Bangalore District Court
Banaswadi Ps vs A1-Mohammad Zameer Pasha Alias Zameer ... on 11 November, 2025
1 SC No. 582/2020
KABC0A0016002020 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS
IN THE COURT OF XXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT
BENGALURU CITY [CCH.20]
Dated: This the 11th day of November, 2025
: Present :
Sri ONKARAPPA R, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
C/c XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 582/2020
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Banaswadi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused : 1. Mohammed Zameer Pasha @
Zameer Pasha @ Zameer,
S/o Late Pasha Jan,Aged about
25 years, R/a No.100, 4 th Cross,
7th Main, M.V.Garden, Halasur,
Bengaluru
2. Abubakar Siddiq
S/o Mohammad Rafi, Aged about
2 SC No. 582/2020
22 years, R/a No.343,
5th Cross, 6th Main, B-Block,
New Lingarajpauram, Bengaluru
3. Sheik Farooq @ Farooq
S/o Ali @ Sheikh Ali, Aged
about 35 years,R/a No.224, B-
Block, 13th Cross, New
Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru
4. Shaik Rafeeq
S/o Ali @ Sheikh Ali, Aged
about 34 years, R/a No.224, B-
Block, 13th Cross, New
Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru.
5. Nazeer Ahamad @ Nazeer
S/o Musthafa, Aged about 36
th
years, R/a 19 Cross, Near
Moula Hotel, Tippu Mohalla,
Modi Road, D.J.Halli, Bengaluru.
6. Shafi Ahamed,
S/o Musthafa,Aged about 33
th
years,R/a 19 Cross, Near Moula
Hotel, Tippu Mohalla, Modi
Road, D.J.Halli, Bengaluru
By Sri. SK, advocate
Sri. S.V., advocate
Sri. A.A.K. Advocate
Date of commission of 07.05.2019
offence
Date of report of offence 07.05.2019
3 SC No. 582/2020
Date of arrest of the Accused Nos.1 to 6 arrested on
Accused 08.05.2019
Date of release of the Accused Nos.1 to 6 released on
Accused on bail 21.05.2019
Name of the Sri. Shivappa Naikar
complainant
Date of commencement 17.03.2023
of trial
Date of closing of 30.09.2025
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 11.11.2025
Offences complained of U/s 399 and 402 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1 to 6 are
acquitted.
4 SC No. 582/2020
J U D G M E N T
Banaswadi Police have charge sheeted Accused Nos.1 to 6 along with other two accused for the offences punishable U/s 399 and 402 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is, CW1 received credible information on 07.05.2019 at about 18.30 hours, at near K.S.F.C. Layout, Lingarajapuram, Near Hindu Cemetry, Bengaluru City, accused persons were formed unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons and prepared themselves to committed the dacoity on the road passer. Upon the information CW1 took his staff viz., CW4 to CW11 along with CW2 and CW3 panchas with the plan to caught hold such of the persons. After reached the place, CW1 and his staff make a trap on such of the group of eight persons and it caught hold six persons and two persons were escaped from the place. Upon enquired on them, CW1 finds the accused 5 SC No. 582/2020 persons were planning to committed the dacoity by holding the deadly weapons in their hands. Accordingly CW1 seized all the deadly weapons which recovered from the possession of accused and to drawn mahazar at before CW2 and CW3 panchas in that behalf. The same of all accused and seized material objects have been produced by the CW1 at before the SHO of the police station along with one report. On virtue of the said report, CW12 Police Sub-Inspector registered the case in against all the accused for the offence punishable U/s 399 and 402 of IPC.
3. After completed the investigation, the investigating officer have submitted the charge sheet in against Accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of I.P.C.
4. Case record have been sent by committal court along with Accused Nos.1 to 6 upon committal order. Accused Nos.1 to 6 have been secured at before the court. If it questioned 6 SC No. 582/2020 Accused Nos.1 to 6 with respect to compliance of section 209 and 227 of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos.1 to 6 have submitted no arguments to submits before framed the charge. With that being charge have been framed in against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable U/s 399 and 402 of I.P.C. If read over and explained the same charge to Accused Nos.1 to 6 in the language known to them, Accused Nos.1 to 6 not pleaded the guilty of offence and they claimed to be tried.
