Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No. 4. Praveena on 16 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 16th day of October 2019
PRESENT
************
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.M.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
S.C.No.1039/2016
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka,
By Cottonpet Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Learned
Public Prosecutor, City Civil
Court Complex, Bengaluru)
-Vs-
ACCUSED No. 4. Praveena,
Residing at Cheluvadi Palya,
Cotton Pet,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Sri M.K.V. , Advocate)
1. Date of Commission : 17.09.2014
of Offence
2. Date of Report : 18.09.2014
of Offence
3. Status of the accused : Accused No. 4 is on bail
SC.No. 1039/2016
2
4. Name of the complainant : Sri Hiralaal Chowdary
5. Date of Commencement :
05.11.2017
of evidence
6. Date of Closing of :
19.08.2019
Evidence
7. Offences complained of : Sections 398 and 307
Read with Section 34 of
I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.4 found not
guilty
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police of Cotton Pet Police Station, Bengaluru city has filed this split-up charge sheet against the accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 398, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the CW.1/Hiralal is the brother of CW.2/Buraram Chowdary. Both were residing in House No.9, 3rd floor, B.D.G. Lane, Jolly Mohalla, Cotton pet, Bengaluru. They were running Megha Electricals shop at Chickpet, R.T. Street, Bengaluru city. They were having their godown in Cottonpet, Bengaluru city, SC.No. 1039/2016 3 which is near to their shop. In the godown many goods were stored and therefore, in the year 2014 the CW.2 was going to the godown from his residence for stay over night. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 17.09.2014 as usual after dinner the CW.2/Buraram Chowdary proceeding towards godown from his house and he reached Obayya Lane, 2nd Cross, at Bengaluru at about 10.00 P.M. At that time totally five persons attacked Buraram Chowdary and demanded Cell phone. When Buraram Chowdary refused to give cell phone, out of five persons three persons caught hold Buraram Chowdary and other two persons stabbed Buraram Chowdary with knife and caused injuries. When the public assembled, all five persons ran away from the spot. Buraram Chowdary sustained injuries and CW.2/Mangal Patel, CW.4/Veeresh witnessed this incident and public informed the incident to the Police. Buraram Chowdary was taken to Victoria hospital for treatment and Hiralal Chowdary went to the hospital after receiving the information of this incident from Mangal Patel. Hiralal Chowdary shifted his brother for further treatment to SC.No. 1039/2016 4 Mallige hospital on 18.09.2014 and Buraram Chowdary discharged on 21.09.2014 from Mallige Hospital. On 18.09.2014 Hiralal Chowdary after admitting his brother in Mallige hospital went to Cottonpet Police Station along with blood-stained cloth of Buraram Chowdary and given first information. Based on such information the Police registered case in Crime No.268/2014 at 8.15 A.M. on 18.09.2014 by seizing the blood-stained shirt of Buraram Chowdary and launched the investigation.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.09.2014 the Cottonpet Police arrested the accused No.2 and 3. They have been shown to Buraram Chowdary, Mangal Patel and Veeresh and they have identified both accused. The accused No.1 was arrested in Crime No.203/2014 of City Railway Police Station on 07.10.2014. That case was registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. The Investigating Officer taken the accused No.1 into his custody on 16.11.2014 for the purpose of investigation. On that day the Investigating Officer has shown the accused SC.No. 1039/2016 5 No.1 to Buraram Chowdary, Mangal Patel and Veeresh. The witnesses have identified the accused No.1. The victim and eye witnesses have given their additional statements before the Investigating Officer stating that the accused No.1 and 2 stabbed the victim with knife and accused No.3, 4 and 5 were holding the victim at the time of the incident. It is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 given their voluntary statement before the Investigating Officer on 24.09.2014 disclosing the place where the knives were thrown. Based on such statement the Investigating Officer has seized two knives at the instance of accused No.2 and 3 in the presence of panch witnesses which were thrown near scene of offence. The Investigating Officer tried to arrest the accused Nos.4 and 5 and they were absconding. With these allegations, the prosecution has contended that the accused Nos.1 to 5 attempted to commit robbery or dacoity by holding deadly weapons and even attempted to commit murder of Buraram Chowdary and thereby committed the offence under Section 398, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
SC.No. 1039/2016 6
4. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 5 before the Committal court in C.C.No.35181/2014. The accused No.4 and 5 were not secured and therefore, the case against them came to be split up. Separate case in C.C.No.5453/2015 has been registered against them. C.C.No.35181/2014 was committed and registered before this court in SC.No.403/2015, which was decided on 30.01.2018. Thereafter, in C.C.No.5453/2015 the Committal Magistrate secured the presence of accused No.4 and committed the case for trial. The accused No.4 appeared through his counsel and he is on bail.
