Bangalore District Court
Parappana Agrahara Ps vs A1 Ramesh on 19 November, 2025
KABC010008962021
IN THE COURT OF LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59)
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, LL.B, PGDHRL
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.29/2021
Complainant : State of Karnataka
By Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
- VS -
Accused No.1 : Ramesh,
S/o. Late Ramaswamy,
53 years,
R/o. No.71, 10th A Cross,
Shivareddy Layout,
Naganathapura, Electronic City
Post, Bengaluru-100.
Accused No.2 : Rishi,
S/o. Ramesh,
2 S.C.No.29/2021
28 years,
R/o. No.71, 10th A Cross,
Shivareddy Layout,
Naganathapura, Electronic City
Post, Bengaluru-100.
Accused No.3 : Bharath,
S/o. Ramesh,
25 years,
R/o. No.71, 10th A Cross,
Shivareddy Layout,
Naganathapura, Electronic City
Post, Bengaluru-100.
Accused No.4 : Smt.Lakshmi,
W/o. Ramesh,
48 years,
No.71, 10th A Cross, Shivareddy
Layout, Naganathapura,
Electronic City Post,
Bengaluru-100.
(By Sri.Channappa G
Harasur.G.H., Adv.)
***
Date of offence : 23.08.2020.
Date of report of offence : 24.08.2020.
Name of the complainant : Smt.Nagini,
W/o. Muniraju.
Date of commencement of : 25.03.2023.
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence : 07.08.2025.
3 S.C.No.29/2021
Offences complained of : U/S.302 and 115 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.1 to 3 are
convicted for the
offence punishable
under Sec.299 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC.
Accused No.4 is
acquitted for the offence
punishable under
Section 115 r/w Sec.34
of IPC.
***
JUDGMENT
The present case emanates from the first information statement of Smt.Nagini W/o. Muniraju on 24.08.2020 at 2.30 a.m in the Sparsh Hospital and registered in Crime No.214/2020.
2. The crux of the case of the prosecution in a nut shell could be summarised as follows;
2a) The informant claims to be residing in House No.68, Old Bengaluru, English School Road, Naganathapura Shivareddy Layout along with her husband and children for the past 13 years. The 4 S.C.No.29/2021 husband of the informant Sri.Muniraju is said to be carrying on real estate business and the informant claims to be a housewife. The informant claims to be married about 17 years ago and has four children. They are Kum.Niranjini, 15 years, Kum.Nirusha, 14 years, Kum.Manthara, 13 years and Kumar Kanish, 7 years, who are said to be pursuing education. The house in which the informant and her family are residing is said to be their own house. The accused Sri.Ramesh and his family are said to be residing in a house situated opposite to the house of the informant for sufficiently long time. The accused are said to have been causing trouble to the informant and her family for petty or no reasons. About a year prior to the present incident, Sri.Ramesh is alleged to have hit the dog being reared by the informant. The informant and her husband had gone to ask Sri.Ramesh as to why he had bit their dog when Sri.Ramesh is alleged to have picked up quarrel and had sustained injury on his head. Sri.Ramesh had then lodged false information with the police on the basis of which a case came to be registered. The husband of the informant was remanded to judicial custody and was enlarged on bail thereafter.
5 S.C.No.29/20212b) The informant and her family had then abstained from having any sort of contact with the accused. Yet the accused are alleged to have continued to pick up quarrel with the informant and her family on one or the other pretext unnecessarily. In this regard the informant claims to have lodged information with the Police. Sri.Ramesh was called to the Police Station and warned from causing trouble to the informant and her family. Even after this, the accused had continued to quarrel with the informant and her family on one or the other pretext. The accused are alleged to have gone to the extent of asserting that, they had support of Sri.Shivareddy and his son Sri Raghu and therefore, the family of informant could not do anything to them.
2c) As usual the husband of the informant, who had gone on work is said to have returned home on 23.08.2020 at 9.00 p.m,. when Sri.Ramesh, his wife along with their children are alleged to have come out of their house scolding what all came on their tongue. The informant claims to have then persuaded her husband that if he stayed in the house the quarrel would escalate and hence, it would be better if he went out. Thereafter, the friends of her husband Sri.Gaja and Sri.Srinivas had 6 S.C.No.29/2021 come to their house and took the husband of the informant away along with them. Sri.Ramesh and the members of his family still continued scolding and the informant had closed the front doors behind her and went inside the house. After about 30 minutes, the Police are said to have come to the house of the informant looking out for her husband in respect of the alleged quarrel. The informant claims to have informed the Police that, her husband had gone out and would inform them as soon as he would return home. The informant claims to have narrated the quarrel by Sri.Ramesh and his family. The husband had then called up the informant to inform her that, he would be coming late and asked them to have their dinner and go to bed. The informant and her children had dinner and were waiting for her husband. At about 11.55 p.m., the informant had heard sounds of quarrel again and had come out only to see Sri.Ramesh and his sons were found to be quarreling with the husband of the informant. The informant was begging with Sri.Ramesh and his sons to abstain from continuing with quarrel. At that time, the eldest son of Sri.Ramesh namely Sri.Rishi had come with matchet and shouted that, the deceased must not be spared and must be finished. At that time, 7 S.C.No.29/2021 Sri.Ramesh and his another son namely Sri.Bharath are alleged to have held the hands of the deceased and Sri.Ramesh is alleged to have asked his eldest son Sri.Rishi to attack. Sri.Rishi had then given a blow on the posterior side of the head of the deceased who is said to have collapsed. At that time, the informant and her children claim to have proceeded to hold the deceased, when Sri.Ramesh is alleged to have threatened them that, it was the turn of the deceased and if anybody dared to touch them, they would also see the fate as the deceased. The accused had left the place and the informant had gathered people from the neighborhood and the deceased was shifted to the nearby Blossom Hospital. The doctors at the Blossom Hospital had referred the deceased to a hospital with better facilities. The sister of the informant Smt.Shalini and her husband Sri.Bhaskar had assisted in shifting the deceased to Sparsh Hospital in an ambulance. The deceased was being treated as an inpatient at the time when this information was given to the police. The informant had narrated the story to Sri.Murugesh. who had reduced it into writing and the informant had affixed her signature on the first information statement.
8 S.C.No.29/20213. The learned IX ACMM, Bengaluru City, on receipt of the final report from the Police, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused and registered a case in C.C.No.15582/2020. Complied with the requirements under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter by an order dated 05.01.2021, committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru, under Section 209 of Cr.PC.
4. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on receipt of the records from the learned IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, registered the case in S.C.No.29/2021 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. Accused appeared before the Court through their counsel and released on bail.
5. By virtue of the order of the learned IX ACMM, Bengaluru, on 22.12.2020, a split up case in C.C.No.20630/2020 came to be registered against accused No.4. By an order dated 01.03.2021, the learned trial Court committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Court, Bengaluru, under Section 209 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, a 9 S.C.No.29/2021 case against accused No.4 came to be registered in SC No.407/2021. By virtue of the order of this Court dated 15.07.2025 in S.C.No.407/2021, it is directed the accused No.4 to appear in SC No.29/2021.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court has framed the charge against accused, read over and explained the same in the language known to them and they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
7. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has got examined 15 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-21 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 and got marked MO.1 to MO.3. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 got marked.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused have taken a plea of total denial and have not led any defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the accused. Perused the materials placed on record.
10 S.C.No.29/202110. The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the following rulings:
1. AIR 2022 SC 4810 - Ravi Sharma Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another.
2. AIR 2001 SC 2408 - State of M.P. Vs Surpa.
3. (2009) 11 SCC 334 - Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. (2001) 3 SCC 147 - State of Rajasthan Vs Teja Singh and others.
5. AIR 2025 SC 1680. (AIR Online 2025 SC 188) - Arun Vs State of Madhya Pradesh.
6. (2018) 9 SCC 614 - State of Karnataka Vs P.Ravikumar alias Ravi and others.
7. (2018) 9 SCC 612 - State of Karnataka Vs A.B.Mahesha and others.
8. AIR 2024 SC (CRI) 238 (AIR Online 2023 SC 954.
9. AIR 2025 SC 2635.
10. AIR 2022 SC 3726 - Ramabora alias Ramaboraiah and another Vs State of Karnataka.
11. AIR 2022 SC 3765 (AIR Online 2022 SC 1247) -
Khema alias Khem Chandra etc. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
12. AIR 2024 SC 397 - Sekaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu.
13. AIR 2024 SC 5286 - Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar Vs State of Maharashtra.
11 S.C.No.29/202114. 2025 (2) AKR 668 - K.P.Boregowda alias Shashi Vs State of Karnataka.
15. 2025 CRI.L.J.1614 - Sunil Yadav Vs State of Bihar. 16 Commentary on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology.
17 Police Manual.
I have gone through the same.
11. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, on 30.07.2019 in between 9 to 10 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Parappanaha Agrahara Police Station, accused Nos.1 to 3 made galata with deceased Muniyan @ Muniraju and assaulted on his head with an iron matchet and committed murder of Muniyan and thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 committed an offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that, on 30.07.2019 in between 9 to 10 p.m., when A1 to A3 making galata with deceased, accused No.4 with common intention abetted and instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 by stating that not to leave the deceased Muniyan 12 S.C.No.29/2021 and due to such abatement, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted with an iron matchet and committed murder of Muniyan and thereby accused No.4 has committed an offence punishable under Sec.115 r/w Sec.34 f IPC ?
3. What Order ?
12. My findings on the above points are:-
Point No.1 : As per the final order,
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
13. Points Nos.1 & 2: PW.1 Smt.Nagini had
deposed before the Court on 25.03.2023 on oath stating that, CWs.2 to 4 were her children, CW.5 was a friend of her husband and she had acquaintances with CW.9. CW.11 is the husband of the sister of this witness and CW.16 is the sister of this witness. The witness claims to have been married to the deceased 17 years ago and the couple claim to have had four children, three daughters and a son. The couple with her children had been living for over 13 years in house No.68, Old Bengaluru, School Road, Naganathapura. The house of the accused is said 13 S.C.No.29/2021 to be situated in front of the house of this witness. The witness had disclosed that they had a dog that used to bark at the passing on the road across the house the informant. Sri.Ramesh is said to have hit the dog with a stick. The deceased had asked the first accused Sri.Ramesh as to why he had hit the dog, the first accused had picked up quarrel with the informant and her husband. The first accused is said to have fallen while quarreling with this witness voluntarily and is alleged to have lodged false case against this witness and her husband. The husband of this witness was even sent to jail and thereafter was enlarged on bail. The informant and her family had remained silent within the four walls of their house. But the accused are alleged to have continued to use vulgar languages against the deceased and his family. The informant claims that, an information was lodged with the police regarding the conduct of the accused. The police are said to have called the accused to the police station and warned them.
14. PW.1 Smt.Nagini had further deposed that, On 23.08.2020, the deceased had left the house for work at 7.00 a.m and had returned home at 8.30 p.m. even 14 S.C.No.29/2021 while, the deceased had returned home. The entire family of the accused were standing along with the first accused. The informant had come out of the house and requested the accused not to engage in hurling vulgar languages against her husband and had taken her husband into the house. The first accused had continued to hurl vulgar languages without interruption. The informant claims to have pursuaded her husband to go out of the house. The friends of Sri.Gaja and Sri.Srinivasa were called and the deceased had left the house with them on the motor cycle. At about 10.00 p.m., the police are said to have come to the house of this witness and inquired as to the whereabouts of her husband and asked her to inform them as soon as he returned home. The deceased is said to have called this witness to inform her that, he would be returning late in the night and asked her to have dinner along with her children and go to bed. However, this witness claims to be waiting for the return of her husband. At about 11.55 p.m., this witness claims to heard dog barking. The informant claims to have come out of the house along with her children and found the accused quarreling with the deceased. The second accused is said to have brought a matchet (machchu) from his house and hit the 15 S.C.No.29/2021 deceased on the head. The deceased had collapsed and when this witness and her children had proceeded to hold the deceased, the second accused showing the matchet had threatened this witness and her children. The accused are alleged to have threatened the people from the neighborhood and hence, none of them had come to the assistance of this witness. At that time, an employee in Zomato had come on a two wheeler, who is said to have taken the deceased to the hospital with the assistance of Sri.Mani. The deceased was initially taken to the Blossom Hospital and later on, the sister of this witness Smt.Shalini and her husband Sri.Bhaskar had shifted the deceased on an ambulance to the Sparsh Hospital. The deceased was being treated at the Sparsh Hospital and he was unconscious. The police are said to have come to the hospital and this witness claims to have made statement regarding the incident. The witness had identified her signature on the first information statement. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement and Ex.P.1 (a) is the signature.
15. PW.1 Smt.Nagini had further deposed that, on 24.08.2020, the police are said to have come near the spot and this witness claims to be there at the spot. The 16 S.C.No.29/2021 police on this witness showing the spot, where the incident had occurred in the presence of Sri.Muruga and Sri.Bhaskar are said to have drawn spot panchanama. Ex.P.2 is the spot panchanama and Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the witness. The deceased was found in a very deteriorating stage and was shifted to the Blossom Hospital. The deceased was declared dead on 13.09.2020 at 7.45 p.m. The witness claims to have made a further statement in this regard to the police.
16. Ex.P.3 are the photographs of the deceased identified by this witness PW.1. Ex.P.4 is the acknowledgment for having received the mortal remains of the deceased after the autopsy. Ex.P.4(a) is the signature of this witness. The witness had identified the matchet marked as MO.1, Sample of blood stained mud at the spot and sample of mud were identified as M.O.2 and 3. They were in a bottle sealed with white cloth. The witness had identified the accused before the Court.
17. During the cross examination, it was elicited through this witness PW.1 that, Sri.Kannan was the father of this witness and she had known the accused for about 14-15 years. The accused were living in that house much prior to this witness and her family had 17 S.C.No.29/2021 come there to live. The accused had a bore-well in their premises and were carrying on business of water services. The witness had denied the suggestion that, her family had also used the services from the accused. The witness had denied the suggestion that, her father was also real estate agent and on the request of the father of this witness, the accused had provided water facility to the family of this witness. The witness admits that, her husband the deceased was carrying on real estate business and volunteers to state that, he was carrying on the business under Sri.Shivareddy and his son Sri.Raghu and thereafter had started to carry on the business independently. The witness had admitted that, there was a quarrel between Sri.Raghu S/o Shivareddy and the deceased and this witness and her husband had lodged a case against Sri.Raghu. There was quarrel between the deceased and Sri.Shivareddy and his son Sri.Raghu on account of differences between the accused and the deceased and the accused abandoning the business under Sri.Shivareddy. The witness had denied the suggestion that, the deceased had misused 3 sites belonging to Sri.Shivareddy. The deceased had abandoned Sri.Shivareddy and was carrying on the real estate business with his brother Sri.Kumar. The 18 S.C.No.29/2021 deceased had not carried on business with Sri.Shekar Reddy, but had carried on business with Krishnareddy and had acquaintances with Sri.Shekar Reddy. The deceased had not encroached upon the sites. There is a straight road of about 1 km, which is 25 ft wide in front of the house of this witness. There is a road leading to Sri.Nagamuneshwar Temple in front of the gate of this witness.
18. The witness PW.1 is found to admit that, the site where the house of the accused is built was a corner site. However, the witness had denied that, the deceased and the father of this witness were making efforts persuading the accused to sell their properties. The witness is found to have admitted that, the building where the accused have their house is not complete. CW.16 is admitted to be the younger sister of the deceased and their house is situated at Thilaknagar. The witness does not remember the phone number of CW.16, but the last two digits were 53. There is a milk and curds parlour, Lakshmi Meghana tailoring shop about 30 ft and behind the shop is a new house under construction that belongs to Sri.Murugan. There were vehicles plying on the road in front of the house of this 19 S.C.No.29/2021 witness at the time when the alleged incident had taken place. There was a house that was later on converted to a SLV Tiffin Center and by the side of this Tiffin Center, there is a Dev Clinic. Janani stores is situated by the side of Dev Clinic.
19. It was also brought about through this witness PW.1 that, there was a case in Crime No.227/2019 against the deceased and her brother registered in the Parappana Agrahara police station for attempting to murder the first accused and assaulting his wife. The case was still under trial. The witness PW.1 had also admitted that, her husband would get angry if anybody had picked up quarrel with him. Sri.Kuppuswamy is admitted to be the father-in-law is a drunkard. The relationship between Sri.Kuppuswamy and the deceased was not in harmony. The witness PW.1 admits that, the accused had removed the sheds in their property and were preparing to put up structures. However, the witness had denied that, their family was involved in influencing the BBMP Authorities to restrain the accused from continuing with putting up construction. One Sri.Gym Babu is the councilor from BJP and the deceased was a congress worker and the 20 S.C.No.29/2021 deceased, Sri.Gym Babu and Sri.Shekar Reddy had together negotiated for settlement which is not within the knowledge of this witness. PW.1 Smt.Nagini had further deposed that, the quarrel began when the deceased was opening the gates of their house and a suggestion is made to this witness had the deceased failed to come out from the house, the alleged incident would not have happened, but for the deceased coming out of the house ignoring the advise of this witness. Therefore, it is clear that, the unfortunate incident had occurred on account
20. PW.2 Kumari Niranjini, daughter of CW.1 and the deceased had deposed on 7.08.2023 narrating the relationship amongst CWs.1, 3 and 4. CWs.3 and 4 are said to be the sisters of this witness. CW.5 is said to be a friend of the deceased. The witness states to have known the accused whose house is situated in front of the house of this witness. The deceased is said to be carrying on real estate business. The witness had narrated the story similar to CW.1. In so far as the attack is concerned, this witness is found to have asserted while the accused nos.1, 3 and 4 were quarreling and using vulgar languages, it was the 21 S.C.No.29/2021 second accused, who had gone into their house came back with a matchet and attacked the deceased from behind, while the first and the third accused held the deceased by hand. It was elicited through this witness that, the police had come to the house of this witness, while her father was not in the house and had gone out with his friends. The witness had denied the suggestion that, she had stated before the investigating officer that, her sister and mother had only gone out of the house on hearing barking of dogs. This statement was a contradiction in the previous statement recorded during investigation. However, on account of oversight, it was not marked.
