Bangalore District Court
State By; vs Shivamurthy S/O Mallappa on 25 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2016
PRESENT
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSION CASE No.1358/2014
COMPLAINANT : State by;
Jeevanabheema Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED : Shivamurthy S/o Mallappa,
Aged about 36 years,
Senior Scientist,
Residing at No.SA-55,
NAL Quarters, 10th Main Road,
J.B.Nagara, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.B.R., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 18-02-2013
2. Date of report of occurrence 18-02-2013
3. Date of arrest of accused 18-02-2013
Date of release of accused 19-04-2013
Period undergone in custody 2 Months, 6 Days
4. Date of commencement of evidence 29-06-2015
2 S.C.1358/2014
5. Date of closing of evidence 01-03-2016
6. Name of the complainant Sri.K.G.Venkatanarayana
7. Offences complained of Sec.307 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
9. Order of sentence Offence not proved
JUDGMENT
This case is committed by the V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore City, to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore on the ground that offence punishable under Sec.307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
2. The Police Sub-Inspector of Jeevanabheema Nagara Police Station has filed charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.307 of I.P.C. arising out of Jeevanabheema Nagara Police Station in Crime No.48/2013.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
It is the case of the Prosecution that, accused is working as Senior Scientist in A.L.D. (Aerospace Electronics and Systems) Division of NAL, Digital Signal Processing Lab, Room No.318. In the said Division, CW.2-Dr.S.V.Narasimhan also 3 S.C.1358/2014 working as Emirates Scientist. CW.2 was not satisfied with the work of accused, hence CW.2 told accused to work with some other person. CW.2 was not giving any guidance to the accused, so accused was angry with CW.2. Accused with that anger with intent to kill CW.2, on 17-02-2013 at 6.00 p.m. purchased a Knife for Rs.200/- and kept with him. Accused on 18-02-2013 at 8.45 a.m., within the limits of Jeevanabheema Nagara Police Station at NAL, ALD Division, Signal Processing Lab Room No.318, when CW.2 was performing pooja to Ganesha idol, accused with an intent to kill CW.2 assaulted CW.2 with Knife on his front side neck and caused grievous injuries and thereby attempted to kill him and thereby committed the offence under Sec.307 of I.P.C.
3(a) CW.23 who is the Police Sub-Inspector of Jeevanabheema Nagara, on 18-02-2013 at 10.30 a.m. when in the Police Station, CW.1 came to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. CW.23 has obtained the same and registered the same in Crime No.48/2013 and submitted the FIR to the Court. On the same day, CW.23 has visited the spot, called CW.5 and 6-Panchas and drawn Mahazar on the 4 S.C.1358/2014 spot shown by CW.1. At the time of drawing Mahazar, CW.23 has seized the dry blood by scratching and also taken blood in cotton. Thereafter, CW.23 has subjected the property under P.F.No.12/2013, on the same day P.C.2534 and 9397 have catch0hold the accused and produced the accused before CW.23 at 12.45 p.m. CW.23 has arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement. Accused in his voluntary statement stated that, if he is accompanied he will show the Knife used for committing the offence, produce the cloths and chappals worn by him at the time of incident as per Ex.P29 thereafter accused has taken CW.23 and his officials to NAL (ALD) Division, there CW.23 has called CW.7 and 8-Panchas, accused has taken CW.23 and Panchas near the Auditorium and taken them near the plant pot and removed one Knife from there and produced before CW.23, CW.23 has seized the same before Panchas. Thereafter, CW.23 has called CW.9 and 10-Panchas. Accused has taken CW.23 and Panchas to his house, there accused has produced his cloth worn at the time of incident and also produced one pair of chappals worn by him on that day at the time of incident. CW.23 has seized the 5 S.C.1358/2014 same by drawing Mahazar and subjected the properties under P.F.13/2013 and 14/2013. On the same day, CW.23 has recorded the statements of CW.7 to CW.10 and CW.13.
3(b) On 19-02-2013, CW.23 has recorded the statement of CW.3 and 4. On 21-02-2013, CW.2 came to Police Station and produced Sweater, his shirt and pant worn on that day. CW.23 has called CW.11 and CW.12-Panchas and seized the said clothes by drawing Mahazar. CW.23 has subjected the properties under P.F.No.17/2013. On that day CW.23 has sent CW.21 to the Hospital along with his official for obtaining sample blood for ascertaining the blood group of CW.2. CW.21 has obtained the sample blood of CW.2 from the Hospital and produced before CW.23. CW.23 has subjected the same under P.F.No.18/2013, on the same day CW.23 has recorded the statements of CW.11, 12 and 21. CW.23 has sent the properties seized in this case to FSL for examination and submitting Report through CW.22, thereafter CW.23 as per the order of Fast Track Court given requisition to the committal court to produce the accused before NIMHANS Hospital to submit his mental condition. On 02-03-2013, 6 S.C.1358/2014 CW.23 has obtained the Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary from Manipal Hospital. On 10-04-2013, CW.23 has obtained the Attendence entries of CW.2 and accused from the NAL. Thereafter, as the investigation is completed CW.23 has filed the charge-sheet.
4. After filing the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru has taken cognizance and registered case in C.C.No.50048/2013. Thereafter, V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, has secured presence of accused and furnished charge sheet copy to accused as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case against the accused before the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore and that was registered as S.C.1358/2014 and made over to this court for disposal according to law, as the offences alleged are triable by the Sessions Court.
5. After receipt of the papers, this court has secured presence of accused and enlarged him on bail. Thereafter, this court has heard the learned Public Prosecutor for State and counsel for accused on charge to be framed. Charge under 7 S.C.1358/2014 Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. framed against the accused for the offence under Sec.307 of I.P.C. and read-over to the accused in the open court, accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Thereafter Prosecution is called upon to prove the guilt of the accused by examining the Prosecution witnesses.
6. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in all examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 to 22 and got marked 42 documents as per Ex.P1 to 42 and marked 11 material objects as MO.1 to 6, 5(a), 5(b) and MO.7 to 11 and closed its side. Thereafter accused is examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied the statement in toto and further stated that he has no defence evidence and there is nothing to say, so thereafter case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor for state in length.