5. After hearing both parties, charge was framed against the accused No.4 for the offence under Section 398, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused No.4 has pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried.
6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10 SC.No. 1039/2016 7 along with Material Objects at M.O.1 to M.O.3. The accused No.4 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He has not adduced evidence in his defence.
7. Heard the argument of both sides and perused the records.
8. I have scrutinized the evidence on record meticulously. Having regard to the charge framed against the accused No.4 and the material evidence on record, the following points arise for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 17.09.2014 at about 10.00 P.M. in 2nd Cross, Obayya Lane, Bengaluru city, the accused No.4 along with accused No.1 to 3 and 5 shown in charge sheet attempted to commit robbery or dacoity armed with knives which are deadly weapons and thereby committed the offence under Section 398 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said SC.No. 1039/2016 8 date, place and time, the accused No.4 along with accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 attacked Buraram Chowdary with knives with common intention to commit robbery or dacoity and the accused No.1 and 2 stabbed victim with an intention or knowledge that by that act they cause the death of Buraram Chowdary, would be guilty of murder and thereby committed the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 & 2 :- In the Negative for the following:-
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 & 2 :- The P.W.4 /Hiralal Chowdary is the first informant who set the criminal law into motion by filing the first informant at Ex.P.3 before the Police. He is the brother of Buraram Chowdary. P.W.1/ Buraram Chowdary is the victim and P.W.5 is Mangal Ram Patel is the eye-witness. P.W.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence Panchanama at Ex.P.1. P.W.2 is the Medical attendant who has given treatment to Buraram Chowdary in Mallige SC.No. 1039/2016 9 hospital and issued wound-certificate at Ex.P.2. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer.
11. The P.W.1 and 4 have stated that they are brothers each other. They were running Megha Electricals shop in Chickpet, Bengaluru. They were residing in B.D.G. Layout and they were having godown to store the electric goods in Cottonpet, Bengaluru. They have also stated that every day the P.W.4 was going to godown to halt and to watch the godown from his house in the night. These statements of P.W.1 and 4 have not been disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the P.W.1 and 4 are the brothers, they were running electrical shop in Chickpet and they were having godown in Cottonpet, Bengaluru in the year 2014 when the alleged incident took place.
12. The P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 07.09.2014 at about 10.00 P.M. he was proceeding towards his godown via Obayya Lane by holding mobile in his hand. At about 10.00 P.M. five persons came in front of SC.No. 1039/2016 10 him asked to give mobile and he refused. Therefore, those five people were telling that he has to be killed. Thereafter, he raised hue and cry. Then also the accused No.1/Santhosh came to hit him with knife, he tried to avoid the blow and then also the blow was given to left chest and therefore, he sustained bleeding injury. He states that accused No.2/Selvaraj and accused No.3/Manjunath were holding him and they were telling the accused No.1 to kill him. He has stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have stabbed him on his back with knife 3 to 4 times and thereby caused injury. He has stated that accused No.4 and other accused simply standing when he was assaulted. The public came to the spot after hearing the noise, five persons who attacked him ran away and public informed to the Police through phone. He has stated that Police came to the spot, taken him to Victoria hospital for treatment and in that hospital his brother P.W.4 came. He has also stated that he informed the incident to his brother and on the very day he was taken to Mallige hospital for treatment. He states that two days after the incident, Police called him to the Police SC.No. 1039/2016 11 Station on 13.09.2014 the Police shown the accused Nos.1 and 2 to him and on 24.09.2014 the Police shown accused No.4. The P.W.1 has identified the accused No.4 and blood stained shirt at M.O.1 and two knives said to be used by accused Nos.1 and 2 which are produced at M.O.2 and 3.
