Bangalore District Court
Annappoorneshwari Nagar Ps vs A1 Prajwal R on 16 September, 2025
KABC010243972022
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
Sri. S.N. Kalkani, B.Com, LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
S.C.No.1639/2022
Complainant: State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
Accused: 1. Prajwal R,
S/o C. Ramesh,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.T-8, Bharath Enclave
Apartment, East West College
Road, Bharathnagar,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru.
2. Anilkumar @ Anil,
S/o Manjunatha,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.11, 22nd Cross,
Marithinagar, Bengaluru.
3. Deepu N.M,
S/o Manjegowda,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.1223, 1st Floor,
20th Cross, 23rd Main,
Papareddypalya Nagarabhavi
II Stage, Bengaluru.
4. Nishchay S/o Shivakumar,
Aged about 19 years,
2 S.C.No.1639/2022
R/at No.29, 5th Cross,
RR Residential Layout,
Ullala Upanagar, Bengaluru.
5. Bhuvan K.P.
S/o Kushanath,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.47, 1st Main,
Papareddypalya Nagarabhavi
II Stage, Bengaluru.
6. Prajwal S/o Krishnegowda,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.17, 10thCross, Pipeline,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
7. Sunil .....Split up
(By Sri. N.M.H, Advocate)
Date of offence: 18.11.2021
Date of report of 21.11.2021
offence:
Name of complainant: Abhishek R.
Date of recording of 23.04.2024
evidence:
Date of closing of 22.04.2025
evidence:
Offence complained of: U/s.364(A), 397, 120(B), 201 and 506
r/w Sec.149 of IPC
Opinion of the judge: Acquittal
*****
JUDGMENT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the Annapoorneshwarinagar Police in Cr.No.267/2021 against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.364(A), 397, 120(B), 201 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
3 S.C.No.1639/20222. Facts of the case of prosecution are that:
Prior to 18.11.2021, the accused No.1, 3 to 6 in the house of accused No.3 hatched a plan to kidnap C.W.1 and to ransom and in execution of the plan, on 18.11.2021 at about 10.15 a.m. at II Stage Nagarabhavi, from BDA complex premises, the accused No.1, 2 and 7 kidnapped the C.W.1 in the brezza car of C.W.12 and threatened the C.W.1 by showing a knife not to raise a voice and snatched cash of Rs.70,000/- and a 8 grams gold chain and took him to Devanahalli and purchased a e-stamp document through C.W.1 and stated therein that he received Rs.20 lakh loan and within three months, he will repay it and took his signature on it. Thereafter at 2.43 p.m. the accused persons got withdrew Rs.27,000/- from Canara Bank ATM at Bhadrappa Layout and also got transferred Rs.25,000/- from the mobile of C.W.1 through online to the Paytm of C.W.4 and then sent the C.W.1 by threatening his life if he informs to the Police. Thereafter the accused persons in order to conceal the said offence threw knife and monkey cap to Hebbala Kerekodi.
3. After completion of investigation, the complainant Police filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 before the trial Court by showing accused No.7 as absconding accused. As the offences charge sheeted against the accused persons are exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru and in turn, the said case has been made over to this Court for disposal. Hence, the matter is taken up for consideration before this Court accordingly.
4. The accused No.1 to 6 have appeared through the counsel. After hearing the counsel for accused No.1 to 6 and also learned Prosecutor on framing charge, this Court has framed charge against 4 S.C.No.1639/2022 them for the offence punishable u/s.364(A), 397, 120(B), 201 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC, to which the accused have pleaded not guilty and thereby they have claimed to be tried of the said offence.
