Bangalore District Court
Parappana Agarahara Ps vs A1 Rohit Sharma on 6 December, 2025
KABC010201282020
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 6th day of December 2025.
S.C.No.884/2020
COMPLAINANT: State by
Parappana Agrahara Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Rohit Sharma,
S/o.Late Kishan Sharma,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at.No.7,
C/o.Shankarappa,
Shankarappa Layout,
Rayasandra Village,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Huskur Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.L.K.N., Advocate)
2 S.C.No.884/2020
2. Sanjay Chouhan,
S/o.Baburam Chouhan,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at.No.7,
C/o.Shankarappa,
Shankarappa Layout,
Rayasandra Village,
' Sarjapura Hobli,
Huskur Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.L., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 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 against the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the offences alleged against them are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, it was made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3 S.C.No.884/20203. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that from 2.08.2020 the accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing with Jaihind Yadav (deceased) at Sheet House No.7, Shankarappa Layout, Sarjapura, Anekal Taluk. All the 3 were working in the same place. The deceased and accused persons had a fight as the deceased had asked the accused persons to move out of the rented premises. Thereafter on 3.08.2020 between 8-00 and 9-00 p.m., in the presence of C.W.8-Vijay Kumar, the deceased and accused had a fight and at 9-00 p.m., after C.W.8 went away. At about 10-30 p.m., the accused persons with a common intention to commit the murder assaulted him with a iron rod. When the Jaihind Yadav collapsed on the floor, then the accused No.2 punched on his face and at 11-00 p.m., the accused persons committed the murder of Jaihind Yadav.
Thereafter in the mid night at 1-30 a.m., with a common intention to destroy the evidence and hide the dead body, they carried the dead body to Rayasandra Lake situated at a 4 S.C.No.884/2020 distance of 500 mtrs., from their house. Then they tied a stone to the waist of the dead body with the jeans pant of the deceased and threw the dead body into the lake. Thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
4. On securing the presence of the accused Nos.1 and 2, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses from P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked 36 documents from Exs.P.1 to 36 and M.Os.1 to 10. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have chosen not to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments.
5 S.C.No.884/20206. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 & 2 & deceased were residing in Sheet House No.7, situated at Shankarappa Layout, Sarjapura, Anekal Taluk and on 3.08.2020 the accused had picked up quarrel with deceased as the deceased had told the accused to move out from the rented house and being enraged by the same, at about 10-30 p.m., the accused with a common intention to commit the murder of deceased had assaulted him with iron rod and when the deceased collapsed on the floor, the accused No.2 punched on his face and at 11-00 p.m., the accused have committed the murder of deceased and thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, after committing the murder of Jaihind Yadav, the accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention of disappearance of evidence, have carried the dead body to Rayasandra Lake and tied a stone on the waist of the dead body with 6 S.C.No.884/2020 the pant of deceased and threw it into the lake and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative,
POINT No.2 - Negative,
POINT No.2 - As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 & 2 : Since both these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that from 2.08.2020 the accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing with Jaihind Yadav (deceased) at Sheet House No.7, Shankarappa Layout, Sarjapura, Anekal Taluk. All the 3 were working in the same place. The deceased and accused persons had a fight as the deceased had asked the accused persons to move out of the rented premises. Thereafter on 7 S.C.No.884/2020 3.08.2020 between 8-00 and 9-00 p.m., in the presence of C.W.8-Vijay Kumar, the deceased and accused had a fight and at 9-00 p.m., after C.W.8 went away. At about 10-30 p.m., the accused persons with a common intention to commit the murder assaulted him with a iron rod. When the Jaihind Yadav collapsed on the floor, then the accused No.2 punched on his face and at 11-00 p.m., the accused persons committed the murder of Jaihind Yadav. Thereafter in the mid night at 1-30 a.m., with a common intention to destroy the evidence and hide the dead body, they carried the dead body to Rayasandra Lake situated at a distance of 500 mtrs., from their house. Then they tied a stone to the waist of the dead body with the jeans pant of the deceased and threw the dead body into the lake. Thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Shyamasundara has identified his signature on the Inquest Mahazar (Ex.P.1). He stated that on 3.08.2020 when he had been to St. John's Hospital, the dead body of Jaihind was in the hospital and the police obtained his signature. At 8 S.C.No.884/2020 that time, C.Ws.5 and 6 were present along with him. After the inquest the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
Here itself it is necessary to note that the witness has not subjected himself for further examination in chief. As such his evidence has been discarded.
