Bangalore District Court
State By Banashankari Police Station vs Name : A1. N.Muniraja @ Hoova on 11 March, 2022
1 S.C.No.1125/2015
KABC010231922015
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 11th day of March, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri.Sadananda Nagappa Naik,B.A.L, L.L.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60
BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1125/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by Banashankari police station,
Bengaluru.
V/S
ACCUSED NAME : A1. N.Muniraja @ Hoova,
S/o. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at No.34, K.R.Road,
A.K.Colony,
Jayanagara 7th Block,
Bengaluru-70.
A2. V.Prashanth,
S/o.Vasantha Kumar,
Aged about 22 years,
Residing at No.27/1, 2nd Cross,
Chunchanaghatta Main Road,
2 SC.No.1125/2015
Ganapathipura Main Road,
Bengaluru.
A4. R.Naveen Kumar @ Mama,
S/o. Ramanna,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.L/82, 2nd Cross,
8ht Main Road,
Jayanagara 2nd Block,
Bengaluru.
1. Date of commission of offence : 07.04.2015
2. Date of report of offence : 07.04.2015
3. Name of the complainant : Sri. R. Venkatesh
4. Date of recording evidence : 18.07.2018
5. Date of closing evidence : 16.02.2021
6. Offences complained of : U/Sec.143, 147,
148, 307
r/w.Sec.149 of I.P.C.,
7. Opinion of the Judge : Offences against
Accused No.2 and
4 are not proved.
Offence punishable
under Section 307 of
IPC is proved against
accused No.1.
8. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
9. Accused defended by : A1, 2 & 4 - by Sri Umesh.N,
Advocate
3 SC.No.1125/2015
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police of Banashankari police station, Bengaluru have filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 for offences punishable U/s.143, 147, 148, 307 R/w.Sec.149 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.134/2015.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows;
In the charge sheet, it is alleged that, accused No.1, 2 and 4 along with other accused persons on 07.04.2015 at about 1.45 P.M. formed an unlawful assembly at A.K. Colony, K.R. Road, near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Bengaluru. Accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 / Sri R. Venkatesh @ Appi with knife and accused No.4 tried to assault with sword with an intention of causing injury as is likely to cause his death thereby accused persons have committed offences punishable U/s.143, 147, 148, 307 R/w. 149 of I.P.C.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by CW.1, S.H.O. of Banashankari police station registered F.I.R. in Cr.No.134/2015 for offences punishable U/s.143, 147, 148, 307 R/w.Sec149 of I.P.C. Upon taking the case for investigation, Investigation Officer has proceeded to 4 SC.No.1125/2015 the spot, conducted spot panchanama and seized articles available on the spot. Investigation Officer has arrested, interrogated the accused persons and recorded their voluntary statements. Further, Investigation Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses and police staff as per Section 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Investigating Officer has submitted Final Report to the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
4. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused No.1 to 6 by the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused No.1 to 6 was registered in C.C.No.14187/2015 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Despite issuance of N.B.W., accused No.3, 5 and 6 were not traced out. Hence, case against accused No.3, 5 and 6 came to be split up. Since offences alleged against accused persons are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of this case against accused No.1, 2 and 4 to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. After committal, this case is re-registered as S.C.No.1125/2015.
5. After hearing, on 09.04.2018, charges against accused No.1, 2 and 4 got framed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., which they have denied and claims to be tried.
5 SC.No.1125/20156. To prove the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused, prosecution side examined 10 witness as PW.1 to PW.10 and got exhibited 13 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and got marked material objects at MO.1 to MO.6.
7. On completion of the evidence by the prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the evidence of the prosecution were explained to the accused No.1, 2 and 4, as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements. Accused No.1, 2 and 4 have denied all incriminating circumstances and evidence found in the prosecution side evidence. Accused have not produced any documents, materials on their behalf. Further, no defence evidence is led by the accused side.
8. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused No.1, 2 and 4.