5. In support of the case of prosecution, 7 witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to 46. After closing of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statements of accused No.1 to 6 are recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., in which they have denied incriminating materials forthcoming against them in the prosecution evidence as false, but they have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Prosecutor and the counsel for accused. Perused documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that prior to 18.11.2021, the accused No.1 and 3 to 6 formed into an unlawful assembly in the house of accused No.3 and hatched a plan to kidnap C.W.1 and to ransom and thereby the accused have committed offence punishable u/s.120(B) r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.11.2021 at about 10.15 a.m. at II Stage Nagarabhavi, from BDA complex premises, the accused No.1 to 6 along with absconding accused No.7 were members of an unlawful assembly with an object to commit offence and kidnapped the C.W.1 in the brezza car of C.W.12, and thereby the accused have committed offence punishable u/s.364(A) r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, 5 S.C.No.1639/2022 time and place, the accused No.1 to 6 along with absconding accused No.7 formed into an unlawful assembly and snatched cash of Rs.70,000/- and 8 grams gold chain from C.W.1 and took him to Devanhalli and purchased a e-stamp document through C.W.1 and stated therein that he received Rs.20 lakh loan and within three months, he will repay it and took his signature on it and at 2.43 p.m. the accused persons got withdrew Rs.27,000/- from Canara Bank ATM at Bhadrappa Layout and also got transferred Rs.25,000/- from the mobile of C.W.1 through online to the Paytm of C.W.4 and thereby the accused have committed offence punishable u/s.397 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 to 6 along with absconding accused No.7 being members of an unlawful assembly, threatened the C.W.1 by showing a knife not to raise voice at the time of kidnapping him and also threatening his life if he informs to the Police and thereby the accused have committed offence punishable u/s.506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 to 6 along with absconding accused No.7 being members of an unlawful assembly, in order to conceal the offence, threw knife and monkey cap to Hebbala Kerekodi and thereby the accused have committed offence of mischief punishable u/s.201 r/w Sec.149 of IPC?
6. What order?6 S.C.No.1639/2022
7. After hearing arguments of both the parties and on considering oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Points No.1 to 5: In the negative, Point No.6: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 5: These points are interconnected to each other and as such, they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
9. As already the averments of complaint being the facts of prosecution case are taken on record, it is necessary to avoid reiteration of the same, but as and when required for the purpose of appreciating the evidence, the same would be considered.
10. The entire evidence of P.W.1/ C.W.1 reveals that he has admitted his signature as per Exs.P.1(a) and P.2(a) in the complaint and spot-panchanama of this case, but completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution by saying that he cannot identify the accused persons in relation to his kidnap and moreover, he is unable to identify the accused persons in this case.
11. In spite of the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined the P.W.1 by suggesting that three accused persons covered with face masks, assaulted and kidnapped him and also threatened him by showing a knife and robbed cash of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, 8 grams of his gold chain, took his signature on e-stamp paper for an amount of Rs.10 lakh and thereafter put ransom demand for Rs.1 lakh to his father, for which his father sent cash of Rs.45,000/- to his bank 7 S.C.No.1639/2022 account and thereafter the accused persons got drawn Rs.20,000/- at Hebbal Canara Bank ATM through P.W.1 and also got Rs.25,000/-
through Phonepay made to C.W.4- Pradeep from the mobile phone of P.W.1 and thereafter left him and his car and hence, the P.W.1 has subsequently on 21.11.2021 filed Ex.P.1- complaint, shown the spot to the Police to conduct spot-panchanama as per Ex.P.2 near BDA complex building at Bengaluru and further, the accused No.1, 6, 2, 4 and 5 were shown to him in connection with dacoity and further the Police have seized cash of Rs.44,000/-, one gold chain, e-stamp paper, Pulsar motorcycle No.KA-50/Y-4621, Realme mobile phone from the said accused persons and accordingly, by identifying them and the facts, gave Ex.P.3- statement before the Police but denied the same.
12. The P.W.2/ C.W.15 who is father of P.W.1 has also completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In spite of the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined him by suggesting the same contents as suggested During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 and accordingly he gave his statement as per Ex.P.4 before the Police, but denied the same.
13. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.3/ C.W.17 and P.W.4/ C.W.12 regarding the case of prosecution, they have completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In spite of the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined the P.Ws.3 and 4 by suggesting the entire case of prosecution with regard kidnapping of P.W.1 and ransom demand by the accused No.1, 6, 2, 4 and 5 namely Prajwal R, Prajwal, Anilkumar @ Anil, Nishchay and Bhuvan and accordingly, furnished their statements as per Exs.P.5 and 6 8 S.C.No.1639/2022 respectively regarding certain amounts as suggested during the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and further they have furnished their statements as per Exs.P.5 and 6 respectively, but denied the same.
14. The evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.5/ C.W.15, the then PI of Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police station reveals that he has allegedly recorded the statements of C.Ws.16 and 17 and also received Ex.P.7- Bescom bill from the house owner- C.W.16, from which place the offence was committed. The P.W.5 has in the further evidence stated that during the course of investigation received print out of bank account of complainant from his mobile phone and also received certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.8 from the mobile phone screen shot of bank extract, ornament fledged receipt as per Exs.P.9 to 11 and also received photocopy of vehicle No.KA-04/MR-8459 belonging to the accused No.7 in the case and also bank katha extract of the complainant as per Ex.P.12 and also bank letter and statement as per Ex.P.13.
15. In the further chief-examination evidence, the P.W.5 has stated that released the mobile phone in favour of accused No.1- Prajwal by conducting panchanama as per Ex.P.15 and on the same day taken screen shot from the mobile phone of the accused No.1 regarding an amount of Rs.25,000/- was credited to his account and further, the accused No.1 has produced cash of Rs.21,259/- from his bank account and the same amount has been seized and also gave requisition as per Ex.P.16 to the DGP-I Division to furnish CAF details of all the accused persons and further on 05.03.2022, released cash of Rs.21,259/- in favour of C.W.15/ P.W.2 by taking indemnity bond and 9 S.C.No.1639/2022 also released the items No.1 and 4 vide P.F.No.186/2021 in favour of P.W.2 by conducting panchanama as as per Ex.P.17 and thereafter filed the charge sheet in view of sufficient material against the accused persons.
16. During the course of cross-examination of the P.W.5, it is denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statements of witnesses, seized any articles with relevant to the nexus of the accused persons to the case. It is further denied the suggestion that no any bank statements and other property seized during the course of investigation.
17. In the further cross-examination evidence, the P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that no any CCTV footage given in pen-drive from Canara Bank, Nagashettihalli and also not furnished any certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. It is further denied the suggestion that no any amount seized in the case from any of the accused persons. It is further denied the suggestion that false charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons who are not at all relevant to the case.
18. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.6/ C.W.20, he has also allegedly conducted investigation in the case and arrested the accused No.1 to 6 and recorded their voluntary statements. It is further stated that the said accused persons were produced before P.W.6 through Police staff with Ex.P.18- report.
19. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.6, he has denied the suggestion that he did not visit any spot on the basis of accused persons phone location and even none of the Police staff produced 10 S.C.No.1639/2022 any of the accused persons before him. It is further denied the suggestion that Ex.P.18- report has been created against the accused persons. It is further denied the suggestion that for the first time he has seen the accused No.5 and 6 before the Court.
20. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.7/ C.W.24, the then PSI of Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police station has received Ex.P.1- complaint and registered Ex.P.19- FIR, issued Ex.P.20- memo to the Police staff to trace the accused persons and thereafter conducted Ex.P.2- spot-panchanama after issuing Ex.P.21- notice and at the time of conducting panchanama taken the photograph of the spot as per Exs.P.22 and P.23 and also taken the mobile phone screen shot from the mobile phone of C.W.4 regarding transfer of amount to the accused No.1 and further taken Ex.P.24- certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act from C.W.4 and also identified the screen shot copy as per Ex.P.24 and it is further received certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.25.