11. P.W.2-Dr.Marlyn Delighte has stated that on 3.09.2020 she had received the requisition from Parappana Agrahara Police Station to conduct post mortem on the dead body aged about 28 years in Crime No.223/2020. She has given the details of the observations made by her in the P.M.Report (Ex.P.2). She stated that she handed over the clothes of the deceased and a stone which was tied to the waist of the dead body to the FSL. She has identified the sample seal (Ex.P.3). She has identified the clothes i.e., shirt (M.O.1), cotton vest (M.O.2), Amul Cotton trunks (M.O.3), Blue Denim Jeans (M.O.4). She stated that if a person is hit with a rod on his head, there is a possibility of him to die. She has identified the stone (M.O.5). She stated that if a person is assaulted with a stone, the injury stated in the P.M.Report may be caused.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate 9 S.C.No.884/2020 for the accused, it is elicited that when the dead body was given for the post mortem, the police had not informed her about the reason for the death. She has denied the suggestion that without the FSL Report, she cannot state the reason for the death. She has stated that as there were many injuries on the dead body, it could not have been caused when a stone in the water had hit the body. She stated that the injuries was caused by an assault and there were not due to any accident. She has denied the suggestion that the injury was caused as the deceased had jumped into the water and had drown. It is elicited that the deceased had sustained injuries even prior to his death. She has denied the suggestion that she has not prepared the P.M.Report. She has denied the suggestion that she has created the P.M.Report as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer.
12. P.W.3-Sri.Chandrika Prasad Rao has identified his signature on the mahazar (Ex.P.6) as per Ex.P.6(a). He stated that on 2.09.2020 between 1- 30 to 2-30 p.m., he signed the mahazar near Naganathapura Lake and at the time of mahazar, C.Ws.1, 2 and police were present. He stated that the police removed the dead body of Jaihind from 10 S.C.No.884/2020 the lake. He stated that he had identified the dead body. The face had swollen and the eyes had gone inside and the tongue had come out. Also there were injuries on the head, neck and on the eyebrow caused by a weapon. The dead body was smelling. There was jeans pant, red colour underwear, sando banian, shirt and also he can identify the stone which was tied to the waist of the deceased. He stated that C.Ws.1 and 2 told that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the murder and have thrown the body. The police shifted the dead body to St. John's Hospital. He has identified the clothes on the dead body and the stone which are already marked as M.Os.1 to 5.
Here itself it is necessary to note that the witness has not subjected himself for further examination in chief. As such his evidence has been discarded.
13. P.W.4-Sri.Prakash Rai, A.S.I., has stated that on 13.09.2020 as per the instructions of Sri.Manjunath, P.S.I., after the P.M.Examination, he handed over the dead body to the family of the deceased and received the acknowledgment (Ex.P.4). He then gave a report (Ex.P.8).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate 11 S.C.No.884/2020 for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he does not know anything about the case and he is deposing falsely before the court as per the instructions of his higher officials. He admitted that along with the dead body, he had given the stone to the hospital.
14. P.W.5-Sri.Mahendra.T.N. Head Constable has stated that on 6.10.2020 as per the instructions of the Police Inspector, he went to FSL, Madiwala and received the FSL Report and the property which was sealed.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has not received any FSL Report, but he is deposing falsely before the court.
15. P.W.6-Sri.Manjunath Lamani, Head Constable has stated that on 4.09.2020 C.W.21 had deputed him along with C.Ws.10, 12 and 13 to trace the accused. At about 12-45 near Rayasandra Main Road, they apprehended the accused at 1-00 clock, they produced the accused before C.W.21. He has identified the accused present before the court.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that 12 S.C.No.884/2020 even though he had not apprehended the accused, he is deposing falsely before the court.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Avinash Dushad has not identified his signature on the notice and mahazar & on material objects.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.11.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Ravindra has identified his signature on the notice (Ex.P.12) and mahazar (Ex.P.13). He stated that he does not know as to what is written in the documents. He stated that many days ago he signed those documents in Bengaluru, but does not remember the place where he signed.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited in support of the 13 S.C.No.884/2020 prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.15.
18. P.W.9-Sri.Raju Mouya who has identified his signature on the notice (Ex.P.16), mahazar (Ex.P.17) and sample seal (Ex.P.18). He has not identified the accused. He stated that he does not know as to who they are. He stated that he signed the documents in the Police Station, but does not know the date. He stated that the police did not seize any property in his presence nor he has given any property to the police. He stated that he went to the police station along with C.W.1. He stated that he does not know anything about the case. He has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.19.
19. P.W.10-Sri.Baliram has identified his signatures on the notice (Ex.P.20), mahazar (Ex.P.17) and sample seal (Ex.P.18) as per 14 S.C.No.884/2020 Exs.P.20(a), 17(a) and 18(a). He has not identified the accused persons present before the court. He stated that he signed the documents in the Police Station, but does not know the date. He stated that the police did not seize any property in his presence nor he has given any property to the police. He stated that he went to the police station along with C.W.1. He stated that he does not know anything about the case. He has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case. He has denied having given statement to the police as per Ex.P.21.