5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined total number of 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4, out of total number of 12 charge sheet witnesses. Further in support of the prosecution, the prosecution have also marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P3 document and M.O.1 to M.O.6 material objects and it closed the evidence of prosecution. Even the proclamation warrant published in against CW2 to CW4, CW2 to CW4 have not been secured, hence evidence of CW2 7 SC No. 582/2020 to CW4 taken as nil as per order sheet dated 4.9.2025. Learned Public prosecutor given up evidence of CW7, CW9 to CW11 as per order sheet dated 02.05.2025. Examined the accused Nos.1 to 6 U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence appeared in against to them if explained to them, Accused Nos.1 to 6 have denied the same incriminating evidence. Accused Nos.1 to 6 have not chosen to examined any of the witness on their behalf including themselves. Hence the defence evidence has been taken as nil.
6. Heard the argument on both the sides. Counsel for the accused filed written arguments. Perused the records.
7. The points for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, on 07.05.2019 at about 18.30 hours, CW1 received credible information, at near K.S.F.C. Layout, Lingarajapuram, Near Hindu 8 SC No. 582/2020 Cemetry, Bengaluru, Accused Nos.1 to 6, along with the accused Nos.7 and 8, having common intention of committing dacoity of public being in possession of dangerous weapons had made preparation to commit dacoity and all the accused persons were lying in wait for the arrival of the public to rob them and thereby committed the offence punishable under section- 399 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, on the above said place, date and time, Accused Nos.1 to 6, along with the accused Nos.7 and 8 had assembled there for the purpose of committing decoity and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 402 of the Indian Penal Code?
3. What Order?
9 SC No. 582/20208. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final
order, for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. Points No. 1 and 2 :- Learned Public Prosecutor argued, the prosecution produced the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 on their behalf. According to the prosecution the material particulars available in all witnesses is more enough to convicted the accused. Therefore the prosecution pray for convicted Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the alleged offence. In support of the same prosecution case, the prosecution have also relied on judgments namely; 1. Crl. Appeal No.2514/2010 - Devidas Vs State of Karnataka, 10 SC No. 582/2020
2. AIR 2020 SC 4297 - Rizwan Khan Vs The State of Chhattisgarh
10. Counsel for the accused argued, Accused Nos.1 to 6 has not committed any offence as alleged and no one of the independent witnesses of the prosecution supported its case. Further the accused counsel also argued, though evidence of mahazar witnesses cited in the charge sheet, no one of the such witness secured and have fail to be examined. Hence, as per the accused counsel, Accused Nos.1 to 6 entitled for acquittal of all offences charged in against them.
11. The prosecution net case is, CW1 received credible information, on 07.05.2019 at about 18.30 hours, at near K.S.F.C. Layout, Lingarajapuram, Near Hindu Cemetry, Bengaluru City, accused persons were formed unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons to committed the dacoity on the road passer. Upon the information CW1 took his staff viz., CW4 to 11 SC No. 582/2020 CW11 along with CW2 and CW3 panchas with the plan to caught hold such of the persons. After reached the place, CW1 and his staff make a trap on such of the group of eight persons and it caught hold six persons and two persons were escaped from the place. Upon enquired on them, CW1 finds the accused persons were planning to committed the dacoity by holding the deadly weapons in their hands. Accordingly CW1 seized all the deadly weapons which recovered from the possession of accused and to drawn mahazar at before CW2 and CW3 panchas in that behalf. The same of all accused and seized material objects have been produced by the CW1 at before the SHO of the police station along with one report. With this being, the depositions of all witnesses who are examined at before the court have takes its own meaning to determine the truth on charge.
12. CW1 Shivappa Naik examined as PW1. According to the prosecution PW1 is police 12 SC No. 582/2020 officer who conducted the raid. PW1 deposed on 07.05.2019 at about 6.00 pm when he was in charge of the Police station, PW1 received credible information that near KHFC Layout, Lingarajapura about 8 persons were gathered with deadly weapons intend to committed dacoity on the passerbys. informed about the same to his officials CW4 to 11. Pw1 instructed his officials to bring the two pancha's accordingly they brought CW2 and CW3 and after informing them about the information, he issued notice on them as per Ex.P1. PW1 identified his signature as per Ex.P1(a). Both the pancha's have signed on Ex.P1 notice. Later after conducting personal search on themselves and in the official vehicle, PW1 took CW2 to CW11 to the spot. On reaching the spot at 6.50 pm, PW1 saw 8 people were at the spot, PW1 sent CW11 to the place where the accused were gathered to collect information and after confirming about the presence of accused who were speaking in Urdu 13 SC No. 582/2020 language at the spot for committing the offence, PW1 and his staff raided on them. On seeing the PW1 and his staff two of them ran away from the spot and it apprehended 6 accused persons only. PW1 and CW11 caught hold of accused No.1 and on enquiry he told his name as Zameer Pasha. On searching accused No.1 it found one dragger at in the possession of accused No.1. CW7, CW9 and CW10 caught hold of the other accused persons and they were found one dagger, one iron rod, two wooden club and chilly powder packet with other accused. Thereafter, PW1 seized all the material objects in the presence of the panchas and drawing one panchanama as per Ex.P2. PW1 identified his signature as per Ex.P2(a). The panchanama was conducted in between 7.15pm to 8.30pm. The seized properties were covered in white clothes and it has been sealed by the seal. Later PW1 brought the apprehended accused persons and seized properties to the police 14 SC No. 582/2020 station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P3 at before the SHO, PW1 identified his signature as per Ex.P3(a). PW1 identified accused No.1 to 6 who were present at before the Court. PW1 identified M.O.1 to M.O.6. In the cross- examination, PW1 unequivocally admitted the suggestion around 6.55 pm normally it would be the dark and around 7.00 pm normally the place near the cementry would be vacant. PW1 also unequivocally admitted the suggestion MO- 1 to MO-6 are available in the public.