13. The PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted categorically that accused No.4 was not present in the scene of offence when the incident took place. He has also admitted that accused No.4 not participated in the crime. Even though the PW-.1 in the examination-in-chief has stated that accused No.4 was standing in the spot when the incident took place and police shown him in the station on 24.09.2014, such statements are subsequently denied in the cross-examination. Therefore, there are material contradiction in the evidence of PW-.1. The evidence of PW-.1 show the crime committed by the accused No.1 to 3 and not the accused No.4.
14. The P.W.5/Mangal Ram Patel has stated that he is running electric shop in Balepet, Bengaluru and his house is SC.No. 1039/2016 12 situated at Cottonpet, Bengaluru. These statements are not denied by the accused No.4. The P.W.5 has stated that on 17.09.2014 at about 10.00 P.M. he was proceeding from his shop to his house on motor cycle via Obayya lane. At about 10.00 P.M. he saw the accused Nos.1 to 3 and Buraram Chowdary when the accused Nos.1 to 3 were asking Buraram Chowdary to give mobile. He has stated that when Buraram Chowdary refused to give mobile, one of the accused out of three accused stabbed on the back of Buraram Chowdary and other two accused were holding Buraram Chowdary. He has stated that Buraram Chowdary sustained bleeding injury and public gathered. After noticing the public, the accused Nos.1 to 3 ran away. He states that this incident was informed by him to P.W.1 / Hiralal Chowdary over phone. He has stated that the public taken Buraram Chowdary to the Police Station and Police taken Buraram Chowdary to Victoria hospital for treatment and thereafter, Buraram Chowdary was shifted to Mallige hospital. He has identified the shirt of Buraram Chowdary at M.O.1 and knife at M.O.2.
SC.No. 1039/2016 13
15. The PW-.5 in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused No.4 was asking PW-.1 to give mobile and when PW-1 refused, the accused No.4 assaulted the PW-.1 by his hand. He has also stated that police shown the accused No.4 to him in the police station after the incident. These are the two important statements made by PW-.5 against the accused No.4. Other statements made by PW-.5 is against accused No.1 to 3 and not the accused No.4.
16. The PW-5 in the cross-examination has admitted that before he reaching the spot, PW-1 had sustained injuries, which show that PW-.5 not witnessed stabbing of PW-.1 and even demanding of mobile by accused No.4 and assault made by accused No.4 on the PW-.1. Therefore, this statement of PW-.5 creates doubt about witnessing of accused No.4 on the spot and demand made by accused No.4 for the mobile.
17. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 it is found that when the accused attacked P.W.1/ Buraram Chowdary, public gathered and by the same time, the P.W.5 also SC.No. 1039/2016 14 reached the spot. He saw the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 when two of them were holding Buraram Chowdary and another was stabbing Buraram Chowdary. The presence of P.W.5 on the spot and witnessing the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 with P.W.1 at the time of incident is made out without any improvement or contradiction. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 is supporting the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked P.W.1 and one of the accused stabbed Buraram Chowdary in order to commit dacoity or robbery. This much value can be attached to the evidence of P.W.5.
18. The P.W.4 has stated that on 17.09.2014 his brother Buraram Chowdary left the house at about 9.30 to 10.00 P.M. in order to go to godown. He received phone call at about 10.00 P.M. from some body and came to know that three persons stabbed his brother Buraram Chowdary and Buraram Chowdary was taken to Victoria hospital for treatment. Therefore, he went to Victoria hospital and taken Buraram Chowdary for further treatment to Mallige Hospital SC.No. 1039/2016 15 on the very day. He has stated that for three days Buraram Chowdary was in ICU and he has given his complaint before the Police along with shirt at M.O.1. He has stated that after three days of the incident, he came to know from Buraram Chowdary that four culprits stabbed him when Buraram Chowdary refused to give his mobile.