20. P.W.11-Sri.Manjunath.P. P.S.I., has stated that on 2.09.2020 C.W.9 had written down the complaint (Ex.P.22) which was told by C.W.1 in Hindi. He has identified his signature of the deceased C.W.1 on the complaint (Ex.P.22(b). He then registered the FIR (Ex.P.23). On the same day he issued notice to C.Ws.2 & 3 and at the place shown by C.W.1 i.e., 15 S.C.No.884/2020 Rayasandra Lake, in the presence of panchas he conducted the mahazar (Ex.P.6). At that time they traced the dead body of Jaihind Yadav in the lake which was identified by C.W.1. The dead body was half rotten, then shifted the dead body to St. John's Hospital. He has identified the photographs of the deceased person (Exs.P.25 and 26). On 3.09.2020 in the presence of C.Ws.4, 5 and 6, he conducted the inquest mahazar (Ex.P.1). After the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. On 4.09.2020 C.Ws.10 to 13 apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2 at 12-45 p.m., at Rayasandra Main Road and produced them before him and he arrested them and recorded their voluntary statements (Exs.P.29 and 30). As the accused gave their statements in Hindi, it translated into Kannada. They had stated in their statement that if they are taken they will show the place where they committed murder and also they will show the mobile, purse, gunny bag and iron rod. As per the information given by the accused, C.Ws.14 and 15 were called the Police Station where notice was given to them. At 4-30 they led the Police Station along with the panchas to Rayasandra. The vehicle was driven to the place told by the accused, while they were going in 16 S.C.No.884/2020 Shankarappa Layout, Rayasandra Grama, the accused asked them to stop the vehicle at 4-40 p.m. The accused showed them a sheet house and informed that they along with the deceased were living there and in the very same house they had killed him. The accused took them inside the house and showed the place where they had committed the murder. There were blood stains on the wall and nearby. They locked the room, so that the FSL team could examine the same. From there while they were going the accused telling the direction to the driver, while going near the bank of Rayasandra, the accused asked to stop the vehicle at a spot, it was 5-20 p.m., and all of them got down from the vehicle. The accused took them on a path towards bank of Rayasandra lake where they showed them a stone that was being used to wash the clothes and informed them that they had tied that stone to the waist of the deceased with the jeans pant and had thrown him into the water. Also informed that the mobile phone, purse and gunny bag which was used to carry the deceased was tied with a stone and was thrown into the water. It was 6-00 p.m., and they conducted the mahazar. The accused by walk took them to the western direction and showed them a spot stating that after killing 17 S.C.No.884/2020 the deceased at the spot, they had hidden the rod and the cloth which was used to wipe the blood in the bushes and produced the articles before them. He has identified the rod (M.O.6), blood stained towel (M.O.7), one sando banian (M.O.8), green coloured flower design house cleaning cloth (M.O.9). He stated that the said articles were packed separately and seal "SKB" was affixed on it. At 9-15 p.m., with the help of emergency light the mahazar was typed by his staff and the print out was taken from a portable printer. The panchas and the accused signed the mahazar. On the same day he recorded the statement of witnesses (C.Ws.10 to
15). He gave a requisition (Ex.P.32) to the FSL to visit the spot and conduct the examination. On 14.09.2020 C.W.17 along with P.M.Report (Ex.P.33) brought the clothes of the deceased person and 10 articles. The said articles were mentioned in P.F.No.94/2020 (Ex.P.34) and forwarded it to the court. He has identified M.Os.1 to 5. On 14.09.2021 as the Doctor had given the sternal, so in the presence of panchas (C.Ws.18 and 19 and C.W.1) they collected the water of the lake in a bottle by conducting mahazar (Ex.P.30). The water bottle was mentioned in P.F.No.94A/2020 (Ex.P.35) and forwarded the same to the court. He has 18 S.C.No.884/2020 identified 2 ltrs., of water bottle (M.O.10). On the same day he recorded the statements of C.Ws.18 and 19. For further investigation he handed over the case file to C W.22.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he admitted that when C.W.1 gave the complaint he was not knowing about the death. He admitted that only after receiving the complaint he came to know about securing the dead body. He has denied the suggestion that even before him C.W.1 had seen the dead body and had lodged the complaint. It is elicited that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. It is elicited that he has not verified with C.W.1 as to why he did not lodge the complaint on 30.08.2020 though the deceased had went missing on that day. He has denied the suggestion that C.W.1 did not lodge the the complaint (Ex.P.22). He has denied the suggestion that he has created the complaint as per his convenience. It is stated that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. It is elicited that he had not secured the dog squad for the inspection. He has denied the suggestion that he has created the mahazars in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that the accused were not arrested, but they were called to the Police Station for enquiry 19 S.C.No.884/2020 and were arrested on false grounds. He has denied the suggestion that M.O.6-Rod has been created for this case. It is elicited that he has not furnished the gunny bag which is said to have been used by the accused to carry the dead body. He has denied the suggestion that the voluntary statements of the accused were created by him. He has denied the suggestion that even though he has not conducted any investigation, he has created all the documents and property in the Police Station and he is deposing falsely against the accused persons.