13. CW5 Satish S Kone examined as PW2. According to the prosecution PW2 went for raid along with PW1. In the chief examination PW2 who being staff of PW1 and he assisted the ride on accused by PW1, PW2 have also deposed the same line chief examination of PW2. In the cross examination it elicited at through the mouth of PW2 at in the evening 6.00 pm at near KFSC Layout, Hindu cemetery people's moving 15 SC No. 582/2020 were in moderate. PW2 unequivocally admitted road leads to cemetery from the police station have the many more shops and that road is one of the main road. PW2 do not know at around the place of incident construction work was going on.
14. CW8 Mahadeva Daroor examined as PW3. According to the prosecution PW3 went for raid along with PW1. In the chief examination PW2 who being staff of PW1 and he assisted the ride on accused by PW1, PW3 have also deposed PW3's same line chief examination. But in the cross examination it elicited, in between the police station and place of incident there is 1 km distance and on that day it takes time of 20 minutes to reached the place of incident.
15. CW12 Murali examined as PW4.
According to the prosecution, PW4 is investigating officer. PW4 deposed on 16 SC No. 582/2020 07.05.2019, at 9.10pm when PW4 was incharge of police station CW1 Shivappa Nayakar have appeared and produced 6 number of accused, seized material objects along with one report. Based on said report PW4 registered the case in against all the accused under Cr.No.243/2019 for the offence punishable U/s 399, 402 of IPC and PW4 sent the FIR to the court. PW4 identify the said report. The same report now it already marked at Ex.P3 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P3(b). PW4 identified the FIR. Accordingly now FIR marked at Ex.P4 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P4(a). On the same day PW4 enquired all 6 accused and arrested them as per the law. Seized all materials have subjected into PF No.64/2019. On the same day, PW4 recorded the statement of all the accused. On the same day PW4 recorded the statement of witness viz., panchas 17 SC No. 582/2020 CW2 and On the same day PW4 also recorded the statement of witness of CW4 to CW11. On 08.05.2019, PW4 produced all 6 accused at before the court along with the remand application. Since, PW4 finds material Particular of the accused in against the accused in his investigation, he filed the chargehseet in against the accused on 05.09.2019.
16. With this background of the deposition of the witness, it right time to saw the preposition of law in this behalf. Accordingly the same relevant portion ratio of the judgment have narrated herein below.
17. In the judgment reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 1775 in case of Ram Kishan Vs/.State of U.P., wherein it has been held as under:
"Penal Code (45 of 1869), Ss.399, 402
-Preparation to commit dacoity - Arrest of accused persons along with arms and ammunition - No public witness summoned to witness incident
- Neither signature of accused were 18 SC No. 582/2020 obtained - neither signatures of accused were obtained on seizure memo nor copy therefore was furnished to any of accused - Out of six dacoits, three were armed with country made pistols and were having ten live cartridges also - However, none of them had loaded their pistols
- Is also could not be believed that accused dacoits who had assembled at culvert were talking so loudly that their voice was heard by police party in odd hours of night - Police party did not recover a single penny from possession of any of accused - Non recovery of coins or currency notes from pockets of accused makes prosecution story doubtful - Accused held entitled to be acquitted."
18. In one another decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Suleman V/s.State Delhi through Secretary, it has been held the person who involved in an offences punishable U/s.399 and 402 of I.P.C. it was doubtful, the accused would be speaking so loud 19 SC No. 582/2020 about dacoity plan that, the police personnel standing near could hear it.