9. Now, the points arising for determination are as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1, 2 and 4 along with other accused persons on 07.04.2015 at about 01:45 pm, at 6 SC.No.1125/2015 A.K.Colony, K.R.Road, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Bangalore, formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons like macchu, knife and sword and used criminal force against CW-1-R.Venkatesh and there by committed the offence of rioting punishable under section 143, 147 and 148 of IPC as alleged in the charge sheet?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the same date, time and place, accused No.1, 2 and 4 along with other accused in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly, accused No.1 assaulted CW-1 with macchu, accused No.2 assaulted CW-1 with knife and accused No.4 tried to assault CW-1 with sword and thereby attempted to commit murder of CW-1 punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of IPC as alleged in the charge sheet?
3. What Order ?
10. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
7 SC.No.1125/2015Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative that Accused No.1 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NOS.1 & 2 :- These points are taken together in order to avoid repeated discussions.
12. In order to prove the ingredients of the offences, charges are framed against accused persons for offences punishable U/s.143, 147, 148, 307 R/w.Sec.149 of I.P.C. Prosecution has examined CW.1/R. Venkatesh as PW 1, who is the complainant and injured. PW 1 in his evidence, has deposed that he stood as surety for accused No.1/Muniraju when Accused No.1 was in judicial custody. On 07.04.2015, at 1.45, in the afternoon, when he was near Anjaneya Temple, K.R. Road, accused No.1/Muniraju came and caused assault by using sickle. He sustained bleeding injury on his forehead. Two more persons came and caused assault on his right knee by using longs. He fell down and sustained injury on his right leg. When he fell down, accused No.1 caused assault on his head by 8 SC.No.1125/2015 using long. Accused No.1 was instigating those two persons to kill him. When he shouted for help, Mahesha, Byataraju and Gangadhar rescued him and admitted him to Seva Kshetra Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to NIMHANS. PW.1 has identified accused No.1, but he was unable to identify accused No.2 and 4. Police had taken his statement on 07.04.2015 when he was taking treatment at Sevakshetra Hospital. PW.1 has identified his complaint at Ex.P.1. On 11.04.2015, Banashankari Police called PW-1 to the Police Station and shown accused No.2 Prashath and accused No.4 Naveen. PW-1 was unable to identify them. PW.1 identified M.O.1 to 3, his shirt, pant and banian. He identified M.O.4 - sickle used for commission of offence. P.W.1 further deposed that accused No.1 had requested him to release him on bail when he was caught in robbery case. To take revenge for not releasing him on bail, accused No.1 has committed assault on him. Evidence of PW.1 stands unrebutted in the Cross-examination made by accused No.1.
13. CW.2/Mahesha, who had seen the incident is examined as PW.2. In his evidence, PW.2 has deposed that accused No.1 caused assault to CW.1 by using sickle, was instructing other four persons in order to kill him. Himself, Byataraju and Venkatesh rescued PW.1 and admitted him to Sevakshetra hospital. He identified his signature on 9 SC.No.1125/2015 Ex.P.3 / seizure panchanama. PW.2 has also identified M.O.1 to 3 - bloodstained shirt, banian and pant worn by PW.1. Further, PW.2 has identified M.O.4 - sickle used by accused No.1 and M.O.5 and 6 weapons used by other accused persons. Evidence of PW.2 stands unrebutted in the Cross-examination made by accused No.1 himself.
14. CW.5/Gangadhar is examined as PW.3. PW.3 is the panch witness for seizure mahazar. In his evidence, PW.3 has deposed that on 08.04.2015, morning 9.30 to 10.00 a.m. Police came near Anjaneya Temple for investigation in the matter of assault caused to PW.1. At that time, Police had taken his signature on mahazar. PW.3 has identified M.O.1 to 3/shirt, pant and banian. Evidence of PW.3 stands unrebutted in the Cross-examination made by accused No.1 himself.
15. CW.11/Muniraju N. is examined as PW.4. PW.4 has deposed that he do not know what is written in the panchanama. Police had not given written notice to him. He is the panch witness for seizure mahazar. In his evidence, PW.4 has deposed that he know accused No.1. Around three and a half years ago, Police called him and Nagaraju to the Police Station. In the Police Station, Police had shown three persons in which accused No.1 was also present. Police took him, Nagaraju and those three 10 SC.No.1125/2015 persons to one park near Ashoka Pillar. Accused No.1 to 3 produced one knife, one sickle, one long weapons to the Police. Police have seized those three weapons. This witness is treated by the prosecution as partly hostile. In the Cross-examination made by learned Public Prosecutor as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, PW.4 has not supported the remaining portion of Ex.P.5 / seizure mahazar.