8. The points that arise for my determination are: 8 S.C.1358/2014
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused on 18-02-2013 at 8.45 a.m. within the limits of Jeevanabheema Nagara Police Station at NAL (ALD) Division, Digital Signal Processing Lab, Room No.318, when CW.2 was performing pooja to Ganesha idol, accused with an intention to kill CW.2, assaulted CW.2 with Knife on his front side neck and caused grievous injuries and attempted to kill CW.2 and thereby committed the offence under Sec.307 of I.P.C.?
2) What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.2 : As per final order;
For the following;
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution
that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.307 of I.P.C. and in order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses and they are; 9 S.C.1358/2014
PW.1-Dr.S.V.Narasimhan son of S.Venkatarangachar- injured witness, PW.2-K.G.Venkatanarayana son of K.M.Gundappa-complainant, PW.3-Smt.Manju Nanda wife of Alok Nanda-eye witness, PW.4-Smt.S.Veena wife of Shantha Ram-eye witness, PW.5-Sunil Prasad son of Srikusum-Pancha on Ex.P4 Spot Mahazar, PW.6-S.Ravi son of Late.Sanjeevi- Pancha on Ex.P7 Seizure Mahazar, PW.7-Dr.Selvin son of Arogyaswamy-Medical Officer, PW.8-Mainak Ghosh Hajara son of Deepankar Ghosh Hajara-circumstantial witness and Pancha on Ex.P7 Seizure Mahazar, PW.9-Smt.Roopa wife of Yogeesh- Pancha on Ex.P1 Mahazar, PW.10-Pichaiah son of Thirumalaiah-Pancha on Ex.P12 Mahazar, PW.11-Dr.Ramesh son of Balan.K- Doctor who has collected the blood sample of CW.2, PW.12- Dr.P.N.Prakash son of Late.P.A.Narayan-Medical Officer who has issued the Wound Certificate, PW.13-Dr. Amaranarayana son of Late.Doreswamy-Medical Officer, PW.14-Dr.Bharthireddy son of Dhandor Bharathi Reddy-Doctor who has operated CW.2, PW.15-Prathap Nayak son of Rajeevalochana-Pancha on Ex.P12 Seizure Mahazar, PW.16- Ismail son of Ahmed-owner of Stationery shop, PW.17- 10 S.C.1358/2014 M.S.Vydyanathan son of late.Subbakrishna Dikshith-Officer of NAL who has given information to Investigating Officer, PW.18-Keshavamurthy son of Munivenkatappa-Police Constable who has taken CW.2 for obtaining the blood sample, PW.19-Ugrappan son of Late.Puliyappa-ASI who has taken the seized articles to FSL, PW.20-Dr.Chandrashekar son of Kambegowda-FSL Officer, PW.21-Chandrappa Baraki son of Halappa-Police Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer, PW.22- Dr.P.T.Shivakumar son of P.Thangaraju-Medical Officer (Psychiatric), NIMHANS.
11. The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused in all got marked 42 documents and they are;
Ex.P1-Seizure Mahazar for seizure of blood stained clothes of CW.2, Ex.P2-Portion of statement of PW.1, Ex.P3- Complaint, Ex.P4-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P5-Portion of statement of PW.3, Ex.P6-Portion of statement of PW.4, Ex.P7-Seizure Mahazar for seizure of Knife, Ex.P8-Portion of statement of PW.6, Ex.P9-Copy of MLC intimation given to Police, Ex.P10- Portion of statement of PW.8, Ex.P11-Portion of statement of PW.9, Ex.P12-Pancha on Ex.P12 Seizure Mahazar for seizure of 11 S.C.1358/2014 cloth and chappals of accused, Ex.P13-Requisition given by the Investigating Officer for collecting blood sample, Ex.P14-Letter written by PW.11 Doctor to Investigating Officer, Ex.P15- Wound Certificate of CW.2, Ex.P16-Discharge Summary, Ex.P17-Letter given by COA to PW.13 Doctor, Ex.P18-Portion of statement of PW.16, Ex.P19-Requisition given by Investigating Officer to PW.17, Ex.P20-Reply given by PW.17 to Ex.P18, Ex.P21-Copy of Attendence Register of NAL, Ex.P22-Copy of Attendance Log, Ex.P23-Passport, Ex.P24- Acknowldgement given by FSL Officer, Ex.P25-FSL Report, Ex.P26-Sample seal, Ex.P27-FIR, Ex.P28-P.F.12/2013, Ex.P29- Portion of voluntary statement of accused, Ex.P30- P.F.13/2013, Ex.P31-P.F.14/2013, Ex.P32-Letter written by Investigating Officer to Medical Officer for permitting to record the statement of CW.2, Ex.P33-P.F.17/2013, Ex.P34- P.F.18/2013, Ex.P35-letter written by Investigating Officer to FSL, Ex.P36-directions given by FTC-3 Court to Investigating Officer, Ex.P37-Requisition given by Investigating Officer to committal court, Ex.P38-letter written by Investigating Officer to Medical Officer at NIMHANS, Ex.P39-letter to Chinmaya 12 S.C.1358/2014 Hospital, Ex.P40-letter written by Medical Officer of NIMHANS to committal court, Ex.P41-letter written by Medical Officer of NIMHANS, Ex.P42-letter written by Investigating Officer to Director of NAL.
12. Prosecution got marked 9 Material Objects i.e., MO.1-Sweater of CW.2, MO.2-Shirt of CW.2, MO.3-Pant of CW.2, MO.4-Knife, MO.5-Dry blood, MO.5(a)-Shirt belongs to accused, MO.6-Mud mixed blood, MO.6(a)-pant belongs to accused, MO.7-Chappal belongs to accused, MO.8-Chappal belongs to accused, MO.9-blood sample.
13. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt examined PW.1 and PW.1 in his evidence stated that since 01-04-2009 he is working as Emeritus Scientist at NAL. He is working in the Room No.318 of NAL, he know the accused, accused was also working as Scientist-B in NAL since 1999. On 18-02-2013 at 8.30 a.m. he came to the office and entered Room No.318 and thereafter he went near the Ganesha photo and he was praying the god. Accused entered in his room and he wished the accused and accused has not responded for it and when he again saw the 13 S.C.1358/2014 accused, accused has removed the Knife from his pocket and he went near the door and attempted open the door, he was unable to open the door, the Knife was on his neck and due to pressing of the Knife blood started coming out of his neck, at that time he and accused were in the room and none other person was there in that room. The blood came out of his neck fell on his shirt, sweater, pant, he put his hand on the neck and blood came to his hand also and seeing the same he shocked and cried and at that time some portion of the door was open, so outsiders have heard his cry and he came out of the room, at that time CW.4 and 5 who were working in other rooms came there and at that time accused went away from his room. CW.8 one Anand and others have given first aid to him and thereafter he has been shifted to Manipal Hospital, there Medical Officer have given treatment to him, he has sustained 13 Cms cut injury, accused has caused the said injury to him. Further this witness has stated that mental condition of the accused was not proper and he has taken treatment in the NIMHANS Hospital and he heard about the same. Further this witness has stated that, two days earlier to 14 S.C.1358/2014 the incident CW.1 and accused came to him and CW.1 told him that accused is not doing work entrusted to him and told him to advise the accused and he told the accused to do the work entrusted to him, accused has not agreed for that and told that he is unable to work and he told the accused that do as you wish.
14. Further PW.1 in his evidence stated that he has taken treatment at Manipal Hospital and he is discharged from the Hospital on 19th in the afternoon. In the Hospital the Doctors have taken the blood samples from him. The Medical Officers have taken his blood stained clothes saying that those are to be given to the Police. This witness has identified his signature shown on the document and the said document is marked as Ex.P1. Further this witness has stated that he has signed Ex.P1(a)-signature when Police were taking his blood stained clothes and identified the blood stained Sweater belongs to him as MO.1, identified his blood stained Shirt as MO.2, identified his blood stained Pant as MO.3. Further this witness has stated that he cannot identify the Knife used on that day. Prosecution treated this witness hostile in part and 15 S.C.1358/2014 cross-examined him and this witness has denied that he was not satisfied with the work of the accused and he told the accused to work with someone else. Further this witness has denied the suggestion made by the Public Prosecutor that as he was not giving proper guidance to the accused, accused was angry with him. Further this witness has denied the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor to him that the accused with earlier ill-will attempted to kill him. Further this witness has denied the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor to him that when he cried on that day, Veena and Manju Nanda came there and further voluntarily stated that Veena alone came. Further this witness has denied the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor to him that he has given MO.1 to 3-blood stained clothes to the Police in the Police Station and in the Police Station Ex.P1-Seizure Mahazar was drawn. Further this witness has denied that he has given statement before the Police as per Ex.P2, Ex.P2(a), Ex.P2(b) before the Police. Further this witness has stated that he is not knowing whether Knife shown to him is used for assaulting him and the Knife shown to this witness is marked 16 S.C.1358/2014 as MO.4. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that accused has not picked-up any quarrel with him within that 6 years period and he was having cordially with him. Further this witness has admitted that for that 6 years period the accused was taking treatment for mental illness. Further this witness has not denied the suggestion made to him that accused was doing some things without personally knowing the said thing. Further this witness has admitted that he has seen MO.4 first time in the court. This witness has not stated regarding the motive of the accused in committing the offence. Further when the prosecution has treated this witness hostile and cross-examined him, he has denied the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the motive alleged by the prosecution against the accused for committing the offence.
15. Prosecution has examined PW.2. PW.2 in his evidence stated that till 31-05-2014 he was working as Senior Scientist and Administrative Officer at NAL, Bengaluru. CW.2 to 6 and CW.8 were also working in NAL along with him, 17 S.C.1358/2014 accused was also working in NAL as Scientist. CW.1 was Emeritus Scientist, CW.2 was the Group Head and accused was working under him. On 18-02-2013 at 8.45 a.m. when he was in the office in his room and taking tiffin and at that time he heard the noise in the corridor of the office, he came out and there CW.4-Veena told him that CW.2 has sustained cut injury on his neck and he asked CW.4 where is CW.2 and for that she told that he has been taken to the Dispensary which is in NAL and he came to dispensary, there he came to know that CW.1 has been shifted to Manipal Hospital, he came to know that incident happened in Room No.318, he has not went to Room No.318, he has contacted the Security Officer and Director of NAL on phone and Security Officer told him to give complaint and he has lodged a complaint and identified the complaint as Ex.P3. Further this witness has identified the signature shown to him on another document as his signature and document shown to this witness is marked as Ex.P4 and signature of Ex.P4 is marked as Ex.P4(a). Further this witness has stated that he has put Ex.P4(a)-signature at 4.00 p.m. before the Police and further stated that he has put Ex.P4(a) for lodging 18 S.C.1358/2014 the complaint and further identified his signatures on labels which were affixed on two sealed articles belongs to his signatures and further stated that he has signed those signatures also at the time of putting Ex.P4(a)-signature. Prosecution treated this witness hostile in part, cross- examined him and this witness has denied that he has written in the complaint that he came to know regarding the incident through CW.3 and 4. Further this witness has denied that on the date of incident Police visited the spot at 11.00 and he has shown the spot and Police have drawn the Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P4. Further this witness has denied that Police have seized the blood stains and blood mixed mud in his presence. The counsel for the accused cross-examined this witness and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that in the Security office, complaint was prepared in the computers and he has put his signature. Further this witness has admitted that he has put Ex.P4(a)-signature and the signatures on the chits affixed to two sealed articles in the Police Station. Further this witness has stated that he is not knowing whether the accused is taking treatment for mental illness and admitted 19 S.C.1358/2014 that accused has availed medical leave. This witness has lodged the complaint as per the say of the Security Officer. This witness has denied that he came to now regarding the incident from CW.3, 4 and evidence of this witness clearly goes to show that this witness has put his signature on the complaint prepared by others and he is not knowing anything regarding the incident. This witness was not present at the time of drawing Ex.P4-Mahazar.