21. The witness PW.2 is found to have denied the suggestion that, she had made a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court on oath that, her father was taken in an ambulance to the Blossom Hospital half the way. The witness had not stated that, the second accused had also threatened this witness showing matchet during her examination-in-chief, which the witness had failed to recall, but admits of having made this statement before the Court on oath under Section 164 of the Code of 22 S.C.No.29/2021 Criminal Procedure. The statement that "appa Ramesh"
was sought to be interpreted as that this witness was cared for by the first accused as his own daughter. Whereas, even according to the suggestion made to this witness, the first accused had lodged a case against the deceased for the attempted murder attack that was still pending would show the animosity amongst the parties. Moreover, the phrase meant to the relationship between the second accused and the first accused. A similar line of defence as sought to be brought about from PW.1 was sought to be brought about through this witness as well. However, apart from minor discrepancies like the one which is referred to supra nothing much could be elicited through this witness PW.2 in so far as the actual incident is concerned. The witness admits of having made a statement that during the incident the deceased was making attempts to call. The mobile no.*** 66401 belonged to her father the deceased and mobile no.****75953 belonged to her mother. Although this witness was not an expert, but it was elicited through this witness, if the intention of more than one person is to kill a person they would not attack on one part of the body.23 S.C.No.29/2021
22. PW.3 Kumari.Manthara is also one of the daughters of the deceased. The testimony of this witness is similar to that of PWs.1 and 2. This witness is aged about 15 years, who was cross-examined at length in respect of whether the deceased was near the gate or far away, if so, what was the approximate distance between the gate and the deceased, length and width of the matchet etc. An attempt was made to elicit through this witness PW.3 that, the deceased had got drunk and while coming on the motor cycle had fallen off the vehicle on a sharp edged stone. There are minor discrepancies in the testimony of this witness and which is natural considering the age of this witness, time that had elapsed from the day of the incident. However, in so far as the incident at about 11.55 p.m is concerned, even this witness is found to have maintained that, the accused had together attacked the deceased and it was the second accused, who had gone into his house and returned with matchet. The second accused had hit the deceased on his head with the matchet.
23. PW.4 Kumari Nirusha is also the daughter of the deceased, aged about 17 years, who had also deposed in respect of the incident. During the cross-
24 S.C.No.29/2021examination, this witness PW.4 is found to have elicited that, after the incident, the deceased was sent to the hospital and this witness along with her mother and sisters had gone to the police station. This witness had only pleaded ignorance in respect of the suggestion that, on the day of the incident, the deceased was drunk at a party attended by him. This witness is found to have admitted that, her father has the habit of consuming alcohol. This witness was not aware as to who had come to take her father out. The cross-examination of this witness runs upto 22 pages.
24. PW.5 Sri.Gajendra, Driver by profession claims to have acquaintances with CWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7. This witness claims to have known the deceased for many years and whenever they found time, they would meet at a hotel. According to this witness, on the day of the incident, he had brought the deceased on a motor cycle from the hotel and left him at a distance from the house. Thereafter, this witness was returning and while he had gone some distance, he had heard the sound and when he returned, he found the deceased lying dead. At that time, two motorcycles had come and had taken the deceased away from the spot. The witness PW.5 was left 25 S.C.No.29/2021 in utter confusion as to what he should do and he went to the house of the brother of the deceased in the neighborhood to get him. By the time, this witness had come to the spot, public had gathered at the spot and the deceased was shifted to the hospital. The witness claims to have gone to the Blossom Hospital and came to know that, the deceased was shifted to the Sparsh Hospital and there, the deceased was being treated. On the next day, the deceased was shifted to Blossom Hospital. After about 7 days, the deceased had died not responding to the treatment. The witness had identified the deceased in Ex.P.3. This witness is found to have turned hostile in respect of the fact that, he was an eyewitness to the incident.
25. The witness PW.5 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness regarding the aspect that, this witness had come to the house of the deceased to take the deceased along with him and later, while he was returning after having left the deceased there ,he had seen the accused attack the deceased were denied by this witness. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the contradictions in the previous statements of this witness 26 S.C.No.29/2021 said to have been recorded during the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
26. This witness PW.5 was cross-examined by the accused and this witness had admitted the suggestion that, the deceased had been carrying on real estate business for more than 15 years and had earned for himself a good name. The witness had admitted the suggestion that, in the business, the deceased had also enemies. According to this witness, while he returned on hearing the sound, there were about one or two persons near the deceased. The witness was unable to recall as to whether CWs.1 to 4 were present at the spot. At the Sparsh Hospital, CW.1 and the relatives of the deceased were present. The witness is found to have admitted that, he had not come to know of the assailants, who had attacked the deceased. The witness also admits that, he was not interrogated by the Police and the statement of this witness recorded.
27. PW.6 Sri.Bhaskar claims to have acquaintances with CW.12, accused and the deceased. While he was near his house during 2020, the police are said to have taken him to the police station for the purpose of drawing up of panchanama. This witness 27 S.C.No.29/2021 along with CW.12 were taken to the house of the accused. This witness along with CW.12 were taken to Naganathapura Near Shivareddy Layout and the accused Nos.1 to 3 were also present. The second accused is said to have brought a matchet from the corner near the house had produced it before the police. There were blood stains on the matchet. The matchet was seized by drawing up of panchanama. The panchanama was drawn at about 4-5 p.m., and obtained the signature of this witness at the spot and at the police station. The witness had identified his signature on the panchanama. Ex.P.7 is the panchanama. Ex.P.7(a) is the signature of the witness. Ex.P.8 is the sample seal and Ex.P.8 (a) is the signature of this witness. The witness states that, his statement was recorded by the police. The witness had identified the matchet at M.O.1. The witness had identified the accused Nos.1 to 3.
28. During the cross-examination, it was elicited through this witness PW.6 that, the distance between the house of the accused and the house of this witness was about 3/4 km. The witness was called by the police after a day from the date of the incident. The accused had produced the matchet, which the police put in the 28 S.C.No.29/2021 bag. There were 20-30 persons at the spot. The witness states that, his signature was obtained on a paper with his address. The witness is found to have admitted that, he had not gone to the police station before being taken to the spot. The deceased is admitted to be the relative of this witness. It was elicited through this witness that, the gate to the house of the deceased is 6 ft high. The witness is found to have admitted that, he had affixed his signature on Ex.P.7 at the police station. The witness also admits that, no panchanama was drawn in his presence at the spot. A suggestion is found to have been made to this witness that, the police had not taken any other objects except the matchet from the spot. Therefore, it is clear that, the police had gone to the spot and this witness was also present. M.O.1 was taken at the spot. The place from where the second accused had brought the matchet was a vacant space outside the house of the accused without any gate. The witness is found to have denied that, all his signatures were obtained at the police station. The witness admits that, two signatures of his only were obtained by the police. The witness is found to have pleaded ignorance regarding the suggestions that, M.O.1 was an agricultural implement used for cutting twigs and 29 S.C.No.29/2021 branches of a tree. M.O.1 may be used for agricultural purpose, but it is the intention of the person, who uses it. It is the mens rea that would make an object either a weapon or an implement.
29. PW.7 Dr.Asma Kousar, Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine at the St. John's College, Bengaluru, where she has been working since 2009. On 14.09.2020, at 11.00 a.m., the witness claims to have received requisition from the Parappana Agrahara Police to conduct postmortem in respect of body of Sri.Muniyan @ Muniraju, male, aged about 42 years. The postmortem was conducted between 11.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m at the mortuary of the St. John's Hospital. The body was kept in the cold storage. The witness claims to have found a external injury (1). According to this witness PW.7, the death of the deceased was due to intracranial hemorrhage, as a result of head injury. The witness claims to have given report in this regard. Ex.P.9 is the postmortem report and Ex.P.9(a) is the signature of this witness. The witness was shown M.O.1 and on examination, she had opined that, if a person is attacked with object like M.O.1, the injury mentioned in Ex.P.9 could be sustained.