19. Admittedly, the P.W.4 is the brother of victim. His evidence is restricting to informing the incident to the Police and setting the criminal law in motion. The information at Ex.P.3 said to be given by the P.W.4 is spoken by this witness. Ex.P.3 bears his signature. He has handed over the shirt of Buraram Chowdary to the Police. Theses statements of P.W.4 are consistent with each other. The Investigating Officer / P.W.3 received the first information from P.W.4 and registered the FIR. The statements of P.W.4 and 3 are tallying with each other. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.4 it can be safely held that immediately after the incident he went to Victoria hospital where his brother was admitted and thereafter, he shifted Buraram Chowdary to SC.No. 1039/2016 16 Mallige hospital for further treatment and then went to Police Station on18.09.2014 and filed Ex.P.3.
20. The incident took place on 17.09.2014 at 10.00 P.M. and whereas the FIR has been registered on 18.09.2014 at 8.15 AM. There is some delay. The brother of PW-.4 was in ICU and he was attending his brother, he could not file complaint before Police immediately after the incident. These facts show that since PW-.4 engaged in providing medical treatment to PW-.1, delay has been caused in reporting the matter to the police. Such delay is not for implication of any of the accused. Hence, the delay is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
21. The P.W.1, 4 and 5 have stated that immediately after the incident the P.W.1 was taken to Victoria hospital. But the Investigating Officer not collected any medical records of victim from Victoria hospital. The P.W.3 not explained why he has not taken medical records of Buraram Chowdary from Victoria hospital. To this effect there is lacuna on the part of Investigating Officer.
SC.No. 1039/2016 17
22. P.W.1, 4 and 5 have stated that the victim was admitted in Mallige hospital. The P.W.2 has also stated that he has given medical treatment to P.W.1. He has issued the wound-certificate at Ex.P.2. The defence has not disputed the admission of P.W.1 in Mallige hospital for treatment on 18.09.2014 including the injuries shown in Ex.P.2. The P.W.2 has stated that he has given treatment to P.W.1 and found multiple stab injuries on the back with different sizes and fracture on left side of his 6th rib. The statement that stab wounds were found on the body of Buraram Chowdary has not been denied by the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 and certificate at Ex.P.2 are sufficient to hold that Buraram Chowdary sustained stab injuries on his body on 17.09.2014 and he took treatment in Mallige hospital early morning on 18.09.2014. These wounds found on the body of P.W.1 supports the statement of P.W.1, 4 and
5.
23. P.W.3 who is Investigating Officer has stated that he received the information at Ex.P.3 from P.W.4 on 18.09.2014 at about 8.15 A.M. and registered it in FIR SC.No. 1039/2016 18 produced at Ex.P.4. P.W.4 has spoken about filing of his first information before the Police. The P.W.5 has stated that public taken P.W.1 to the Station and then Police sent him to Victoria hospital. The P.W.1 has stated that public called the Police through phone, Police came to the spot and then the Police taken him to Victoria hospital. Looking to these statements, there appears some discrepancies. From these statements it appears that the public informed to the Police over phone and from the spot the victim was taken to Victoria hospital. The P.W.5 informed the incident to P.W.4, then P.W.4 went to the Victoria hospital. He shifted victim to Mallige hospital and then approached the Police with complaint at Ex.P.3. Looking to the statement of these witnesses and the time of incident, I am of the opinion that such discrepancies are not material discrepancies.