16. Prosecution has examined PW.3. PW.3 in her evidence stated that since 15 years earlier to her evidence she is working as Scientist at NAL. She is working at Room No.304 at NAL Office. She knew CW.2. CW.2 is serving as Emeritus Scientist, she know the accused, accused is working as Scientist in her Department. On 18-02-2013 at 8.30 to 8.40 a.m. she was in her room and talking with her colleague, at that time she heard the noise of crying and she came out of the room and at that time accused was proceeding by holding a Knife in the corridor. Thereafter, she closed the door of her room, she has not seen CW.2 on that day, thereafter she heard the noise of CW.4-Veena and at that time CW.2 was 20 S.C.1358/2014 sustained injuries and he has been shifted to the Hospital. She is not knowing how CW.2 has sustained injuries. Further this witness has stated that the Knife which was in the hand of the accused on that day was like MO.4-Knife. Prosecution treated this witness hostile, cross-examined him and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of this witness so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. This witness has stated that she has seen the accused proceeding by holding Knife on that day and this witness has not stated the same before the Investigating Officer. Further this witness in the cross-examination stated that she has stated the same before the Investigating Officer. The counsel for the accused has put question to the Investigating Officer whether this witness has stated before him that she saw the accused proceeding on the corridor by holding Knife and Investigating Officer has stated that she has not stated the same. So that part of evidence is omission amounting to contradiction. So the evidence of this witness no way help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
21 S.C.1358/2014
17. Prosecution has examined PW.4. PW.4 in her evidence stated that, since 2000 she is working as Scientist at NAL. She is working in the second floor in NAL in Room No.337, for them there is a sitting arrangement in NAL in front of the Room which is meant for sitting, corridor is there and abetting to the corridor lab is there. CW.2 is Emeritus Scientist and working in Room No.318, she know the accused, accused is also working as Scientist in NAL. Accused was working along with CW.2. On 18-02-2013 in between 8.30 to 8.45 a.m., she was in the Room No.337, at that time she heard the news of crying from corridor, she came out, at that time CW.2 was standing in the corridor and she sustained injuries to his neck. She asked CW.2 what happened, he has not stated anything to her, thereafter accused came out of the Room No.318 and went away thereafter CW.3, 8 came there and they have taken CW.2 to the dispensary of their office and thereafter she came to know that accused has inflicted injury to CW.2. She is not knowing for what purpose the accused has caused injury to CW.2, she has not seen the Knife on that day, she has not given the statement before the Police. 22 S.C.1358/2014 Prosecution treated this witness hostile, cross-examined him and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of this witness so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and this witness has admitted that she has not stated before the Investigating Officer that the accused went away from the Room No.318 on that day and first time she is saying the same before the court.
18. Prosecution has examined PW.5. PW.5 is the Pancha on Ex.P4-Spot Mahazar and he in his evidence stated that on 18-02-2013, Police came to his office as the accused has assaulted CW.2. Further this witness has stated that Police came to Room No.318 and there blood was fell on the wall, Police have taken the blood in the cotton and put it in the bottle and made writing there and obtained his signature and identified the writing as Ex.P4 and identified his signature as Ex.P4(b) and identified two articles seized on that day as MO.5 and 6. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness in length and nothing has been made out in his cross- examination so as to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of 23 S.C.1358/2014 this witness proves the drawing of Ex.P4-Spot Mahazar and seizure of MO.5 and 6-articles.
19. Prosecution has examined PW.6 and he is the Pancha on Ex.P7-Seizure Mahazar and he in his evidence stated that he is working in NAL as Security. On 18-02-2013 he was working in first shift and he came to the office at 9.00 a.m., Police came to NAL, Police have shown Knife to him and obtained his signature and on that day accused was also there along with the Police, he is not knowing why accused was with the Police on that day and identified the writings as Ex.P7 and identified his signature as Ex.P7(a) and identified the Knife shown to him on that day as MO.4. Prosecution treated this witness hostile, cross-examined him and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of this witness so as to help the prosecution to prove the drawing of Ex.P7-Mahazar and seizure of MO.4-Knife as per the information given by the accused. The evidence of this witness will not prove the drawing of Ex.P7-Mahazar as per the information given by the accused. Further this witness has been cross-examined by the 24 S.C.1358/2014 counsel for the accused and this witness has stated that he is not knowing what is written in Ex.P7-Mahazar.
20. Prosecution examined PW.8 and he is the circumstantial witness and Pancha on Ex.P7-Mahazar and he in his evidence stated that since 7 years she is working in NAL as Senior Scientist. CW.2 to 7 are also working in NAL. He know the accused, accused is working as Scientist in NAL. On 18- 02-2013 at 9.00 a.m., CW.2 has sustained injuries to his neck and he has seen CW.2 in the corridor on that day and they have taken CW.2 to the Hospital. Further this witness has stated that on that day Police came to NAL at 2.30 p.m., Police came near Security and shown one Knife and at that time CW.7 and accused were also there, he is not knowing how the Knife came in the hands of the Police on that day, Police have made writings there as per Ex.P7 and obtained his signature and identified his signature as Ex.P7(a). Prosecution treated this witness hostile, cross-examined him and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of this witness so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and prove the drawing of Ex.P7-Mahazar. Further the counsel for the 25 S.C.1358/2014 accused has cross-examined this witness and this witness in the cross-examination admitted that he cannot say whether MO.1-Knife is the Knife shown by the Police on that day to him.
21. Prosecution examined PW.9 and he is the Pancha on Ex.P1-Mahazar for seizure of blood stained clothes of CW.2 and he in his evidence stated that he know CW.2. In the month of February-2013 on one day he went to see CW.2 to the Manipal Hospital and in the Hospital afternoon Police came and CW.2 has given his blood stained clothes to the Police and for that Police have made writings as per Ex.P1 and he has signed on the same and identified his signature as Ex.P1(b) and identified the clothes given by him as MO.1 to 3. This witness has given contrary statement to that of Ex.P1. As per the prosecution case, Ex.P1 was drawn in the Police Station and CW.2 has produced his clothes in the Police Station before this witness, whereas this witness has given contrary evidence to that of prosecution and the said contradiction is material one. So, the evidence of this witness no way help the 26 S.C.1358/2014 prosecution to prove the drawing of Ex.P1-Mahazar and seizure of MO.1 to 3 articles.