16. CW.8/Nagaraj who is cited as another panchanama witness for Ex.P.5/seizure mahazar is examined as PW.5. In his evidence, PW.5 has deposed in respect of M.O.4 to 6/weapons produced by accused persons. This witness has turned partly hostile. In the Cross-examination made by learned Public Prosecutor as per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, PW.4 has not supported the remaining portion of Ex.P.5/seizure mahazar.
17. CW.9/Dr.Shanthkumar, Medical Officer who treated the injured / CW.1 is examined as PW.6. In his evidence, PW.6 has deposed that on 07.04.2015 at about 1.30 P.M., Venkatesh R. came to the hospital for treatment for injuries sustained due to assault. On examination, he found cut lacerated wound over occipital region and abrasion over left knee. According to PW.6, injury No.1 was grievous in nature. PW.6 has identified the wound 11 SC.No.1125/2015 certificate/Ex.P.6 issued by him. In his opinion injuries mentioned in Ex.P.6 may be caused by machete. Evidence of PW.6 stands unrebutted in the Cross-examination made by the Advocate for accused No.4.
18. CW.4/Venkatesh is examined as PW.7. PW.7 is the eye witness to the incident. In his evidence, PW.7 has deposed that on 07.04.2015, he had seen accused No.1/ Muniraju with three others assaulting PW.1 with Choori (knife). PW.7 has not stated anything against other accused persons. Evidence of PW.7 stands unrebutted in the Cross-examination.
19. CW.3 / Byataraj is examined as PW.8. In his evidence, PW.8 has not stated anything in respect of the incident. As per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, PW.8 was treated as hostile witness. In the Cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, no such admissions are elicited to prove any facts.
20. CW.6 / Manjunath is examined as PW.9. PW.9 is the panch witness for Ex.P.3/seizure panchanama. PW.9 also didn't support the contents mentioned in Ex.P.3. As per Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, PW.8 was treated as hostile witness. In the Cross-examination by the 12 SC.No.1125/2015 learned Public Prosecutor, no such admissions are elicited to prove any facts.
21. CW.14/BP. Manjunath, PSI is examined as PW.10. PW.10 is an Investigating Officer who registered FIR on the basis of the information given by injured/CW.1. PW.10 has deposed in respect of registration of FIR as per Ex.P.9 on the basis of statement given by CW.1 as per Ex.P.1. PW.10 further deposed about preparation of Ex.P.3 / mahazar, seizure of M.O.1 to 3 / bloodstained clothes of CW.1. PW.10 has further deposed in respect of arrest of accused No.1, 2 and 4, seizure of M.O.4 to 6 / weapons on the basis of information given by them during custodial interrogation. He has further deposed that after collecting wound certificate from CW.9 and after recording further statement of complainant, he has filed a charge sheet against the accused persons. Evidence of PW.10 stands unrebutted in the Cross-examination.
22. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution against accused No.1, 2 and 4. No such admissions are elicited in the Cross-examination made by accused persons to disbelieve the versions of prosecution side evidence. Recovery of weapons used for commission 13 SC.No.1125/2015 of offence on the basis of the information given by accused No.1 is proved. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has prayed to convict the accused No.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of IPC.
23. Heard the arguments on behalf of the accused.
24. It is a Cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence that burden to prove the ingredients of the charges framed against the accused is on the prosecution. Prosecution shall prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts. Accused shall be presumed to be innocent until guilt of the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. To consider whether prosecution succeeded to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, it is just and necessary to consider the evidence adduced by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
25. PW.1 Venkatesh/complainant and injured in this case has deposed in support of the case of the prosecution by explaining the incident, identifying the accused No.1, who assaulted him by using M.O.4 - sickle. Evidence adduced by PW.1 is corroborated with the evidence adduced by eye witness / PW.2 / Mahesh and P.W.7 Venkatesh. Identification of accused as well as weapons 14 SC.No.1125/2015 used for commission of offence are relevant under Section 8 and 9 of Indian Evidence Act. Corroborative evidence adduced by eye witness / PW.2 is relevant under Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act. PW.1, 2 and 7 have identified accused No.1 before the court.