24. The PW-4 along with Ex.P.3 handed over the shirt of victim at M.O.1 to P.W.3. The PW-4 has seized that shirt by drawing the Panchanama at Ex.P.5. The P.W.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses to such Panchanama. Both witnesses SC.No. 1039/2016 19 have identified their signature at Ex.P.5 but they have denied the seizure of M.O.1. The P.W.1, 4 and 5 have identified the shirt at M.O.1. It is not the case of the accused that the said shirt not belong to P.W.1. Therefore, only because the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, it cannot be held that the prosecution not proved the Panchanama at Ex.P.5 as there is evidence of P.W.1, 3, 4 and 5. Such evidence is sufficient to prove the seizure of M.O.1.
25. The P.W.3 has stated that he went to the spot on 23.09.2014 and drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.1 in respect of scene of offence which has been shown by P.W.1 The incident took place on 17.09.2014 at 10.00 P.M. and the Panchanama was drawn on 23.09.2014. Since the victim was in hospital and he was discharged on 21.09.2014, when such spot has been shown by victim, it appears that the Investigating Officer has drawn the Panchanama at Ex.P.1. Because of admission of victim in the hospital, the P.W.3 not chosen to draw the Panchanama till 23.09.2014. Therefore, SC.No. 1039/2016 20 delay in drawing of Panchanama is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The CW.9 and 10 are the panch witnesses to this Panchanama and both witnesses have not been examined. To prove the Panchanama there is evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.1. The P.W.1 is signatory to Ex.P.1. He has not denied his presence when this Panchanama has been drawn. The P.W.3 has categorically stated that Panchanama was drawn in presence of C.W.9 and 10 and P.W.1. Such statement has not been shaken in the cross-examination. More over it is not the case of the accused that the scene of offence shown in Ex.P.1 is different or no incident took place on that spot. Having regard to these facts and evidence on record, I hold that in the absence of evidence of CW.9 and 10, the evidence of P.W.3 is sufficient to prove the Panchanama at Ex.P.1. Accordingly, I hold that the Panchanama at Ex.P.1 has been proved by the prosecution.
26. The P.W.3 has stated that on 24.09.2014 he arrested the accused Nos.2 and 3 and both of them have given their voluntary statement produced at Ex.P.6 and P.7.
SC.No. 1039/2016 21 These statements bear the signature of accused Nos.2 and
3. In Ex.P.6 the accused No.2 has stated that he would show the place where he has thrown the knife used for commission of the offence. In Ex.P.7 the accused No.3 has stated that he would show the place where the incident took place. Those statements are only marked which are admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer was knowing the spot of commission of offence and therefore, the discovery at Ex.P.7 is not relevant. However, the statement at Ex.P.6 relating to discovery of knife is relevant under Section 27 of Evidence Act. To prove Ex.P.6, the evidence of P.W.3 is sufficient. Accordingly, I hold that through the evidence of P.W.3 and statement at Ex.P.6, the prosecution has proved the discovery statement made by accused No.2. 27. The P.W.3 has stated that accused No.2 and 3 taken him near the scene of offence and shown the two knives which were thrown therein and those knives produced at M.O.2 and 3 have been seized in the presence SC.No. 1039/2016 22 of CW.7 and 8 who are the panch witnesses. Both panch witnesses have not been examined. Therefore, for recovery of knives, the evidence of P.W.3 alone is available. The statement of P.W.3 about recovery of M.O.2 and 3 is consistent and not shaken in the cross-examination.
28. The P.W.5 has identified the knife at M.O.2. The P.W.1 has identified the knives at M.O.2 and 3. The victim is the best person to speak about the weapon used to assault him. The victim has identified the weapons used by the accused at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 and 1 is supporting the evidence of P.W.3 in respect of identity of weapons used by the accused. Based on these evidence on record, I hold that even though the panch witnesses have not been examined for the proof of recovery Panchanama at Ex.P.8, the evidence is sufficient to prove the seizure. Accordingly, I hold that seizure of knives have been proved by the prosecution.