21. It is further stated that near Kattigenahalli Dwaraka taken the custody of accused No.1 to 4 and their Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle No. KA-50/Y-4621 and accordingly, identified the said accused No.1 to 4 and further seized total amount of Rs.44,000/- in the presence of panchas from accused No.1 to 4, a sum of Rs.14,000/- and Realme company mobile phone from the accused No.1, gold chain of 8 grams and e-stamp paper from the accused No.1 and cash of Rs.20,000/- from the accused No.3, Rs.10,000/- and vehicle No.KA-50/Y-4621 from the accused No.4 by conducing seizure-panchanama. On the same day, the C.W.20 and 21 have produced the accused No.5 and 6 with Ex.P.18- report of C.W.20 and their statements recorded.
11 S.C.No.1639/2022Thereafter at the instance of the accused No.1 to 6 went to the respective places and conducted spot-panchanama as mentioned in the charge sheet with regard to amounts and articles robbed by the said accused persons from P.W.1. He has conducted Ex.P.26- spot- panchanama regarding the amount of Rs.27,000/- seized after issuing Ex.P.26- notices and consequently, conducted Ex.P.26- spot- panchanama and taken two photographs as per Exs.P.28 and P.29. He has further identified Ex.P.30- spot-panchanama regarding conducting of the same at the instance of accused persons near Tirumala Condiments situated in the ground floor of building of Goraguntepalya and Hebbal Main road and the said places photographs were taken as per Exs.P.31 and 32 and further visited the place near Hebbal bund area where monkey caps and knife used by the accused were thrown after the offence of kidnap and hence, at the said place Ex.P.33- spot-panchanama was drawn. Thereafter on the information of accused No.3 conducted spot-panchanama as per Ex.P.34 in the upstairs house of Papareddypalya where the conspiracy made to commit the offence of kidnap of P.W.1. He has filed requisition to the Court to insert offence u/s.120B of IPC as per Ex.P.35.
22. The P.W.7 has further stated that recorded the statement of C.W.1 in respect of identification of accused No. 1 to 6, 8 grams gold chain, e-stamp paper and Realme mobile phone in connection with offences committed and thereafter recorded the statement of C.W.5, the alleged eyewitness to the incident and further gave a letter - Ex.P.36 to the Manager- Veerabhadraswamy, Women Co-operative Society seeking details as to whom the e-stamp paper IN- KA56172153858027T was issued and also received in turn details as 12 S.C.No.1639/2022 per Ex.P.37 from the said society. The P.W.7 further gave a letter to the Manager of Bank of Baroda, Mudalapalya branch to freeze bank account of accused No.1- Prajwal as per Ex.P.38 and on the same day, the said bank gave statement which stows transfer of amount of Rs.25,0000/- among the bank account of accused No.1, C.Ws.1 and 4 and on the same day gave notice to the said bank as per Ex.P.39 seeking KYC form, bank statement of accused No.1 and as per the said bank statement, the amount ofRs.25,000/- was transferred among the above said bank accounts on 18.11.2021 and on the same day received Ex.P.40- a certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act from the Manager of Canara Bank, Lottagollahalli branch and thereafter handed over the case file for further investigation by C.W.25.
23. During the course of cross-examination by the prosecution by treating him partly hostile, the P.W.7 admitted the suggestions that the accused No.1 to 6 gave their statements as per Exs.P.41 to 46 and their signatures at Exs.P.41(b) to 46(b) and his signatures as per Exs.P.41(a) to 46(a) in connection with the place where the victim/ P.W.1 was kidnapped, where the e-stamp paper was purchased and where the conspiracy to commit the kidnap was made.