21. P.W.12-Sri.Sandeep.S. Police Inspector has stated that on 14.09.2020 he received the case file from C.W.21. On 16.10.2020 he sent the property to the FSL and received the acknowledgment (Ex.P.36). He filed the charge sheet awaiting the FSL Report. On 3.09.2020 he received the FSL Reports (Exs.P.9 and 10).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has denied the suggestion that he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused.
22. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it is at first 20 S.C.No.884/2020 necessary to note that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Also it is pertinent to note that the complainant who is said to be the brother of deceased has not been examined before the court, as he has died before commencement of trial. Further the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 as mahazar witnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution case. Also it is pertinent to note that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 has been discarded as these witnesses have not subjected themselves for further examination in chief. It is also pertinent to note that it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused and deceased were residing in the same house, but to prove the same, the prosecution has not made any efforts to examine any of the neighbours or the landlord to corroborate the contention taken by the prosecution.
23. It is further alleged that the FSL Team had collected the samples from the house where the accused had committed the murder of deceased. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the FSL Report (Ex.P.10). In the said report under the result of examination, it says that the human blood of 'O' group was traced. But there is no corroborating 21 S.C.No.884/2020 evidence placed before the court to establish that the blood group of the deceased was 'O' group. The Investigating Officer has chosen not to compare the DNA of C.W.1 (brother of the deceased) with the articles found in the room so as to enable this court to come to a conclusion that the blood samples founds in the house of the accused belongs to the deceased.
24. It is further case of the prosecution that the dead body was taken out from Rayasandra Lake and the stone was tied to the waist of the dead body. The court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the police in this regard. Also the P.M.Report corroborate that the dead body was in the water and also has mentioned about the stone. When that being so, the question before the court as to whether the prosecution has placed convincing material before the court to establish that the accused had committed the murder and thrown the body to the lake. The last seen person C.W.8 has not been examined. As discussed supra, there is no convincing, corroborating and cogent evidence placed before the court to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove 22 S.C.No.884/2020 beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
25. POINT No.3: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 and 2 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 offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled, subject to appeal.
M.Os.1 to 10 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of December 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.23 S.C.No.884/2020
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Shyam Sundar P.W.2 Dr.Merlin Delighte P.W.3 Chandrika Prasad Rao P.W.4 Prakash.R. P.W.5 Mahendra.T.M. P.W.6 Manjunatha Lamani P.W.7 Avanish Dushad P.W.8 Ravinder P.W.9 Raju Mourya P.W.10 Baliram P.W.11 Manjunath.P. P.W.12 Sandeep.S.
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.2 P.M.Report
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3 Sample Seal
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4 Form No.146(1)
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.4(c) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.5 Form No.146(2)
Ex.P.6 Mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.7 Notice
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.8 Report of P.W.4
24 S.C.No.884/2020
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.9 FSL Report
Ex.P.10 FSL Report
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.7 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.12 Notice
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.13 Mahazar
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.13(c) Signature of C.W.1
Ex.P.14 Sample Seal
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.p.14(b) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.15 Statement of P.W.8 (relevant portion)
Ex.P.16 Notice
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.17 Mahazar
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.17(b) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.17(c) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.17(d) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.17(e) Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.18 Sample Seal Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.18(b) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.18(c) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.18(d) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.18(e) Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.19 Statement of P.W.9 (relevant portion) Ex.P.20 Notice Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.10 Ex.P.21 Statement of P.W.10 (relevant portion) Ex.P.22 Complaint Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of deceased C.W.1 Ex.P.23 F.I.R.
Ex.P.24 Notice
25 S.C.No.884/2020
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.25 Photo
Ex.P.26 Photo
Ex.P.27 Notice
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.28 Acknowledgment for having received
the dead body
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.29 Voluntary statement of accused No.1
(relevant portion)
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.30 Voluntary statement of accused No.2 (relevant portion) Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.30(b) Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.31 Property Form Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.32 Requisition Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.33 Report of C.W.17 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.34 Property Form Ex.P.34(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.35 Property Form Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.36 Passport Letter List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
M.O.1 Shirt
M.O.2 Cotton Vest
M.O.3 Cotton Trunk
M.O.4 Jeans Pant
M.O.5 Stone
M.O.6 Rod
26 S.C.No.884/2020
M.O.7 Turkey Towel
M.O.8 Banian
M.O.9 Cloth
M.O.10 2 ltr. Bottle
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2025.12.06
15:26:49
+0530