30 S.C.No.29/202130. The witness PW.7 during the cross examination is found to have asserted that, she had 20 years of experience in forensic medicine. The witness had admitted that, she had no occasion of seeing M.O.1 at or about the time the postmortem was conducted or during investigation. The investigating officer had not shown the object during investigation. The witness had denied the suggestion that, the postmortem report was prepared with the aid of requisition under Rule 146 (i) and (ii). The witness is found to have stated that, the injury on the head of the deceased could be sustained when attacked with a heavy blunt object. The witness had admitted that, the injury on the head of the deceased could be sustained in a road traffic accident when the person falls in a supine position, but it must be accompanied by other injuries. Similarly, the witness is found to have admitted that, such injury could be sustained if he falls from a height but again the injury must be accompanied by multiple fractures. A previous suggestion to this witness would show that, there were no other injuries except the one found on the posterior part of the head. Therefore, according to this expert testimony, the injury could not have been sustained by the deceased accidentally. Likewise, in the absence of 31 S.C.No.29/2021 abrasion and other injuries on other parts of the body of the deceased, the possibility of such injuries being sustained in a road traffic accident could also be ruled out.
31. The witness PW.7 had denied the suggestion that, had the deceased proper treatment, there was a possibility of his recovery. Apart from head injury, there were other complications that was the cause for the death of the deceased. There were no other injuries except the head injury. It was also the say of this witness as the injury found on the deceased was sutured, it was difficult to opine with precision as to the cause for the death. The witness was asked about the previous history of treatment, which the witness was not concerned with and would be only a hearsay witness in so far as those aspects are concerned. However, it is found that, the witness had maintained throughout that, on account of lack of proper treatment had led to the cause for the death of the deceased. According to this witness, there was no surgery performed on the deceased during treatment but only conservative management was being performed. The witness is found 32 S.C.No.29/2021 to have stated that, in this case, there was a severe skull injury.
32. PW.8 Sri.Shivareddy had deposed on 17.06.2025 on oath stating that, CW.28 was his son, he had no acquaintances with CWs.1 to 4. The witness claims to have known the deceased and had seen him for about 7-8 years and this witness had acquaintances with the accused. The witness knew about the death of the deceased, but claims that, he did not know the actual cause for the death. According to this witness, he had gone to Sri Dharmasthala to attend a marriage function and had returned on the day when the incident had occurred. The witness had not deposed anything in respect of the incident or the death of the deceased. The witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness are found to have been admitted by this witness. The witness was cross-examined by the accused and he had pleaded ignorance regarding the aspects that, the deceased was carrying on real estate business, had number of enemies, the deceased had two dogs, the deceased was addicted to alcohol. In so far as the allegations made by the witness, CW.1 against this 33 S.C.No.29/2021 witness and his son and denial of the allegations by this witness is denied by this witness.
33. PW.9 Sri Raghavendra @ Raghu had deposed on 17.06.2025 that, CW.27 is his father and claims that, he had no acquaintances with CWs.2 to 4, but had acquaintances with the deceased. The house of the deceased and that of the accused were situated in front of each other. The witness claims to have known about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The brother of the deceased is said to have called this witness and warned not to spare him and after about 1½ months - 2 months, CW.1 had lodged information suspecting the role of this witness as well in the incident. The witness is found to have admitted that, the brother of the deceased Sri.Kumar was in Dubai. Apart from that, the witness is found to have pleaded ignorance in respect of all other aspects.
34. PW.10 Sri.Venkatesh claims to be carrying on real estate business. The witness had acquaintances with CWs.1 to 5 and 8. The witness also knows that CW.1 is the wife of the deceased. The witness claims to have acquaintances with the deceased for more than 10 years. The deceased was also into the real estate 34 S.C.No.29/2021 business. On 24.08.2020, at about 12.30 am and 1.00 am, CW.11 is said to have called him informing him of quarrel or galata and by the time, he came to the spot, there were none and there was nothing. The witness had then gone to Blossom Hospital where CW.1, wife of the deceased, Sri.Srinivasa and Sri.Venky were present. The deceased had sustained injury on the head and was in a position to respond. When this witness inquired with CW.1, she is said to have revealed that, in respect of dog, there was a quarrel by the accused. The witness had identified the deceased in Ex.P.3. Apart from that, the witness had known nothing. The witness was cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness are found to have been admitted by him.
35. During cross-examination of PW.10, it was elicited that, the deceased and this witness are friends. The deceased, this witness and Sri.Kumar together were carrying on real estate business. These three persons claim to have even transacted with CW.28. The witness had denied the suggestion that, these persons had engulfed the sites belonging to CW.27. The witness is not aware of the CW.1 had lodged information regarding 35 S.C.No.29/2021 the quarrel between the parties. The witness admits that, the deceased had left transacting with Sri.Shivareddy and had joined hands with Sri.Shekar Reddy. The witness admits that, Sri.Shekar Reddy is the owner of Blossom Hospital. The witness admits that, the deceased was shifted to the Sparsh Hospital from Blossom Hospital as the bleeding was continuous. The facilities at Sparsh Hospital is admitted to be better than the one at Blossom Hospital. The witness had stated that, on account of financial status of CW.1, the deceased was shifted to the Blossom Hospital. Ex.D.2 is the contradiction in the previous statement regarding the accused having fled the spot after the incident. The suggestion that, CW.1, this witness and Sri.Shekar Reddy had got the deceased shifted to the Blossom Hospital in order to ensure that, the deceased would not get proper treatment. Now, if the deceased had left transacting with Sri.Shivareddy and had joined Sri.Shekar Reddy why at all Sri.Shekar Reddy would ensure the deceased would not get proper treatment and thereby he would die. This defence appears to be without a proper foundation and appears to have been made only to deviate from the circumstances that point towards the accused.
36 S.C.No.29/202136. PW.11 Sri.Srinivas claims to have his house about 300 ft away from the house of the deceased. The witness claims to have known the deceased and his wife CW.1. The deceased was carrying on real estate business. About 3-4 years ago, during rainy season after his work was returning home, public were going towards hospital. He had followed them to the hospital. It was about 11.45 p.m. Apart from this, he does not know of anything. The deceased while alive was not seen by this witness to have visited the hospital. The deceased had a dog that was always outside the house inside the gate. The witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestions made to this witness are found to have been denied by him. Ex.P.10 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation.
37. PW.12 Sri.Muruga, an Auto Driver, who is a witness to the spot panchanama. The witness had identified his signature on the spot panchanama at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2 (b) is the signature of this witness. CW.1 is said to have shown the spot and the police had drawn a panchanama at Ex.P.1. Blood stained soil sample 37 S.C.No.29/2021 were collected at the spot. M.O.2 and M.O.3 are identified by the witness. The witness was cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The witness is found to have pleaded ignorance in respect of suggestion that, M.O.2 and M.O.3 were seized at the spot. The witness had denied the suggestion that, Ex.P.2 was prepared at the spot, read over and this witness had affixed his signature. Ex.P.11 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation.
38. The witness PW.12 is found to have gone a step forward during the cross-examination by the accused when he admits the suggestion that, he had signed on Ex.P.2 in the police station. The witness admits that, he had signed on the slip that is found to have been affixed on the M.O.2 and M.O.3 and that it was not prepared or seized in his presence. Now, the answers to the further suggestions have to be appreciated. The witness appears to be reluctant to admit the suggestion that, he had neither been to the spot, nor soil at the spot was seized. The witness had denied the suggestion that, he was a relative of CW.1 38 S.C.No.29/2021 and that in order to support CW.1, he was deposing falsehood.
39. PW.13 Dr.Chandan Das, Medical Officer at Blossom Hospital claims to be discharging duties as such in that hospital since 2011. On 25.08.2020, at 8.00 p.m., CW.1 is said to have brought the deceased Sri.Muniraju @ Muniyan from Sparsh Hospital. On 24.08.2020, the deceased is said to have sustained injuries in the backdrop of a quarrel with the neighbour in respect of pets. The injured was got discharged from Sparsh Hospital against the medical advice. On 24.08.2020, at 7.05 pm, a letter was given which was marked as Ex.P.12. The injured is said to have been given treatment in the hospital and on 13.09.2020 at 7.45 p.m., he had failed to respond to the treatment and had died. Death memo is said to have been sent to the police station along with Form 4A Laboratory Report and ECG reading and they are marked as Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15. It is the contention of this witness PW.13 that, he was one of the doctors in the team of doctors treating the injured. The injured was found with posterior part of skull fractured. There was sinus hemorrhage and swelling in the brain. A surgery was conducted on the 39 S.C.No.29/2021 injured. The injured was found to show signs of recovery on 11.09.2020 and thereafter, there was sharp deterioration in the condition. The injured had finally breathed last on 13.09.2020 at 7.40 p.m. Ex.P.14 along with other medical records are said to have been sent to the police.