22. Prosecution has examined PW.10. PW.10 is the Pancha on Ex.P12-Mahazar and he in his evidence stated that, he know the accused, house of accused is at NAL quarters bearing No.SA-55. On 18-02-2013 the Security officials sent him to the house of accused and he went to the house of accused and Police have also came there along with the accused and accused has produced one Shirt, Pant, one pair chappals before the Police and Police have drawn Mahazar, seized the same and identified the Mahazar as Ex.P12 and identified the articles seized on that day as MO.5 to 8. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that he has put Ex.P12(a)-signature and signature on the chit affixed to MO.5 to 8 in the Security office. Further this witness has admitted that he is not knowing what is written in Ex.P12. So, the said admission creates doubt regarding the presence of this witness at the time of drawing Ex.P12- Mahazar.
27 S.C.1358/2014
23. Prosecution has examined PW.15 and he is the Pancha on Ex.P12-Mahazar and he in his evidence stated that since 16 years earlier to his evidence he is working as Principal Scientist at NAL. He know the accused, accused is working as Scientist in NAL. On 18-02-2013 he came to know that quarrel took-place between CW.2, accused on that day at 3.00 p.m. Jeevanbheema Nagar Police came to NAL quarters bearing No.SA-55 and on that day along with the Police accused was also there, accused has produced one pair of chappals, one shirt and one Pant belongs to him before the Police, Police have seized the same by drawing Ex.P12-Mahazar and identified the articles seized on that day as MO.5 to 8. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of this witness will prove the drawing of Mahazar and seizure of MO.5 to 8-articles.
24. Prosecution has examined PW.16 and PW.16 has stated that at Thippasandra he is having Stationary shop. He is selling kitchen articles in his shop, he is also selling kitchen knifes in his shop. Two years earlier to his evidence 28 S.C.1358/2014 Jeevabheemanagar Police have brought one Knife and shown to him and asked him whether the Knife which they shown is sold in his shop and he told that he is selling such knifes. Further this witness has stated that Police have brought one person to his shop and asked whether that person has purchased any Knife from his shop and he has stated that he cannot say whether he has purchased it or not. Further this witness has stated that he cannot identify the person brought to his shop by the Police. Prosecution treated this witness hostile, cross-examined him and nothing has been made out in the cross-examination of this witness so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
25. Prosecution has examined PW.17. This witness in his evidence stated that, he is working in the NAL as Senior Controller of Administration. Further this witness has stated that Jeevanabheema Nagar Police have asked Attendance Certificate of CW.2 and accused and he has given the same. Further the Police have asked whether CC Cameras are there in the NAL in all the rooms and he has stated 'No'. Further he has stated that no CC Camera was fixed in the Room No.318 29 S.C.1358/2014 and identified the requisition of the Investigating Officer as Ex.P19 and answer given by him to Ex.P19 as Ex.P20(a).
26. Prosecution examined PW.7. PW.7 in his evidence stated that he is working as Emergency Senior Doctor at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. On 18-02-2013 at 9.10 a.m., patient by name Narasimhan brought by his friend Mynak on history of assault stabbed with Knife around the neck at about 9.00 a.m., on the same day at NAL office, he examined the injured and admitted the patient in his hospital and referred the patient to ENT Specialist Doctor of his hospital. After admitting the patient he has informed regarding the MLC case to Airport Police Station, Bengaluru and identified the intimation given by him as Ex.P9. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and this witness has admitted that in the history column of the medical records of his hospital, name of the assailant is not mentioned and further this witness has admitted that when patient was brought to his hospital he was conscious and oriented.
27. Prosecution has examined PW.15 and he in his evidence stated that he is working as Medical Officer at 30 S.C.1358/2014 Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. On 22-02-2013, his Hospital has received requisition from Police Sub-Inspector, Jeevanabheema Nagar for collecting the blood samples of one S.V.Narasimhan and he told his Technician for collecting the blood samples of Narasimhan and his Technician has collected the blood samples and handed-over to him and he in turn handed-over the same to the concerned Police and identified the requisition of the Police as Ex.P13 and admitted the letter written by him as Ex.P14 and identified the blood samples as MO.9. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and this witness has admitted that he cannot remember the name of Technician whom he has asked to take the blood sample of CW.2.
28. Prosecution has examined PW.12. PW.12 in his evidence stated that since 10 years earlier to his evidence he is working as Medical Officer at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. On 18-02-2013 at 9.30 a.m., injured by name Dr.Narasimhan aged 62 years brought to the Hospital by his relative Pratap on history of assault with Knife on 18-02-2013 at 9 a.m. He examined the injured and on examination there was cut injury 31 S.C.1358/2014 over the anterior part of neck measuring 13 X 1 cm long injury anterior to Jugular vein exposing trachea, and thyroid cartilage with bleeding. He has been operated for exploration of the wound under general asphyxia and for examining the injured he has issued wound certificate and identified the same as Ex.P15. Further this witness has stated that, after the surgery patient has been discharged on the next day. The injury was fresh at the time of his examination and the said injury is grievous in nature and the said injury is likely to cause when a person is assaulted with MO.4-Knife and identified the Discharge Summary as Ex.P16. This witness has been cross- examined by the counsel for the accused and in the cross- examination this witness has admitted that in Ex.P15-Wound Certificate in the history column, name of the assault and place of incident is not mentioned. Further this witness has admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex.P15 that the said injury was fresh injury. Further this witness has denied the suggestion made to him that if assault is made with MO.4, the injury will be un-uniform. Further this witness has admitted 32 S.C.1358/2014 that Investigating Officer has not sent MO.4 to him and not obtained opinion.
29. Prosecution has examined PW.13. PW.13 in his evidence stated that since 24 years earlier to his evidence he is working as Medical Officer at NAL, Bengaluru. On 09-04- 2013, the COA of NAL asked him for giving details of treatment given to CW.2 and accordingly he has furnished the information as called and identified the letter received from him to COA as Ex.P17. Further this witness has stated that he has mentioned in Ex.P17 that CW.2 has been brought to the Clinic and he has been given first aid to CW.2 and referred CW.2 to Manipal Hospital. This witness has been cross- examined by the counsel for the accused and this witness has admitted that he was not present when CW.2 was brought to the Clinic on 18-02-2013 and further admitted that he has not personally referred CW.2 for Manipal Hospital.