26. Seizure of bloodstained cloths of PW.1 / M.O.1 to 3 is proved with the help of the evidence adduced by PW.3
- Gangadhar, who signed Ex.P.3 - seizure mahazar. PW.10
- Manjunath, P.S.I., the Investigating Officer has deposed in respect of seizure of M.O.4 to 6 - weapons used for commission of offence on the basis of the information given by accused No.1, 2 and 4. The said portion of evidence is admissible and relevant under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
27. Injury sustained by PW.1 is explained by Medical Officer / PW.6 / Dr. Shanthakumar. In his evidence, PW.6 has explained the injury sustained by PW.1. Evidence adduced by PW.6 - Medical Officer is corroborating with the evidence adduced by PW.1 injured. PW.6 / Medical Officer opined that injuries explained in Ex.P.6 / wound certificate may be caused in the event of assault made by machete.
28. Investigating Officer has seized M.O.1 to 3 / bloodstained clothes worn by PW.1 at the time of incident, 15 SC.No.1125/2015 which are relevant under Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act. The seizure of M.O.1 to 6 are reported to the jurisdictional court by filing Property Form and the said document is relevant under Section 74 as well as Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act.
29. All incriminating circumstances are explained to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused persons have denied all incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence adduced by witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming by the accused side to establish to the extent of probabilities that they are not at all involved in this case. No explanation is forthcoming from accused No.1 for filing case against him by P.W.1 and for evidence adduced by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7 against him. There are no motive or illwill of PW1/Complainant established by the Accused No.1 to show that PW-1 has filed a false complaint. On the other hand, prosecution has established that Accused No.1 had a grudge against PW1/complainant that PW-1 had not released the accused No.1 on bail in a robbery case.
30. On the basis of the relevant facts duly proved by the prosecution side, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the offence is committed by accused No.1. As PW.1, PW.2 16 SC.No.1125/2015 and eye witnesses failed to identify accused No.2 & 4, case against accused No.2 & 4 stands not proved. It stands proved from the unrebutted testimony of PW.1 and 2 that it was the accused No.1 who on the relevant date caused assault on PW.1 by using M.O.4 - machete. Identification of accused No.1 is also satisfactorily proved by the evidence adduced by PW.1, 2 and P.W.7. It is also clear from the testimony of PW.1 and 2 and PW.6 / Medical Officer coupled with Ex.P.6 - wound certificate that the accused No.1 did cause grievous wound on the occipital region of PW.1 in an attempt to commit murder of PW.1. It is also clear from the testimony of PW.1, 2 and P.W.7 that injury was caused to the complainant with an intention and with knowledge that if death caused, accused No.1 would be guilty for the offence of murder, caused injury by using deadly weapon - machete on the vital part of the head i.e., occipital region of PW.1. Evidence adduced by PW.1/ injured witness has an inbuilt safeguard that he is stating the truth. Being an eye witness, his testimony is directly admissible under Section 5 of Indian Evidence Act. This testimony is relevant under Section 60 of Indian Evidence act. Actus reus for the offence of attempt to commit murder by assaulting by using deadly weapons like machete has been proved against accused No.1.
17 SC.No.1125/201531. Mens-rea for the alleged offence also stands proved from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, coupled with the background of the accused No.1. It is explained by PW.1 that as he refused to help to release accused No.1 who got arrested in a case, to take revenge, accused No.1 had attacked on him with an intention to murder him. These facts are relevant under Section 14 of Indian Evidence Act as showing the guilty intention of the accused.
32. Accused No.1 didn't take any defence. He has simply denied the case of the prosecution. It is suggested in the Cross-examination that in order to help Venkatesh, a false case is registered against him. In this case, accused No.1 failed to rebut the evidence adduced by witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution. Further, reasons explained by PW.1 for commission of offence by the accused No.1 found probable. considering all the other evidence available against the accused No.1, accused No.1 has failed to rebut motive for commission of offence alleged against the accused No.1 to the extent of probability.
33. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved this case against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence 18 SC.No.1125/2015 punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Accused No.1 has failed to adduce any evidence in his defence and hence, failed to establish any fact to the extent of probability that he is not guilty and the case filed against him and evidence adduced against him are false. Therefore, accused No.1 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
34. PW.1, 2 and P.W.7 have failed to identify accused No.2 and 4. PW.1, 2 and P.W.7 have not deposed against accused No.2 and 4. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused No.2 and 4. Therefore, it is held that accused No.2 and 4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.