40. During the cross-examination of PW.13, it was elicited through this witness that, in respect of medico legal cases, a register would have to be maintained, but the witness had failed to bring the same. The witness admits that, he was deposing on the basis of notes prepared from the records available in the Court. The witness admits that, he is an ortho. The witness admits that, he had no occasion of reviewing the medical records of the injured / deceased prior to 24.08.2020. The witness admits that, prior to the deceased being brought to their hospital, he was treated at the Sparsh Hospital. The witness however is found to have denied the suggestion that, no surgery was performed on the deceased at the Blossom Hospital. According to this witness, there was wound debridement and while the surgery was performed, this witness was not present. The witness also admits that, during the treatment of 40 S.C.No.29/2021 the deceased at their hospital, this witness was not always present. On 11.09.2020 the GCS score was 5/15. The witness admits that, neither the name of CW.1 nor her mobile number was entered in the hospital. There is a reference to mobile no.***1063, which this witness is unable to recall. There is no mention of the person to whom the mobile belonged to. Ex.P.13 is said to have been recorded on 13.09.2020. The witness admits that, the hospital Sri.Shekar Reddy and he along with his family come to this hospital for treatment. The blood sample was obtained under Ex.P.16 on 13.09.2020 at 8.45 p.m., and on the same night, at 9.06 p.m., report was prepared. There were no symptoms of Covid-19 attack on the deceased. The GCS score had reached 9/15 on 11.09.2020. The witness admits that, there is no mention of assault by neighbors in Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15. This witness is found to have admitted that, the injuries found on the deceased could be sustained if he was drunk and falls off a vehicle. According to this witness, if a person is hit by blunt weapon, there would be possibility of sustaining except the cut abrasion, fracture of bones and dislocation of joints. The witness admits that, there is possibility of a person with high blood pressure and sugar sustaining 41 S.C.No.29/2021 septicemia. Even the injury being joined with staples are likely to be affected by septicemia. The witness admits there were no medical records to show the treatment given to the deceased at the blossom hospital. The witness also admits that, there were no medical records in respect of the deceased being brought to their hospital. The blood starts to coagulate within a hour of the death of a person. There were basically no medical records maintained by this hospital and none of the records were produced to the investigating officer nor the Court. The hospital administration knowing the case to be a medico legal case had failed to maintain records and produce them. Even this witness appearing before the Court to depose had no medico legal register.
41. PW.14 Dr.Nagaraj.B.N., a Medical Officer at Akash Hospital claims to have worked at the Sparsh Hospital for the period between 2009 and 2021. On 24.02.2020, at 3.40 a.m., the deceased in this case was brought to the hospital with history of assault. The date was wrongly mentioned as 24.02.2020. Whereas, it is the case of none of the parties that, the deceased was brought to the hospital on 24.02.2020. It ought to be 24.08.2020. The deceased was admitted and surgery 42 S.C.No.29/2021 was conducted and on the same day, at 7.05 p.m., the deceased was got discharged against the medical advice. Ex.P.17 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.17 (a) is the signature of the witness. It was Dr.Thimmappa Hegde, who had conducted the surgery on the deceased at the Sparsh Hospital. The deceased was not given first aid prior he being brought to the hospital. This witness is found to admit that, he was not a member of the team of doctors performing surgery. Ex.P.12 was not given by Dr.Thimmappa Hegde. The witness admits that, where the status of the patient is critical he / she would not be advised to be discharged. Therefore, it is clear that, the status of the deceased was critical and even with improvement the chances of survival was hardly possible. The witness had admitted that, documents showing the identity of the person accompanying the deceased were produced.
42. PW.15 Sri.Manjunath, Electrician, claims to have acquaintances with CWs.1, 14 and 15. About 4 years ago, the husband of CW.1 was killed by attacking with a matchet. The witness had identified his signature on inquest panchanama at Ex.P.18. Ex.P.18(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness had identified the 43 S.C.No.29/2021 deceased in Ex.P.3. The witness had identified the deceased in Ex.P.19. He had examined injuries (sutured) on head and an injury near the ear. He had gone to see the deceased at Sparsh Hospital, there he had found Kum.Kanchana and CW 1. On 14.09.2020, he had found the deceased dead. He had come to know of the deceased being attacked with matchet with people living in a house opposite to the house of the deceased. The witness admits that, there are traces of staple marks on left and right side of neck. The witness admits that, the deceased had habit of consuming alcohol. Apart from this, the witness is not aware of intricacies of transactions entered by the deceased.
43. PW.16 Sri.Rajesh is a witness to the inquest panchanama and had identified his signature on Ex.P.18. Ex.P.18(b) is the signature of this witness. The witness claims to have acquaintances with CWs.1, 13 and 15. The witness had identified the deceased in Ex.P.3. On 13.08.2020, the witness claims to have gone to St. Johns Hospital, where he had signed on the inquest panchanama being drawn in respect of the death of the deceased. The date was wrongly mentioned as 13.08.2020 as there was no incident yet. The incident 44 S.C.No.29/2021 according to the case of the prosecution was on 24.08.2020 and the deceased had died on 13.09.2020. The witness had stated about the parts of the body of the deceased, where injuries were found. However, the witness did not know the persons who had attacked the deceased. The witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The suggestion made to the witness as to the persons who had attacked the deceased was admitted by this witness. However, during the cross-examination, the witness admits that, he had not stated as to who had attacked the deceased at the time of drawing up of inquest panchanama at Ex.P.18.
44. PW.17 Sri.Harish is also a witness to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.18. The signature of the witness is at Ex.P.18(c). The witness had identified the deceased in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.19. He had found sutured wound on the head of the deceased. The deceased had sustained injury in a quarrel in front of his house. The witness states that, they had received the mortal remains of the deceased between 8 a.m and 11 a.m. The witness does not know english language. He claims to have not made a statement that, he was from SC 45 S.C.No.29/2021 community. The witness admits that, the police had not measured the wound.
45. PW.18 Smt.Kanchana is the sister of the deceased and CW.1 is the wife of her elder brother, the deceased and CWs.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. About 4 years ago, the elder brother of this witness was murdered. At that time, this witness was in her house about distance that would take ½ hour to reach the house of the deceased. On 23.08.2020, CW.1 is said to have called this witness at 12.00 a.m., informing her that, Sri.Bharath and Sri.Rishi, who were residing in front of the house of the deceased had attacked the deceased. CW.1 had also informed that, the deceased was being shifted to Sparsh Hospital. Thereafter, this witness had proceeded to the Sparsh Hospital at about 12.30 am -12.45 a.m., when this witness had reached the Sparsh Hospital, CW.1 was present there. On inquiry with CW.1, this witness was informed that, the accused had attacked the deceased with matchet on the pretext of rearing of dog and consumption of alcohol. The deceased was kept in the ICU and was not in a position to talk or respond. The medical officers are said to have informed this witness 46 S.C.No.29/2021 that, the status of the deceased was critical. Dr. Sushma, who happened to be the wife of Sri.Rajagopala Reddy was present and persuading CW.1 and this witness to shift the deceased to the Blossom Hospital, where he would be given utmost care and treatment. The deceased was then shifted to the Blossom Hospital. After half an hour of the deceased was admitted at the Blossom Hospital, he is said to have opened his eyes. However, there was no traces of improvement observed in the deceased. After about 3-4 days with the permission of the medical officers at the Blossom Hospital, this witness had an occasion of having a glance at the deceased whose eyes were open. But again there were no other movements observed at that time. The deceased was being treated from the day he was shifted from the Sparsh Hospital to the Blossom Hospital. After 10 days, from the day the deceased was shifted to the Blossom Hospital, a surgery was conducted on him. Even with all these, there was no improvement seen in the deceased. On 13.09.2020, at about 7-7.30 p.m., the deceased is said to have breathed his last. The witness claims to have made a statement to the police during investigation.