19. Yet another one decision, Hon'ble High court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case in between Bagga @ Bangu V/s.State of Haryana in the year 2011, it observed it is improbable that, after secrete information was received till police party reached at the spot, the accused were continuing to repeat their plan. It is also very improbable that, at the very neck of the movement when the police party reached at the spot, the accused started their conversation. The same view was expressed expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts in Piru and others V/s.State of Haryana in the year 2015 also.
20. Further in another one decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in between, Chathuri Yadhav and others V/s. State of Bihar way back in the year 1979, it observed, the mere fact, the accused were found at 1.00 a.m., with some of them armed with guns did 20 SC No. 582/2020 not prove that, they have assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparation to accomplish that object.
21. The same such ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court have also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment, Desuraj @ Dass V/s.State in 2000 and Punjab and Hon'ble High court of Haryana in Mahaveer V/s. State of Haryana in the year 2010 for mere assemblage and recovery of fire arms did not prove charge U/s.399 and 402 of I.P.C. Division Bench of Honb'le Apex court in a case of Jasveer Singh Aka Jawari Aka Jabbarsingh V/s.State of Haryana observed that "It is not natural that, 6 accused persons and four of whom were armed with deadly weapons, neither offered any resistance nor caused any injury to any of the police personnel before or after apprehension by the police".
22. Further, in one decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in 21 SC No. 582/2020 Crl.A.No.3767/2010 between Gaddeppa V/s. State of Karnataka, it held, to prove the offence of preparation for committing dacoity, nothing elicited as to for what purpose accused persons gathered there. Whether there was any attempt done by them in order to commit dacoity. Not shown that they had actually stopped any vehicle and any owner or the driver of the vehicle complained that, they had made any attempt to commit dacoity. Mere recovery of some articles and also non-explanation of the accused as to why they had gathered in that particular place is not sufficient to fill up the gap on the side of the prosecution to prove that accused were actually gathered there for the purpose of committing dacoity. Except presence of the accused persons at the spot, recovery of some articles and voluntary statements of the accused, no other material to show that, they were gathered there for the purpose of committing dacoity. Mere suspicion or imagination by the 22 SC No. 582/2020 police officer bereft of any other material is not sufficient to draw a conclusive inference that, accused persons were gathered there for the purpose of committing dacoity. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused.
23. In the judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.2088/2017 C/w. Crl.Appeal No.2066 to 2068 of 2017 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that circumstances brought out in the evidence of prosecution witnesses completely demolish the case of the prosecution. Evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish the ingredients of the offences punishable U/s.399 and 402 of I.P.C. There is no clear and convincing evidence to show that weapons produced before the court were seized from the possession of the accused.
24. From the ratio of the law herein the above it obvious, it is difficult to believe that, police officials over heard the plan of the accused persons from considerable distance.
23 SC No. 582/2020Complainant has not summoned local public witness to act as panchayathdars. Signatures of Accused Nos.1 to 6 and others were not obtained to the seizure or raid panchanama. It doubtful accused would be speaking so loud about dacoity plan that the police personnel standing could here it. It also improbable after secrete information was received till police party reached at the spot the accused were continuing to repeat their plan and also improbable at the very neck of the movement when the police party reached at the spot the accused started their conversation. Further, the ratio mere assemblage and recovery of the material object by itself not to prove charge under section 399 and 402 of IPC. Further the ratio accused if not actually not stopped any vehicle, owner of the vehicle or driver of the vehicle complained that, they have made any attempt to commit any dacoity. Mere recovery of some articles and also non- explanation of the accused as to why they had 24 SC No. 582/2020 gathered in that particular place is not sufficient to fill up the gap on the side of the prosecution to prove that accused were actually gathered there for the purpose of committing dacoity.