30. Prosecution has examined PW.14. PW.14 in his evidence stated that, since the year 1991 he is working as ENT Specialist Doctor at Manipal Hospital. On 18-02-2013 at 9.00 a.m. patient by name Dr.Narasimhan was brought to his 33 S.C.1358/2014 Hospital on history of assault with Knife around the neck. The patient was brought in the Emergency Ward and he has been given initial treatment there and thereafter the patient has been sent to operation theater and in the operation theater he has examined the injured. One of the blood vessel on the neck was bleeding, he has stopped the bleeding, the muscle was closed in a layer and on the top of the skin was also closed. On that day, he has conducted operation and patient was kept in observation and on the next day patient was discharged and identified the Discharge Summary as Ex.P16 and further stated that injuries mentioned in Wound Certificate are likely to be caused with MO.4-weapon. This witness has been cross- examined by the counsel for the accused and this witness has admitted that in history column of Ex.P16, the name of assailant is not mentioned. Further this witness has admitted that normally blunt weapon on hard surface will cause lacerated wounds. Further this witness has admitted that sometimes nails will also cause lacerated wound. Further this witness has stated that he cannot say that MO.4 will not cause lacerated wound.
34 S.C.1358/2014
31. Prosecution has examined PW.22. PW.22 in his evidence stated that, since 2012 he is working as Additional Professor of Psychiatric at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. On 02-11- 2012, patient by name Shivamurthy referred by National Aerospace Laboratory, Dr.N.Ramakrishna with the history of behavioral problems and the patient was admitted in his Hospital and given treatment, at that time patient was having illness since 10 months. The illness of the patient was characterized by suspiciousness, delusion of Persecution, Auditory hallucination and he has been diagnosed by paranoid Schizophrenia. He was looking after the patient during that period, he was recovered from the said disease. Further this witness has admitted that on 04-03-2013 the Medical Officer, Central Prison has referred the patient Shivamurthy for the above referred problem. The patient was admitted in the prison ward from 06-03-2013 to 28-03-2013. Dr. C.R.Chandrashekar and B.M.Suresh had given the treatment. He was improved and he has been sent back to the Jail. The patient Shivamurthy was again admitted by his family members from 17-08-2013 to 01-09-2013, after the treatment 35 S.C.1358/2014 patient was stabilized and he has been discharged. Again on 20-11-2013 patient has been admitted and he was discharged on 23-12-2013. Lastly, Shivamurthy was admitted on 03-01- 2014 and discharged on 04-02-2014. He was advised taking out follow up treatment. The patient is stable since 04-02- 2014 till 03-02-2016. Further this witness has stated that on 22-09-2015 Medical Board has convened on the request of patient Shivamurthy and in the said meeting it is opined that patient is medically fit to resume his duties and he has been advised to follow and continue medication regularly and attend follow up treatment for every 2 months. Further this witness has stated that he is deposing on the basis of the medical records as he has given treatment to the patient and he has brought the records of the Hospital along with him and admitted the opinion given by him to the Police as Ex.P41. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted as under;
"Ex.P40-Report discloses that patient was suffering from serious mental disorder. Sometime it may 36 S.C.1358/2014 happen that person suffering from serious mental disorder will not have control on himself and he will not understand what he is doing."
32. Further this witness has admitted that subsequent to 22-09-2013 mental condition of patient is stable. Further this witness has admitted that on 02-11-2012 the patient has been admitted and he has given treatment to him and further this witness has admitted that earlier to 03-11-2012 patient was suffering from same illness. Further this witness has stated that on 17-11-2012 patient has been discharged and advised to continue regular treatment for 10 months and earlier to 03-11-2012 patient was suffering from the same illness and the said admission of this witness and Ex.P40 clearly goes to show that on the relevant date of incident also the patient was suffering from mental illness and this witness admitted that patient was suffering from serious mental disorder and the said illness sometimes may happen that the said person will not be control on himself and he will not understand what he is doing.
37 S.C.1358/2014
33. Prosecution has been examined PW.18. PW.18 in his evidence stated that since 5 years earlier to his evidence he is working as Police Constable at Jeevanabheema Nagar Police Station. On 21-02-2013, the SHO of his Police Station directed him to go to Manipal Hospital along with CW.2 and obtain the sample blood of CW.2 and the SHO has also given letter. He has taken CW.2 to the Hospital along with requisition and met the Medical Officer at Manipal Hospital. The Medical Officer has obtained blood sample and given to him and he has brought and given the same to SHO.
34. Prosecution has examined PW.19. PW.19 is the ASI of Jeevanabheema Nagar Police Station and he in his evidence stated that on 23-02-2013 the SHO of the Station has handed-over 11 seized articles in this case to him and asked him to take the same to FSL office for examination and to submit the Report and accordingly he has taken the same and handed over to FSL Officer and obtained the acknowledgment.
35. Prosecution has examined PW.20. PW.20 is the FSL Officer and he in his evidence stated that since March- 38 S.C.1358/2014 2011 he is working as Scientific Officer at Biology Section of FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru. On 23-03-2013, his office has received 11 sealed articles from the Police Inspector, Jeevanabheema Nagar Police Station in Crime No.48/2013 through ASI Ugrappa. The said articles were transferred to Biology Section and assigned to him for Chemical examination. The seals on the said articles were in tact and tallying with the sample seals. On opening the said articles, they are; 1) blood stained cotton, 2) blood stained mud, 3) One knife, 4) One Shirt, 5) One Pant, 6) One left slipper, 7) One right slipper, 8) One sweater, 9) One shirt, 10) One Pant, 11) Sample blood. He examined the said articles and he noticed blood stains were present on the article No.1 to 10. The blood stains on article No.1 to 11 were of human blood and of 'O' Group and for examining the said articles he has given the Report, identified the same as Ex.P25 and identified the sample seal as Ex.P26 and identified the articles examined by him.