47 S.C.No.29/202146. According to this witness PW.18, the deceased after the incident was being shifted by employees of Zomato for some distance and thereafter, he was shifted in ambulance. She claims to have failed to observe blood stains on the clothes worn by CW.1 and Sri.Bhaskar. According to this witness, CW.1 was in the hospital with the deceased and had also gone to the spot for the purpose of investigation. This witness had not seen handing over of the clothes of the deceased to the police, but CW.1 is said to have informed this witness regarding handing over of the clothes of the deceased to the police. Ex.D.3 is the contradiction in the previous statement said to have been made by this witness during investigation. The witness had admitted that, there was a case against CW.1, the deceased and relatives of CW.1. According to this witness, the deceased had undergone a solitary surgery and no surgery was performed at the Sparsh Hospital. This witness is found to have attempted to maintain that, the deceased was not treated at the Sparsh Hospital, but was treated at the Blossom Hospital. It is also the assertion of this witness that, the death of the deceased was not on account of he not being treated properly, but on account of the injury sustained over the head. CW.1 and this 48 S.C.No.29/2021 witness claim to be in good terms. This witness is found to have pleaded ignorance regarding the defence raised on behalf of the accused that, the deceased had gone to the office of Sri.Sharavana and the friends had a party there, the deceased had got drunk up to the throat and had fallen of the vehicle sustaining injuries on the head. But the witness is found to have categorically denied the suggestion that, the deceased got drunk and while coming on a motor cycle had fallen of the vehicle sustaining injury. There is a clinic near the house of the deceased by the name "Manushri Medical Clinic". CW.1 is found to have answered this question and in so far as this witness is concerned, this question would be irrelevant as it was got elicited through this witness that she is living in an area where it would take 1/2 hour to reach the area where the deceased was residing along with his family. The relationship between CW.1 and Sri.Shekar Reddy is found to have been denied. The witness had also denied the suggestion that, in order to counter the case being lodged by the accused CW.1 and the witnesses had falsely implicated the accused in this case. The witness had also denied the suggestion that, in order to ensure that, the accused were implicated in this case, a false statement that, injury sustained by the 49 S.C.No.29/2021 deceased was on account of assault. The witness is not aware of the relationship between Sri.Rajagopal Reddy and Sri.Shekar Reddy. The witness had also denied the suggestion that, the deceased was recovering at the Sparsh Hospital and if he had recovered he would state that, the injury sustained by him was on account of road traffic accident, he was got discharged from Sparsh Hopital and was brought to the Blossom Hospital, where on the instigation of Sri.Shekar Reddy, the deceased was attacked in the hospital on account of which, the skull was fractured. Now, this statement is found to have been not put to PW.13. If at all, there was assault in the hospital, there ought to have been a case against the individuals responsible for such criminal acts. This is a serious allegation and ought to have been made during investigation. Therefore, this defence cannot be considered as it was made for the first time to this witness. There was another defence put forth regarding illicit relationship between CW.1 and Sri.Shekar Reddy. When such allegations are sought to be made for the sake of defence, it must be made to the party against whom such allegations are sought to be made. If such allegations are made against a person to another witness, they cannot be considered as one of the 50 S.C.No.29/2021 probable defence on behalf of the accused at all. This witness was also asked regarding the intention of the person where on the attack one injury is caused. The witness had denied, but it would only be the opinion of this witness, which is irrelevant. The witness is not shown to be an expert to enable the Court to consider her opinion.
47. PW.19 Sri.Babu.S, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta claims to have discharged duty as P.S.I. in Parappana Agrahara Police Station between 2015 and 2021. on 24.08.2020 at about 1.30 a.m., a medico legal intimation was received from Sparsh Hospital and this witness claims to have immediately rushed to the hospital. This witness claims to have given requisition seeking certification of the medical officer regarding the competency of the injured to make statement. Ex.P.20 is the requisition and Ex.P.20(a) is the signature of the witness. Thereafter, CW.1 is said to have lodged first information statement in writing based on which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.214/2020. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement and Ex.P.1(b) is the signature of this witness. Ex.P.21 is the first information report and Ex.P.21(a) is the 51 S.C.No.29/2021 signature of this witness. The witness claims to have then visited the spot, secured CWs.9 and 10 as panch witnesses. CW.1 had shown the spot and this witness claims to have drawn a panchanama at the spot at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(c) is the signature of the witness. The witness states that, he had seen CW.10 affixing his signature on Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(d) is the signature of CW.10. H.C.7514 Sri.R.Prakash is said to have typed on the instructions of this witness and had taken the print out. The signature of H.C.7514 is marked at Ex.P.2(e). Ex.P.22 is the sample seal is marked as Ex.P.22. Ex.P.22 (a) is the signature of this witness. CWs.1, 9 and 10 are said to have signed on Ex.P.22. M.O.2 and M.O.3 are identified by this witness to have been objects seized at the spot. CW.9 is said to have given a statement at Ex.P.11.
48. PW.19 had further deposed that, on 26.08.2020, 30.08.2020, 3.09.2020 and on 9.09.2020 again this witness had made requisition at Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.26 seeking certification from the medical officer regarding the capacity of the deceased to make statement. Ex.P.23(a) to Ex.P.26(a) are the signatures of this witness. The witness claims to have deputed 52 S.C.No.29/2021 CWs.34 to 36 to trace the accused and produce them. On the basis of information of the informer, the accused were traced at Rayasandra, who had attempted to flee. However, accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended and produced. The second accused is said to have made a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.27 is the statement, Ex.P.27(a) and (b) are the signatures of this witness and accused No.2. The witness claims to have secured CWs.11 and 12 and had accompanied the second accused to Shivareddy Layout Main Road. The accused No.2 is said to have led this witness and CWs.11 and 12 in front of house No.60. A panchanama was drawn at Ex.P.7. Although, the case of the prosecution is that, the spot where the incident had occurred was shown. However, the spot is not private place, but a public place already shown by CW.1 during spot panchanama. Hence, the statement regarding the place of occurrence was not an information that led to the discovery.
49. PW.19 had further deposed that, the second accused is said to have produced an object near his house at the parking place below the cement bag. Ex.P.7 is the panchanama, Ex.P.7(b) is the signature of this 53 S.C.No.29/2021 witness. Ex.P.7(c) is the signature of CW.12 identified by this witness. Ex .7(d) to (f) are the signatures of the accused Nos.1 to 3. Ex.P.7(g) is the signature of Sri.Prakash who had prepared the panchanama. The witness identifies m.o.1. Ex P 8 is the is the sample seal and Ex P 8 (b) is the signature of this witness. The witness claims to have recorded the statement of witnesses CWs.11, 12, 34 to 36. On 27.08.2020, this witness had recorded the statement of CW.1. On 9.09.2020, he had recorded the statements of CWs.6 and 7. On 13.09.2020, this witness claims to have received the death memo at Ex.P.15. The signature of the witness is at Ex.P.15(a). On 13.09.2020, this witness claims to have recorded the statement of CW.1. On 14.09.2020 in the presence of CWs.13 to 15, this witness claims to have drawn inquest panchanama at Ex.P.18. Ex.P.18(b) is the signature of this witness. The witness claims to have recorded the statements of CWs.1, 16 and 17. CWs. 16 and 17 are said to have given statements at Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.19 are said to have been taken while drawing up of inquest panchanama. The body of the deceased was sent through CW.32 for conduct of autopsy. This witness had recorded the statement of CW.32.
54 S.C.No.29/202150. The witness PW.19 was unable to recall whether it was the accused or the CW.1 had lodged information first with the police. Two police personnel are said to have informed that, there was information to the station at 10.00 p.m against the deceased and the two police personnel had gone to the house of the deceased to interrogate. Later on, this witness on verification did not find any information in writing. On the receipt of the information, on 24.08.2020 at 1.30 a.m. this witness claims to have gone to Sparsh Hospital at 2.00 p.m., there was no information regarding the deceased being first taken to Blossom Hospital. The witness had not investigated as to the particulars of the ambulance in which the deceased was shifted to Sparsh Hospital. The witness had not investigated as to the doctor on duty at the Blossom Hospital, while the deceased was about to be shifted to the Sparsh Hospital. The witness admits that, he had not deputed any police personnel for safeguarding the spot. The witness admits there are houses, pharmacy shops, clinic and vacant sites between the house of the deceased and the Parappana Agrahara Police Station. The witness volunteers to state that, he does not know of the 55 S.C.No.29/2021 presence of clinic. There is a pole in the parking area, where the M.O.1 was kept under the bag and the witness does not remember as to whether one has to pass through this place to go to upstairs. The witness could not trace the person to whom the mobile number of which is found in Ex.P.20. Hence, the witness was unable to trace as to who had admitted the deceased to the hospital. This witness is found to have denied that, the deceased was admitted to the hospital in the backdrop of road traffic accident. The witness admits that, the measurement of the spot is not found mentioned in the spot panchanama. According to this witness, CCTV installed towards the east of the house of the accused was not in a working condition when tested, but this aspect is admitted to have not been mentioned in the panchanama. Even the CCTV installed above the water plant was not in a working condition. The witness denies of having taken CCTV footage and by that he had come to know that there was no incident as narrated by CW.1. The children of CW.1 were not present at the time when spot panchanama was being drawn and this witness is not aware as to where they were.
56 S.C.No.29/202151. Another defence raised was that, no attempt was made by the investigating officer to record the statement of the son of CW.1. However, the investigating officer had stated that, he had found the child of very tender age. More than that, it is the prerogative of the investigating officer to examine the witnesses, who would be able to disclose something in respect of the facts in issue in the case. The witness is found to have admitted that, while drawing panchanama, no attempt was made to take photographs or record audio or video mode.