25. The above all the same ratio enunciated from the above all judgments, if it applied to the case on hand. As per the prosecution, Accused Nos.1 to 6 who being one of the member of five or more person group and they made preparation to committed the dacoity at in the particular date, time and place, charged in against them. If it go through the deposition of PW1 to PW3, wherein the deposition of PW1 to PW3 it could saw, Accused Nos.1 to 6 being one of the member of five or more persons and they have made preparation to committed the dacoity. That such of the information received by PW1, PW1 along with PW2 and PW3 and other all his staff he went near to the spot and make a trap on over all the persons group and recovered the weapons MO-1 to MO-6 from them. After 25 SC No. 582/2020 recovered such of MO-1 to MO-6 weapons from accused, PW1 drawn Ex.P2 seizer mahazar at before CW2 and CW3 panchas. Admittedly in despite to make an all endeavor to secured CW2 and CW3, CW2 and CW3 have not been secured. Accordingly, the testimony of the independent witness viz., CW2 and CW3 panchas have not been available on the case record. According to the prosecution, the deposition of PW1 to PW3 could not to been rejected on the sole veil of PW1 to PW3 are be the police witness. Further, according to the prosecution the testimony of PW1 to PW3 have the same weight with independent witness in the eye of law. No second thoughts the testimony of the police witness has the equal weight with independent witness in the eye of law if the testimony of police witness inspire the confidence. Where as in the case on hand and if once go through the cross-examination portion of PW1, PW1 unequivocally admitted the suggestion time at 26 SC No. 582/2020 6.55pm., normally a dark and at 7.00pm at in the cemetery no one was present. Further, if it go through cross-examination portion of PW2, in the mouth of PW2 it elicited the place of incident was the main road, the road which leads to the place of incident from the police station have many more shops and movement of the people in that road at that time was moderate. Further, it also elicited from the mouth of PW3, in between place of incident and police station there is 1km distance and it take 20 minutes on that day to reached the place of incident from the police station. From the answer which elicited from the mouth of PW1 to PW3 in their cross-examination have make it to clear the place of incident is one of the main road, that main road have many more shops. If suppose that was the place of incident, then how it could possible to make preparation to committed the dacoity. According to the prosecution, PW1 received the information from the informant and 27 SC No. 582/2020 not by the general public. If once accused happens to be prepared a preparation to committed dacoity by holding deadly weapons at in the main road then how it could possible to believe the general public have become quite rather intimated the same to the complainant police. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution have become silent with respect to commission of the offence on that day either earlier to trap on the accused or even at the time make it to confirm the information at near in the place of incident. Further, one more limb of the prosecution case called for discussion is, if the accused once make preparation to committed the dacoity, how they would possible to kept quite till arrival of the complainant police to the spot. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution get more silence both on the point of earlier to trap on accused or even time of the complainant police watched the accused for confirmation of the information, no dacoity or robbery have 28 SC No. 582/2020 committed by the accused. If the accused once make it to prepare to commission of the offence, certainly they would did the same to achieve their intention at during point of time either before trap on them or even at the time of watching them by the police. Admittedly as per the prosecution case the complainant police have seized M.O.1 to M.O.6 from the possession of accused and nothing else. But, as per Ex.P2 mahazar, the complainant police have seized only M.O.1 to M.O.6 material objects from the possession of accused and nothing else. As if accused once ready to committed the offence certainly some other material objects he would possessed other than M.O.1 to M.O.6 to be the result of commission of offence. With this particular point of circumstances of the evidence the case of the prosecution have created his own black cloudiness on its face. Since the same black cloudiness covered on the prosecution case fail to explain by PW1 to PW3 in their evidence, 29 SC No. 582/2020 it creates serious doubts on the prosecution case as well as the testimony of PW1 to PW3. The same doubt extended to the accused as per the Criminal Jurisprudence. As the testimony of PW1 to PW3 not been inspired the confidence on its face and for the reason other independent witness not to supported the case of prosecution, have it further created the doubt on the prosecution case. With this being of observation that I am of the view, though the prosecution marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 documents and M.O.1 to M.O.6 material objects, the same such of the Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 documents and M.O.1 to M.O.6 material objects have not been inspired any such of the inspiration to believe it. Accordingly the judgment which relied by the learned Public prosecutor not to applicable to the case on hand. Hence with due respect, the ratio of the same judgments not applied to the case on hand. Accordingly, I have answered Points No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
30 SC No. 582/202026. Point No.3:- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of I.P.C.
In compliance to section 437(A) of Cr.P.C Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/-, earlier bail bond and personal bond have been continued for period of 6 months from today in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
M.O.1 to M.O.6 are to be preserved for the trial of split up accused persons.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 11th day of November, 2025).
sd/-
(ONKARAPPA R) C/c XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.31 SC No. 582/2020
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Shivappa Naik P.W.2 Satheesh P.W.3 Mahadev Daroor P.W.4 Murali
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 Notice Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 Mahazar Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P3 Report Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW4 Ex.P4 FIR Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW4
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O.1 - Dragger
M.O.2 - Dragger
M.O.3 - Chilly powder packet
M.O.4 & 5 - Two wooden clubs
M.O.6 - Iron rod
32 SC No. 582/2020
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :- NIL List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :- NIL sd/-
(ONKARAPPA R), C/c XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.