36. Prosecution has examined PW.21 and he is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the matter. Investigating Officer has clearly stated regarding the 39 S.C.1358/2014 investigation done by him in his examination-in-chief. The counsel for the accused cross-examined PW.21 and in the cross-examination PW.21 has admitted that in Ex.P20 the Medical Officer have reported that the accused was suffering from serious Schizophrenia mental disease. Further this witness has admitted that CW.3 has not stated before him that accused opened the room door and came out by holding the Knife. CW.3 has stated the same in her examination-in-chief and the Investigating Officer has stated that in the statement given by CW.3 before him, she has not stated the same. So, he has stated in the evidence which he has not stated in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement and that is omission amounting to contradiction.
37. It is the specific case of the accused during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that he has not committed any offences as alleged against him. Further it is the defence of the accused that if the court come to the conclusion that he has committed the offence, in such case, his mental condition on the relevant date was not sound, he was not able to understand the things, so he is entitled for benefits 40 S.C.1358/2014 under Sec.84 of I.P.C. i.e., he was unsound mind person at the time of incident, so nothing is an offence which is done by him as at the time of doing he was unsound of mind and incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he was doing i.e., what is either wrong or contrary to law.
38. In the present case, PW.1 is the injured witness and he has stated regarding the incident. PW.1 has not stated anything regarding the motive of the accused for committing the offence. Prosecution has treated PW.1 hostile and cross- examined in respect of motive point and PW.1 has denied the motive alleged by the prosecution in the cross-examination. Further PW.1 who is the injured witness has stated that the accused was working along with him and accused was not having any ill will against him. Further PW.1 has admitted that he came to know that accused was taking treatment for mental illness. Complainant is not having any personal knowledge regarding the incident and complainant has stated that as per the instructions of the Security Officer he has signed on the complaint. Further the complainant has denied that Spot Mahazar Panchanama was drawn in his presence. 41 S.C.1358/2014 PW.4 and 3 are the eye-witnesses and they turned hostile. It is the case of prosecution that, PW.3 and 4 immediately after hearing the noise from the room of PW.1, they came and witnessed the incident and PW.3, 4 have denied the same. PW.3 has stated that she has seen the accused proceeding from the room by holding Knife and PW.3 has not stated the same in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement and the counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.3 that you have not stated the said fact before the Investigating Officer and PW.3 has denied the same. The counsel for the accused has confronted that improved portion of evidence of PW.3 to the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer has admitted that PW.3 has not stated the said fact before him. So, the omission amounts to contradiction and that part of evidence of PW.3 is inadmissible. PW.4 has not supported the case of prosecution. In the present case, prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive alleged in this case. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not stated regarding the motive alleged for committing the offence. In the present case, the Medical Officer examined by the prosecution as PW.22 has clearly 42 S.C.1358/2014 stated that since earlier to the date of incident, the accused was taking treatment for mental illness and mental condition of the accused was serious one and he was not understanding what he was doing at the time of incident. In the present case, on behalf of the prosecution Ex.P40-document came to be marked and in Ex.P40 it is clearly recited as under;
"The above mentioned patient has been admitted in the prison ward in NIMHANS and has been evaluated. He was admitted previously in November 2012, evaluated thoroughly and was started on treatment. As evidenced by previous admission and through serial mental status examinations, we are of the opinion that the patient is suffering from a serious mental disorder (Paranoid Schizophrenia) as he is having the signs and symptoms of the same (delusions and hallucinations). He is on treatment for the same at NIMHANS."
Ex.P40 which is the document produced by the prosecution clearly goes to show that since November-2012, the accused is suffering from serious mental illness and he is unable to understand the things.
39. The counsel for the accused has relied upon citation reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. Page 619 in (Case: Sanna 43 S.C.1358/2014 Eranna Vs. State of Karnataka), wherein the lordship of our Hon'ble High Court have held as under;
"(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.84, 300 and 302 - Murder trial - Plea of unsoundness of mind - Accused having previous history of lunacy - Burden shifts on prosecution to establish negatively that accused was not of unsound mind when he committed offence.
Though there is no burden cast on the prosecution to establish negatively that the accused was not of unsound mind when he committed the acts of violence resulting in the death of the person or persons murdered, yet where the accused has a previous history of mental disease or lunacy and it is revealed during the course of investigation that the accused had such previous history of mental disease or lunacy, fairness in investigation does required probing into this aspect with an approach particularly when the accused himself cannot in the very nature of the things assist in unraveling the necessary facts being in custody and may be being mentally imbalanced. Therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the investigating agency, particularly when the accused is apprehended at or about the time of the commission of the offence or shortly thereafter, to subject the accused to medical examination, at least to ensure itself that the accused was in fact a person of ordinary state of mind. If that is done, it necessiarly rules out the possibility of the accused having committed the acts of violence attributed to him on account of mental disease or lunacy. The prosecution must place all such materials that could possibly be had. The failure to subject the accused to 44 S.C.1358/2014 such medical examination immediately and to place all evidence that could be available may have, depending on facts and circumstances of a case, a serious consequence on the prosecution case when such plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial, as that may give rise to a doubt whether the act or acts of violence were committed with the requisite intention of committing a particular offence and any such failure on the part of the prosecution to collect the evidence and place before the court on the mental aspect of the accused, creates a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution and consequently the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused."
40. In the present case in hand also i.e., the evidence of PW.22 who is the Doctor examined by the prosecution, Ex.P32 to 42-documents and admissions of PW.1 and other witnesses clearly goes to show that there is a previous history of lunacy to the accused. So in view of the principles laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court, the burden shifts on the prosecution to show that on the relevant date of incident the accused was of sound mind. The facts and circumstances in the present case and that of the above cited ruling are similar, so the principles laid down in the above cited ruling of our own Hon'ble High Court is aptly applicable in this case. In the present case also burden shifts on the prosecution to show 45 S.C.1358/2014 that on the relevant time the accused was of sound mind and understanding the things what he was doing, prosecution has failed to prove the same. So, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in this case.
