her gold ornaments. They have denied in the cross examination by the prosecution that they have given statements against the accused before the police as per Exs.P.11, 13, 14, 22 and 23 respectively. Their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.
23. P.W.5-Doctor, who has conducted P.M.Examination on the dead body of deceased and found the injuries and those injuries are ante-mortem in nature. But, the prosecution fails to connect his evidence with the accused to say that the accused are the persons have committed the murder as alleged against them.
24. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the seizure mahazar witnesses. They are turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited from their mouth to believe the prosecution case that in S.C.No.1079/2015 17 their presence as per the voluntary statements of accused, have seized the robbed articles, mobile phone under mahazar Exs.P.15 and 16. The prosecution fails to prove the discovery of the alleged articles on the say of accused. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses does not come to support the prosecution case in this regard.
25. P.Ws.10 and 13-Daughter and Father of the deceased respectively are turned hostile. They have stated that they do not know the cause of death of the deceased. They do not know who are the persons have caused the death of deceased.
26. P.Ws.11 and 12 are Inquest Mahazar witnesses. They have denied that in their presence, the police have conducted Inquest panchanama. Their evidence would not come to support the prosecution case.
27. P.Ws.16 and 17-Spot Mahazar witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the terms of Ex.P.2. Hence, the prosecution fails to prove the contents of Ex.P.2.
28. Lastly P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer. Though he has stated that in the presence of spot panchas, he has drawn panchanama Ex.P.2. Contrary to it, P.Ws.16 and 17 said goodbye to the prosecution case. So, the evidence of P.W.18 regarding drawing spot S.C.No.1079/2015 18 panchanama and seizure mahazar regarding seizure of articles as per the alleged say of accused are not proved. This witness has stated that he has recorded the statements of neighbours staying at the same building in which deceased was staying. Contrary to it, the neighbours who have been examined as P.Ws.4, 6, 7, 14 and 15 would not support his say that they have given statements against the accused before him.
29. On perusal of the materials placed on record, except the official witnesses, none of other independent witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution would not come forward to support the evidence of official witnesses to believe the case of prosecution that the accused are the persons have committed the murder of the deceased. The evidence led by the prosecution is not connected to the accused with the crime. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution utterly fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer the Point No.1in the Negative.
30. POINT No.3 : In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
S.C.No.1079/2015 19 The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled, subject to appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 26 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April 2022) (KASHIM CHURIKHAN) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1 V.Krishnappa
P.W.2 Paramananda K. Mytri
P.W.3 Manjunath Lamani
P.W.4 Muniraju
P.W.5 Dr.M.P.Pradeep Kumar
P.W.6 Suguna
P.W.7 Dhanalakshmi.R.
P.W.8 Sagayam
P.W.9 David
P.W.10 Lavanya
P.W.11 Shivan
P.W.12 R.Gopi Krishnan
P.W.13 Radhakrishnan
P.W.14 Venkataramana
P.W.15 Mangamma
P.W.16 Deekshith.M.I.
P.W.17 Darshan
P.W.18 Prashanth Babu
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Report/Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
S.C.No.1079/2015
20
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.17
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.3 Report of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4 Medical Certificate of accused No.1
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.5 Medical Certificate of accused No.2
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.6 Report
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.7 Report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.8 Acknowledgement issued by F.S.L.,
Bengaluru.
Ex.P.9 Acknowledgement issued by F.S.L.,
Mysore.
Ex.P.10 Report of P.W.3
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.12 P.M.Report
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.13 Statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.14 Statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.15 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.15(b) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.15(c) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.16 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.17 Statement of P.W.10
Ex.P.18 Statement of P.W.10
Ex.P.19 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.11
S.C.No.1079/2015
21
Ex.P.19(b) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.19(c) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.20 Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.21 Further Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.15
Ex.P.23 Further Statement of P.W.15
Ex.P.24 F.I.R.
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.25 Property Form
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.26 Voluntary Statement of accused No.1
(Relevant portion)
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.18
Ex.P.26(b) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.27 Report Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.28 Voluntary Statement of accused No.2 (Relevant portion) Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.28(b) Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.29 Property Form Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.30 Property Form Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.31 Letter issued to the Doctor Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.32 Property Form Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.33 Property Form Ex.P.33(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.34 Property Form Ex.P.34(a) Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.35 FSL Report (Marked with consent)
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 Lock & Key
M.O.2 Bangle Pieces
M.O.3 Hairs
M.O.4 Empty cover of Moods Condom
S.C.No.1079/2015
22
M.O.5 Blood sample of accused No.2
M.O.6 Blood sample
M.O.7 Samples of scalp hair
M.O.8 Samples of scalp hairs of accused No.2
M.Os.5(a) Signatures of P.W.18
to 8(a)
M.O.9 Pubic hair of deceased
M.O.9(a) Scalp hair
M.O.9(b) Signature of P.W.18
M.O.10 Bra
M.O.11 Nighty
M.O.12 Underwear
M.O.13 Outer part of vaginal swab of deceased
M.O.13(a) Signature of P.W.18
M.O.14 Inner part of vaginal swab of deceased
M.O.14(a) Signature of P.W.18
M.O.15 Sample Seal
M.O.15(a) Signature of P.W.18
M.O.16 Mobile Phone
M.O.17 Mobile Phone
M.O.18 4 rold-gold bangles
M.O.19 2 rold-gold chains
M.O.20 Rold-gold chain with locket
M.O.21 Rold-gold ring
M.O.22 Interlock and Key
M.Os.18(a) Signatures of P.W.18
to 22(a)
M.Os.23 to 4 Photographs of deadbody 26
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
- NIL -
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.