29. The Investigating Officer has stated that after seizure of M.O.1 to 3, he sent those articles to FSL for SC.No. 1039/2016 23 examination on 30.10.2014 through CW.16. He has also stated that on 02.03.2015 he received the report from FSL along with sample seal. The certificate of examination is at Ex.P.10 and sample seal is at Ex.P.10(a) which are issued by State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala, Bengaluru. In Ex.P.10 it has been opined that the human blood has been detected in M.O.1 to 3 and said blood belong to 'B' Group. The accused during the evidence of P.W.3 not raised any objection for marking of Ex.P.10 and therefore, that document has been received in evidence without any objection. The expert who has issued the certificate has not been examined. Whether without examination of expert, Ex.P.10 can be received in evidence and believed will have to be decided.
30. The report at Ex.P.10 is issued by Scientific Officer, Biology Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru and it has been counter signed by Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Therefore, this certificate falls under Section 293(4)(e) of SC.No. 1039/2016 24 Cr.P.C. Section 293(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this Section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceedings under the code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the code. Therefore, the certificate at Ex.P.10 can be used in evidence without examination of its author. Accordingly, Ex.P.10 is used in evidence. Ex.P.10 supports the case of the prosecution that the blood stains found on shirt of victim produced at M.O.1 tallied with the blood stains found on knives at M.O.2 and 3. Therefore, this certificate is sufficient to hold that M.O.2 and 3 have been used by the accused Nos.1 to 3 to cause injury to P.W.1.
31. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in the light of the discussion made above, I hold that the prosecution has proved that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have attempted to commit robbery or dacoity on P.W.1 in order to snatch the cell phone and when he resisted, the SC.No. 1039/2016 25 accused have caused grievous injuries to PW.1 with M.O.2 and 3 which are deadly weapons. Therefore, the acts committed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 are sufficient to prove their guilt under Section 398 and 307 of IPC.
32. The trial is conducted against the accused No.4 in this case. The accused No.1 to 3 have been already convicted in SC.No.403/2015. The evidence recorded in that case including the finding cannot be read in this case. The case against the accused No.4 has to be decided independently based on the evidence adduced in the present case.
33. The statements made by the PW-.1 and 5 in the examination-in-chief about the presence of accused No.4 in the spot when the incident took place alongwith accused No.1 to 3 is shaken in the cross-examination. Other than those statements there is no evidence against the accused No.4 either direct or circumstantial. Even to infer that there was common intention on the part of accused No.4 to commit robbery along with accused No.1 to 3, there is no SC.No. 1039/2016 26 circumstantial evidence or direct evidence. Therefore, for the act committed by accused No.1 to 3, the accused No.4 cannot be held guilty by invoking Section 34 of IPC. Thus, the accused No.4 has to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer the above points in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4 is acquitted for the offence under Section 398 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
It is ordered to retain the seized properties as the case against other accused is pending.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of October, 2019).
(B.B. JAKATI) LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
SC.No. 1039/2016 27 ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Buraram Chowdry
P.W.2 Dr. Shanthkumar
P.W.3 Gajendra V.
P.W.4 Hiralal
P.W.5 Mangalram Patel
P.W.6 Ramesh
P.W.7 Marappa
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a), (b) Signature of PW.1, 3
Ex.P.2 Wound certificate
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3 Complaint
Ex.P.3(a), (b) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.4 FIR
Ex.P.5 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.5(a),(b) Signature of PW.3, 6
Ex.P.6 Voluntary statement of A2
Ex.P.7 Voluntary statement of A3
Ex.P.7(a), (b) Signature of PW.3, A3
Ex.P.8 Mah
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.9 Letter (Marked in
SC.403/2015)
Ex.P.10 FSL Report
Ex.P.10(a) Sample seal
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
NIL SC.No. 1039/2016 28
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :
M.O.1 Blood stained shirt
M.O.2 & 3 knives
(B.B. Jakati)
LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE CITY.
SC.No. 1039/2016
29
Judgment pronounced in open court
(vide separte detailed judgment)
ORDER
Acting under Section 235 of Cr.P.C.,
the accused No.4 is acquitted for the
offence under Section 398 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
SC.No. 1039/2016 30 It is ordered to retain the seized properties as the case against other accused is pending.
(B.B. JAKATI) LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.