24. in the cross-examination made by the defence counsel, the P.W.7 has denied the suggestion that he never conducted Ex.P.1- spot-panchanama and taken photograph of the spot as per Exs.P.2 and 3. it is further denied the suggestion that no any extent of amounts as stated in the examination-in-chief evidence and also e-stamp paper, 8 grams gold chain are seized at the instance of accused persons. It is further denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 to 6 never gave their voluntary statements and further none of the Police staff have 13 S.C.No.1639/2022 produced the accused persons with Ex.P.18- report. In the further cross-examination evidence, the P.W.7 has denied the suggestion that no any spot-panchanama conducted near Lottegollahalli Canara Bank brach, Tirumala Condiments and further it is denied the suggestion that no any spot shown with regard to alleged monkey cap and knife thrown near Hebbal bund seclusion area. It is further denied the suggestion that no any panchanama drawn at the alleged place of conspiracy to commit the offence of dacoity. It is further denied the suggestion that deposing falsely that notice - Ex.P.40 was issued to the Lottegollahalli Canara bank to furnish the details of CCTV footage on 18.11.2021 from 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. it is further denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons gave their voluntary statements as per Exs.P.41 to 46 and also no any articles seized at the instance of the accused persons.
25. As in spite summons and NBWs issued and proclamation issued and published against the C.Ws.2 to 5 and further proclamations issued and published against the C.Ws.6 to 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19, they were not secured and hence, they are dropped accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor has in view of examination of material witnesses, given up C.Ws.22 and 23- Police staff who assisted for investigation in the case as not necessary.
26. In view of the entire evidence on record, the entire burden lies upon the prosecution to prove with cogent, corroborative and consistent evidence. In this case with regard to allegations of kidnap, extracting money and valuables of P.W.1 by putting him in fear and also certain sum of ransom allegedly demanded and accordingly received even by consulting P.W.2 who is father of P.W.1 who 14 S.C.No.1639/2022 allegedly sent an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the account of P.W.1, the evidence before the Court given by P.Ws.1 and 2 does not in any manner indicate anything with regard to identification of the accused persons and also their voluntary statement in connection with the alleged offences u/s.364(A), 397, 120(B), 201 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
27. The first and foremost burden lies upon the prosecution is to prima-facie establish and prove the averments of complaint whereas, in this case the p.w1 has completely turned hostile and not whispered anything about his kidnap by putting him in fear and extracting any extent of amount and gold chain from him by any of the accused persons. Hence, mere identifying his signature as per Ex.P.1(a) and P.2(a) in the complaint and spot-panchanama does not inspire confidence of the Court to come to the conclusion that he was only kidnapped and certain amount and gold chain robbed as suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1.
28. On careful scrutiny of entire evidence of P.W.2 who is the father of P.W.1, he has also during his cross-examination made by the learned Public Prosecutor not at alll supported the case of prosecution that he had sent a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the Karnataka bank account of P.W.1 in view of ransom demanded by the accused persons. The P.W.2 further went on to the extent by saying that the Police never shown him the accused persons and consequently, he has identified the accused persons in respect of kidnap of P.W.1 and robbed certain amount and 8 grams of gold chain.
15 S.C.No.1639/202229. Though the P.W.3 who is owner of house where the accused persons allegedly made conspiracy to commit the offence of kidnapping of P.W.1 and consequently, the accused were shown to him in the case in connection with the offences, but nothing elicited from the P.W.3 regarding the alleged offences committed by the accused persons. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 does not in any manner reveal any extent of link to the case of prosecution for the alleged offences.
30. Even the entire evidence of P.W.4, the alleged owner of the Brezza car allegedly used by the accused persons for commission of offence of kidnap of P.W.1 has went on to the extent of saying that the said car not belongs to him and he did not undertake to produce the said car for the purpose of investigation.
31. The other materials on record in the case further reveal that material alleged seizure and spot-panchas are not secured in spite the summons, NBWs issued and the proclamations were published to secure them.
32. From the entire evidence on record though the P.Ws.5 to 7 being the Police officers have stated about the entire investigation of the case and seizing of certain amount and the gold chain and also collected certain screen shot print out regarding payment made through online by using mobile phones of P.W.1, C.Ws.4 and 6, but none of the witnesses who allegedly issued the certificate were secured and examined to show that such things taken place and accordingly, proved the alleged offence of kidnap and robbery of certain valuables and amount as per the case of prosecution.