52. PW.20 Sri.Sandeep.S, P.I., claims to have discharged duty as P.I. in the Parappana Agrahara Police Station. On 18.09.2020, the witness claims to have received the records in this case from CW.37 and had proceeded to investigate further. On the same day, the witness claims to have recorded the statement of CW.5 at Ex.P.6. On 30.9.2020, the witness claims to have received the autopsy report at Ex.P.9 from St. John's Hospital. Ex.P.9(b) is the signature of this witness. The witness claims to have sent articles sent by the medical officer at the hospital through CW.33 to the FSL on 6.10.2020. The witness had identified the 57 S.C.No.29/2021 acknowledgment received from the FSL at Ex.P.28. Ex.P.28 (a) is the signature of this witness. He claims to have recorded the statement of CW.33. On 15.10.2020 and 19.10.2020, this witness claims to have recorded the statements of CWs.2 to 4, 18 to 21. On 28.10.2020, the witness claims to have made requisition to the learned Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex.P.29 is the requisition and Ex.P.29(a) is the signature of this witness. On 29.10.2020, the statements of these witnesses were got recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.33 are the statements of CWs.2 to 5. On 24.10.2020, 31.10.2020, 6.11.2020, the witness claims to have recorded the statement of CWs.22 to 24, 25 and 26 and 27 and 28 respectively. On 10.11.2020, a requisition was made to the medical officers at the hospital at Ex.P.34 and the signature of this witness is at Ex.P.34 (a) seeking wound certificate. On 11.11.2020, the witness claims to have obtained wound certificate at Ex.P.17. Ex.P17 (b) is the signature of the witness. Ex.P.12 is said to have been obtained on the same day. Ex.P.12(a) is the signature of the witness. The investigation was completed and hence, the witness 58 S.C.No.29/2021 claims to have filed police report with materials gathered during investigation. The witness also had identified the reports sent from the FSL. They are at Ex.P.34, 36 and sample seals at Ex.P.35 and 37. Ex.P.34 (a) to 36 (a) are the signatures of this witness. The witness had also identified MOs.1 to 3.
53. The witness PW.20 was cross examined in respect of the rank of the police official to be competent to investigate into heinous offences. The witness admits that, initially, the information was in respect of an attempt to kill the deceased. The witness does not deny the suggestion that, the accused had lodged another case pending in S.C.No.736/2021 (Crime No.227/2019). This case appears to be regarding the incident during 2019. Now, there is no dispute that, the deceased and the accused No.1 were not in talking terms and there used to be quarrel quite often concerning the dogs reared by the deceased. The witness also is found to have admitted that, the Public Works Department had not prepared a sketch in this case. The witness admits that, initially, the deceased was taken to Blossom Hospital, but the witness admits that, no attempts were made to find out the Medical Officer at the Blossom 59 S.C.No.29/2021 Hospital, who had first seen the deceased. This witness had not issued a notice to the previous investigating officer for not examining CWs.2 to 5. CW.1 is admitted to have lodged information thrice. On the basis of the statement made by CW.1, this witness admits of having examined CWs.17 to 27. The witness is found to have stated that, CW.1 may have lodged information on the mistaken belief. The witness had denied the suggestion that, there were no specific allegations against the accused No.4. The witness had denied the suggestion that, on the instigation of Sri.Shekar Reddy and CW.1 in order to help CW.1 to snatch from the accused their property the fourth accused was being falsely implicated. The witness had admitted regarding the treatment at Blossom Hospital and Sparsh Hospital. The witness admits that there were no materials to show that, a police personnel was deputed to keep a watch on the deceased. The witness had also denied the suggestion that, on compulsion Ex.P.16 was got fabricated for the purpose of this case.
54. Initially, witnesses were cross-examined with a defence that, the deceased had got drunk upto the throat and while coming on the motor cycle had fallen in 60 S.C.No.29/2021 a supine position. Now, it is found that, this witness was confronted with the suggestion that the deceased was completely drunk and while riding the motor cycle had sustained injuries and then had succumbed to those injuries. When the deceased was drunk upto the throat would he be able to stand properly let along riding a motor cycle himself. The witness had also denied the suggestion that, CWs.2 to 5 are alleged to have stated that they had made a statement before this witness that, the deceased was drunk and had sustained injuries on account of fall from the motor cycle. CWs.2 to 5 being children of tender age and were mourning the death of their father and hence the previous investigating officer had avoided interrogating the children soon after the incident. The son of the deceased was of 7 years of age and was not interrogated. The witness admits that, these were not mentioned in the diary. The witness admits MOs.1 to 3 does not bear his signature. The witness admits that, CW.2 had not made a statement before this witness that, while the deceased was away, his family members were waiting outside the house for him. The attention of this witness was drawn towards the contradictions in the previous statements and omissions. These contradictions and omissions are not 61 S.C.No.29/2021 material enough to brush aside the case of the prosecution. The other part of the cross-examination would pertain to the omissions in the statements of various witnesses during the investigation. The attention of this witness was drawn towards the contradictions as well. Now, from the entire deposition of this witness PW.20, it would be clear as already discussed above, there were lapses in the investigation but are not material enough to shake the foundation of the prosecution case. In fact most of the contradictions are said to have been recorded by this witness. There is no reason to disbelieve this witness although there were minor errors in the investigation. Apart from this nothing much appears to have been elicited through this witness that could shake the case of the prosecution.
55. PW.21 Smt.B.R.Mamatha Yadav is a Senior Scientific Officer in the RFSL, Davanagere claims to have worked in FSL at Bengaluru during 2019-2022. On 6.10.2020, the witness claims to have received articles in sealed cover with requisition in Crime No.214/2020. Ex.P.38 is the requisition. On verification, the witness had found the seals in tact. The witness claims to have examined the articles and had given a report containing 62 S.C.No.29/2021 her opinion with grounds for the same. Ex.P.36 is the report and Ex.P.36 (b) is the signature of the witness. Ex.P.37 is the sample seal and Ex.P.37(a) is the signature of this witness. The witness contends that, with the sample available, it could be ascertained that, the blood stains on the object was of human origin. There is no whisper that, the object was used by the accused for agriculture purpose or that the second accused or any of the accused had sustained injuries while working using MO.1. The witness had also identified MOs.1 to 3. The witness admits that, from the sample, it was not possible for determining the blood group. Now, according to Ex.P.34, the soil samples in articles at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 were similar. The statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
56. The prosecution witnesses are heard to have ranted that, the accused had quarrel with the deceased. The accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are said to have instigated and the second accused had gone inside his house, brought the matchet and attacked the deceased. The deceased was then shifted to Blossom Hospital. However, the Medical Officer in the Blossom Hospital 63 S.C.No.29/2021 does not sent intimation to the Police as the same was known to be medico legal case. The deceased is said to have been given first aid and then shifted to Sparsh Hospital. The deceased was shifted again to the Blossom Hospital against the medical advice. The medical officer working at the Blossom Hospital is found to have deposed that, there were records maintained in the hospital. This is even more shocking as with investigation and proof in this case would have led to serious allegations of negligence against the medical officers at the hospital. The cloud of suspicion continues when the deceased was got discharged from Sparsh Hospital against medical advice. Merely on the suspicion neither the medical administration nor the medical officers working there could be held to have contributed to the death. Interestingly, the medical officers who had treated the deceased at the two hospitals were not examined. Apart from the non-availability of medical records, there are no materials to hold that, the deceased was drunk and had sustained injury in a road traffic accident. The injury does not appear to be either self inflicted or accidental.
64 S.C.No.29/202157. The learned counsel had referred to the commentary on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the relevant portions at pages 586 and 587 reads thus:
If a blow is inflicted from sharp edged object, the force is concentrated to a very limited area or a point or a line which causes deep penetrated or clear separation of the tissues..........
If the head is free to move, a blow may cause little damage, but a similar blow to a head resting on the ground may cause marked injury to the skull...........
Head injury: The relevant portions at pages 693 and 696 reads thus:
The latter method is common and is seen in motor car accidents when an occupant thrown from his seat, strikes the head against resistant surface. It is also seen when the body is at rest, and a heavy object falls on the top of the head, driving the skull downwards on to the condyles of the atlas...........
When the butt of a firearm strikes the skull full faced, the fracture is rectangular, but if only the corner of the butt strikes, the fracture is triangular Depressed fracture caused by a stone may be irregular or roughly triangular............
The alcoholic tends to fall backwards and strikes his occiput on the ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goverdhan Vs State of Chatthisgarh had laid down as follows, which is an evolution in jurisprudence:65 S.C.No.29/2021
State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96 as follows: "8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression 'reasonable doubt' is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge.
58. The learned counsel for the accused had also produced excerpts from the Police Manual regarding recording of statements by the investigation and getting the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.PC.
59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the ruling reported in (2009) 11 SCC 334 in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, at para No.28 have observed thus:
28. In Inder Singh V. State (Delhi Admn.) this Court while dealing with the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case, held that: (SCC p.162, para 2) "2. Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt 66 S.C.No.29/2021 should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect."