41. In the present case, PW.1 has also stated that he was not having any ill-will against the accused on the relevant date when he came in the room he wished the accused and accused has not responded for it and that part of evidence also goes to show that the mental status of the accused at that point was not sound and he was not understanding what he was doing. In the present case in hand also, prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive alleged by it, except the injured witnesses other eye- witnesses turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to establish that on the relevant date the accused was of sound mind. The evidence of PW.22 and Ex.P36 to 42-documents clearly goes to show that accused was suffering from serious mental illness and he was not understanding what he was doing at the time of incident. So, accused is entitled for benefit under Sec.84 of I.P.C. as he was suffering from 46 S.C.1358/2014 mental illness and not understanding what he was doing at the time of incident. As per the well settled principle of criminal law, benefit of doubt goes to the accused and in the present case also accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. So, the evidence of PW.1 to 22, Ex.P1 to 42 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
42. POINT No.2: In view of my findings point No.1 and reasons stated there, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. accused by name Shivamurthy is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.307 of I.P.C.
Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
MO.1 to 3, MO.5, MO.5(a), MO.6, MO.6(a), MO.7, MO.8 and MO.9 are worthless articles, hence ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.47 S.C.1358/2014
MO.4 is ordered to be confiscated to the state after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of April, 2016) (SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Dr.S.V.Narasimhan CW.2 29-06-2015 PW.2 K.G.Venkatanarayana CW.1 29-07-2015 PW.3 Smt.Manjunanda CW.3 29-07-2015 PW.4 S.Veena CW.4 19-08-2015 PW.5 Sunil Prasad CW.5 19-08-2015 PW.6 S.Ravi CW.7 19-08-2015 PW.7 Dr.Selvin CW.14 30-09-2015 PW.8 Mynak Ghosh Hajara CW.8 30-09-2015 PW.9 Roopa CW.11 30-09-2015 PW.10 Pichaiah CW.9 30-09-2015 PW.11 Dr.Ramesh CW.15 02-11-2015 PW.12 Dr.P.N.Prakash CW.16 02-11-2015 PW.13 Dr.Amaranarayan CW.20 18-11-2015 PW.14 Dr.Bharthi Reddy CW.17 18-11-2015 PW.15 Prathap Nayaka CW.10 18-11-2015 48 S.C.1358/2014 PW.16 Ismail CW.13 18-11-2015 PW.17 M.S.Vaidyanathan CW.19 02-12-2015 PW.18 Keshavamurthy CW.21 02-12-2015 PW.19 Ugrappan CW.22 02-12-2015 PW.20 Dr.Chandrashekar CW.24 21-12-2015 PW.21 Chandrappa Baraki CW.23 21-12-2015 PW.22 Dr.P.T.Shivakumar CW.25 01-03-2016 Documents marked for the prosecution: Ex.P1 Mahazar PW.1 29-07-2015 Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 PW.1 29-07-2015 Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.9 PW.9 30-09-2015 Ex.P2 Statement of PW.1 PW.1 30-09-2015 Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1 PW.1 30-09-2015 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.1 PW.1 30-09-2015 Ex.P3 Complaint PW.2 29-07-2015 Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.2 PW.2 29-07-2015 Ex.P4 Mahazar PW.2 29-07-2015 Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.2 PW.2 29-07-2015 Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW.5 PW.5 19-08-2015 Ex.P5 Statement of PW.3 PW.3 29-07-2015 Ex.P6 Statement of PW.4 PW.4 19-08-2015 Ex.P7 Seizure Mahazar PW.6 19-08-2015 Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.6 PW.6 30-09-2015 Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW.8 PW.8 30-09-2015 Ex.P8 Statement of PW.6 PW.6 19-08-2015 Ex.P9 Intimation of Police Station PW.7 30-09-2015 49 S.C.1358/2014 Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.7 PW.7 30-09-2015 Ex.P10 Statement of PW.8 PW.8 30-09-2015 Ex.P11 Statement of PW.11 PW.11 30-09-2015 Ex.P12 Seizure Mahazar PW.10 30-09-2015 Ex.P13 Letter dated 21-02-2013 PW.11 02-09-2015 Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW.11 PW.11 02-09-2015 Ex.P14 Letter dated 21-02-2013 PW.11 02-09-2015 Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.12 PW.11 02-11-2015 Ex.P16 Discharge Summary PW.11 02-11-2015 Ex.P17 Letter of PW.13 PW.13 18-11-2015 Ex.P18 Statement of PW.16 PW.16 18-11-2015 Ex.P19 Letter PW.17 02-12-2015 Ex.P20 Reply letter PW.17 02-12-2015 Ex.P21 Attendance extract PW.17 02-12-2015 Ex.P22 Attendance log PW.17 02-12-2015 Ex.P23 Passport of PW.19 PW.19 02-12-2015 Ex.P24 Acknowledgment PW.19 02-12-2015 Ex.P25 FSL Report PW.20 21-12-2015 Ex.P25(a) Signature of PW.20 PW.20 21-12-2015 Ex.P26 Sample Seal PW.20 21-12-2015 Ex.P26(a) Signature of PW.20 PW.20 21-12-2015 Ex.P27 FIR PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW.21 PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P28 P.F.12/2013 PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P29 Statement of accused PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P30 P.F.No.13/2013 PW.21 21-12-2015 50 S.C.1358/2014 Ex.P31 P.F.No.14/2013 PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P32 Letter to Doctor PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P33 P.F.No.17/2013 PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P34 P.F.No.18/2013 PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P35 Documents sent to FSL PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P36 Memo from PW.21 PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P37 Requisition given by I.O. PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P38 Requisition given by I.O. PW.21 21-12-2015 Ex.P39 Letter to Chinmaya Hospital PW.21 22-02-2016 Ex.P39(a) Signature of PW.21 PW.21 22-02-2016 Ex.P39(b) Endorsement of Chinmaya PW.21 22-02-2016 Hospital Ex.P40 Letter from NIMHANS PW.21 22-02-2016 Ex.P41 Letter from NIMHANS PW.21 22-02-2016 Ex.P41(a) Signature of PW.22 PW.22 22-02-2016 Ex.P42 Letter to NAL Director PW.21 22-02-2016
Material objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Sweater of CW.2
MO.2 Shirt of CW.2
MO.3 Pant of CW.2
MO.4 Knife
MO.5 Dry blood
MO.6 Mud mixed blood
MO.5(a) Shirt belongs to accused
MO.6(b) Pant belongs to accused
51 S.C.1358/2014
MO.7 Chappal belongs to accused
MO.8 Chappal belongs to accused
MO.9 Blood sample
Witness examined, documents and material objects marked for the accused:
- Nil -
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.