16 S.C.No.1639/202233. When the material witnesses being victim and other independent witnesses have completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution and there appears absence of cogent evidence regarding proof of identification of the accused persons and certain other items allegedly seized in the presence of independent witnesses, I deem it fit to held that bare evidence of Police officials does not inspire confidence of the Court to believe that the alleged offences u/s.364(A), 397, 120(B), 201 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
34. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons on the basis of evidence on record, it is come to the conclusion that the material doubts and absence of material to favour the prosecution, deserved the accused persons to have the benefit of doubt regarding proof of alleged offences. Hence, it is come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused No.1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal. Hence, I answered points No.1 to 4 in the negative.
35. Point No.5: As discussed herein above, the accused No.1 to 6 deserve to be acquitted of the alleged offences. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 6 are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s.364(A), 397, 120(B), 201 and 506 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
The personal bonds of accused No.1 to 6 and surety bonds shall remain in force for a period of three months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to preserve entire case file along with properties, if any, in 17 S.C.No.1639/2022 connection with the absconding accused No.7.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar, transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 16th day of September, 2025) (S.N. Kalkani) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1: Abhishek P.W.2: Raju B. P.W.3: Gayathri P.W.4: Sunil C.B. P.W.5: Lohith B.N. P.W.6: Raja P.W.7: Chandrashekar S.C.
List of documents marked for prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Exs.P.1(a & b): Signatures Ex.P.2: Spot- mahazar Exs.P.2(a & b): Signatures Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.4: Statement of P.W.2 Exs.P.5 & 6: Statement of witnesses Ex.P.7: Electricity bill Ex.P.8: Certificate u/s.65(B) of IE Act Ex.P.8(a): Signature Exs.P.9 & 10: Copies of Screen shot Ex.P.9(a): Signature Ex.P.10(a): Signature Ex.P.11: Pawn Ticket Ex.P.11(a): Signature Ex.P.12: Requisitions Ex.P.12(a): Signature Ex.P.13: Letter Ex.P.13(a): Signature Ex.P.14: Pen-drive Ex.P.15: Panchanama Ex.P.15(a): Signature Ex.P.16: Letter 18 S.C.No.1639/2022 Ex.P.16(a): Signature Ex.P.17: Panchanama Ex.P.17(a): Signature Ex.P.18: Requisition Exs.P.18(a & b): Signatures Ex.P.19: FIR Ex.P.20: Memo Ex.P.20(a): Signature Ex.P.21: Police notice Ex.P.21(a): Signature Exs.P.22 & 23: Photos Ex.P.24: Copy of Screen shot Ex.P.24(a): Signature Ex.P.25: Certificate u/s.65(b) of IE Act Ex.P.25(a): Signature Ex.P.26: Police notice Ex.P.26(a): Signature Ex.P.27: Panchanama Exs.P.28 & 29: Photos Ex.P.30: Panchanama Ex.P.30(a): Signature Exs.P.31 & 32: Photos Exs.P.33 & 34: Panchanamas Ex.P.33(a): Signature Ex.P.34(a): Signature Exs.P.35 & 36: Requisitions Ex.P.35(a): Signature Ex.P.36(a): Signature Ex.P.37: e-stamping search certificate Ex.P.38: Requisition Ex.P.38(a): Signature Exs.P.39 & 40: Notices Ex.P.39(a): Signature Ex.P.40(a): Signature Exs.P.41 to 46: Voluntary statements of accused persons Material Objects marked for prosecution: -Nil-
List of witnesses examined and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -Nil-
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by
Shankarappa Shankarappa
Nimbanna Nimbanna Kalkani
Kalkani Date: 2025.09.23
11:45:43 +0530