60. The sentences in a judgment cannot be read in isolation to suit the requirement, but it is the ratio decidendi that is applicable. The prosecution was not successful in establishing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused had probablised that, but for the provocation from the deceased, he would not have sustained the injury and thereafter succumb to them. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish that, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are guilty of having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution not placing medical records in respect of the deceased at Blossom Hospital, the witnesses for the prosecution admitting that had the deceased abstained from going out on the date of the incident, he would not have been attacked. The accused had also lodged a case against the deceased. The witnesses for the prosecution deposing that, they had heard of quarrel amongst the deceased and the accused in front of the house of the deceased, are sufficient to hold the accused guilty of having committed culpable homicide and the prosecution had failed to establish the 67 S.C.No.29/2021 offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond a reasonable doubt. The offence alleged against the accused No.4 is not established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I have answered point No.2 is in the Negative and point No.1 is as per the final order.
61. Point No.3:- In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 299 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC in so far as the accused No.4 is concerned, she is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 115 of Indian Penal Code.
To hear on sentence. Call on 10.11.2025.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 5th day of November, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.68 S.C.No.29/2021
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE On request of the learned counsel for the accused, the case was adjourned from 5.11.2025 to 10.11.2025 to hear on sentence. Subsequently, on the request of the learned counsel for the accused, again the case was adjourned to 15.11.2025 to facilitate the learned counsel to argue on the sentence. The case was again adjourned to 18.112025 on the request of the learned counsel for the accused to address arguments on sentence. A mention is to be necessarily made regarding the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which was pleased to direct this Court to conclude the case within a year from the date of the order. The case was to be concluded on or before 19.08.2025. However, owing to the securing of witnesses, statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguments to be heard, health condition of the P.O., the delay caused may kindly be condoned considering these bona fide reasons.
2. The accused No.1 is said to have been treated for cardiac ailments and the accused No.3 was born with premature delivery. The third accused was weighing 69 S.C.No.29/2021 1.450 KGs at the time of his birth and on account of this had developed physical deformities. The accused No.2 was remanded to judicial custody. The accused were appearing before the Court and the conditions of bail not being violated. I see in them remorse for what has happened. Therefore, it would not be right to impose stringent sentence. The accused No.2 had committed the overt act. Now, considering the status of accused Nos.1 and 3, it is necessary to hold the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused is found to have taken refuge under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Muddappa.
The following extract from the judgment would be relevant for the purpose of considering the sentence.
1. This appeal is directed against Accused No.3 who was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. But, on appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead, convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC. For such conviction, the High Court also examined the circumstances under which the below was inflicted by the accused on the deceased and on consideration of the provisions of Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the High Court, instead of sentencing him, directed to release the accused on admonition.
2...........Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended in any particular case 70 S.C.No.29/2021 depends upon the circumstances of that case. Admittedly, there is no statutory bar for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304 Part II where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life.
3. In addition to this, the purport of the Provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Challammal and another Vs State of Tamil Nadu and the relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein below;
"28. Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances".
4. The second accused was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody on 27.08.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The accused No.2 was aged about 28 years then and would now be 33 years 71 S.C.No.29/2021 middle aged. There are no criminal antecedents wherein the accused are proved to be guilty of offences in any other case. This one case must not make them unproductive. The second accused had already undergone imprisonment for over 5 years from the date of his arrest. Hence, the second accused could be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 years and 3 months and fine of Rs.2,000-00.
5. On the other hand, considering the ailments of the first accused and physical deformities of the third accused, it would be in the ends of justice to withhold from passing sentence against them. This is on account of the fact that, the learned counsel for the accused had relied upon the Provision of Section 4 of the PO Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of the argument. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application of the provision of PO Act on the ground that, the offence alleged was murder, which is heinous offence. However, the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, the materials placed were capable to enable this Court to hold that the prosecution was able to prove 72 S.C.No.29/2021 the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.--Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
6. The provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, is extracted herein below;
4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to 73 S.C.No.29/2021 appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond
7. Now, in the light of the above provision and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the circumstances of the case, the accused Nos.1 and 3 held entitled to invoke the provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is not the maximum sentence that would act as deterrent, but the remorse reflected in their subsequent conduct that would assure the Court the possibility of the accused to have chosen the path of reformation. The conduct exhibited by the accused during the trial would leave no doubt as to the accused having chosen the path of reformation.
Accordingly, on behalf of these two accused, an application is filed under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. A report is necessarily to be called for from the DPO. The accused Nos.1 and 3 however shall 74 S.C.No.29/2021 offer surety to the satisfaction of this Court for their appearance until the report is received from the DPO and a final order is passed on the same. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 3 have filed an application under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Acting under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the accused Nos.1 and 3 shall now pay Rs.3,000-00 each as compensation to the informant.
Office to call for report from the DPO.
The accused Nos.1 and 3 shall offer surety to the satisfaction of the Court for their appearance till the report is filed by the DPO.
In so far as the accused No.2 is concerned, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and 3 months with fine of Rs.2,000/-.
The accused No.2 is entitled to set off under the Provision of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Acting under Section 357 of the Cr.PC, CW.1 is held entitled to compensation. The witness shall approach the DLSA.
75 S.C.No.29/2021MO.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over being worthless.
Furnish the free copy of Judgment to the accused and complainant forthwith.
Copy of the Judgment shall sent to the District Magistrate as per Sec.365 Cr.P.C.
Copies of the Judgment shall also be furnished to the authorities as per Rule 7(1) Under Chapter 8 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice.
Office to send intimation to the jail authorities of this order.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW.1 : Smt.Nagini.
PW.2 : Kumari Niranjini.
PW.3 : Kumari Mantra.
PW.4 : Kumari Niroosha.
PW.5 : Sri.Gajendra
76 S.C.No.29/2021
PW.6 : Sri.Bhaskar.
PW.7 : Dr.Asma Kousar.
PW.8 : Sri.Shivareddy.
PW.9 : Sri.Raghavendra @ Raghu.
PW.10 : Sri.Venkatesh.
PW.11 : Sri.Srinivas.
PW.12 : Sri.Muruga.
PW.13 : Dr.Chandan Das.
PW.14 : Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
PW.15 : Sri.Manjunath.
PW.16 : Sri.Rajesh.
PW.17 : Sri.Harish.
PW.18 : Smt.Kanchana.
PW.19 : Sri.Babu S.
PW.20 : Sri.Sandeep S.
PW.21 : Smt.B.R.Mamatha Yadav.
II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint.
Ex.P1(a)(b) : Signatures.
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P2(a) to : Signatures.
(d)
Ex.P3 : Photo of deceased.
Ex.P4 : Acknowledgment for having received
the mortal remains of the deceased
after the autopsy
77 S.C.No.29/2021
Ex.P4(a) : Signature.
Ex.P5 & 6 : Contradictions in the previous
statements of PW.5.
Ex.P7 : Seizure Mahazar.
Ex.P7(a) to : Signature.
(g)
Ex.P8 : Sample Seal.
Ex.P8(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.9 : Post Mortem Report.
Ex.P.9(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.10 : Contradictions in the previous
statements of PW.11.
Ex.P.11 : Contradictions in the previous
statements of PW.12.
Ex.P.12 : Letter.
Ex.P.13 : Death Summary.
Ex.P.14 : Form-A.
Ex.P.15 : Death intimation.
Ex.P.15(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.16 : Laboratory report & ECG.
Ex.P.17 : Wound certificate.
Ex.P.17(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.18 : Inquest Panchanama.
Ex.P.18(a) : Signatures.
to (d)
Ex.P.19 : Inquest Panchanama.
78 S.C.No.29/2021
Ex.P.20 : MLC of Sparsha Hospital.
Ex.P.20(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.21 : FIR.
Ex.P.21(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.22 : Sample seal.
Ex.P.22(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.23 to : Requisitions.
26
Ex.P.23(a) : Signatures.
to 26(a) &
(b)
Ex.P.27 : Statement of A1.
Ex.P.27(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.28 : FSL.
Ex.P.28(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.29 : Requisition.
Ex.P.29(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.30 to : Statements.
32
Ex.P.33 : Letter dated 10.11.2020 by the PSI to
the Medical Officer, Sparsha Hospital.
Ex.P.33(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.34 : FSL Test report dated 19.06.2021. Ex.P.34(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.35 : Sample seal.
Ex.P.35(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.36 : FSL test report dated 31.10.2020.
79 S.C.No.29/2021
Ex.P.36(a) : Signatures.
(b)
Ex.P.37 : Sample seal.
Ex.P.37(a) : Signature.
Ex.P.38 : Requisition dated 04.02.2021 by PSI.
III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused: NIL IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 : Further complaint.
Ex.D.2 : Contradiction in the previous statement
of PW.10.
Ex.D.3 : Contradiction in the previous statement
of PW.18.
V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO.1 : Matchet.
MO.2 : Sample of blood stained mud.
MO.3 : Sample of mud.
(Balachandra N Bhat)
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.