35. Accused No.1 has not put-forth any defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Further, accused No.1 did not examine himself as defence witness or examined any witness on his behalf. No documents are produced by the accused No.1. In the entire Cross-examination made by accused No.1 himself, no such admissions are elicited to establish the fact that complainant/injured had enmity against accused No.1. No such admissions are elicited in the Cross-examination of 19 SC.No.1125/2015 prosecution side witnesses to establish the fact that complainant filed false case against him. However, in order to bring home the guilt under section 143 of IPC, prosecution must establish that there was an unlawful assembly of five or more persons with a common object of committing an offence and the accused was a member of such unlawful Assembly. Further, in order to attract Section 147 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that unlawful assembly used a force or violence. Further, in order to attract Section 148 of IPC, prosecution must establish that unlawful assembly was armed with deadly weapon. In view of non proving of unlawful assembly, Accused No.1, 2 and 4 are entitled for acquittal under section 143, 147 and 148 of IPC.
36. It is settled principle of law that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which matters in any case. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. It is also well settled principle of law that the evidence of the injured witness has to be placed at higher pedestal and has special status in law except in cases of private defence. Even the sole testimony of injured witness is sufficient to convict the accused if it is cogent, credible, trustworthy, and reliable. It is said that Truth sits upon the lips of a dying man. Similarly, when a person receives a 20 SC.No.1125/2015 severe head injury on his occipital region so as likely to cause his death. PW-1 will not want to let out his actual assailant to go out unpunished and not likely to make false implication of third parties. His only intention is to see that the person who caused injury to him shall be convicted. It is unlikely that the complainant would get himself inflicted on vital part of head or get inflicted by someone else and name the accused No.1 for the same. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Negative and Point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative that prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that only accused No.1 is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143, 147 and 148 of IPC. Accused No.2 and 4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.
37. POINT NO.3:- In view of the above findings on point No.1 & 2, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., only accused No.1 N.Muniraja @ Hoova is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.307 of I.P.C.
21 SC.No.1125/2015Invoking provisions under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 N.Muniraja @ Hoova is acquitted for offences punishable under Section 143, 147 and 148 of IPC.
Invoking provisions under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 V.Prashanth and Accused No.4 R.Naveen Kumar @ Mama are acquitted for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer directly on computer, script typed by him and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11 th day of March, 2022) Sd/-11.03.2022 (Sadananda Nagappa Naik) LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60, BENGALURU CITY.
22 SC.No.1125/2015FURTHER ORDER ON IMPOSING SENTENCE The prosecution and the defence were heard on the question of sentence. Prosecution have prayed for maximum punishment and fine against accused No.1. Accused No.1 and his counsel have prayed for leniency.
Accused No.1 submitted that he is suffering from ill- health. Therefore, prayed for leniency. Considering the fact and circumstance of the incident, this court is not incline to invoke section 360 of Cr.P.C. or Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of P.O Act.
Considering the nature of offence committed by accused No.1, weapon used for commission of offence, injury inflicted on the injured, this court does not consider this case to be a proper case to exercise discretion to grant benefit of probation to the accused under Section 360 or under Section 3, 4 and 6 of Probation of Offences Act. Offence committed by the accused No.1 is likely to hamper the law and order situation in the society. Further, the act of the accused No.1 is an attempt to commit murder in the day-light, that too in a busiest place, that shocks general conscience of the society. This court is of the opinion that any lenient treatment of the accused will lead to loss of confidence of general public in the judicial system.
23 SC.No.1125/2015No doubt that, the offence committed by the accused is heinous offence. Punishment for offence of attempt murder is which may extent to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. If hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or such imprisonment as is herein before mentioned. In this case, hurt is caused to the injured by the act of the accused. Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this court proceeds to pass the following sentence.
ORDER Invoking provision U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.307 of I.P.C.
Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. six months for the offence punishable U/s.307 of I.P.C.
Office is directed to furnish the certified copy of entire judgment to the accused No.1 forthwith, free of cost.
24 SC.No.1125/2015Bail bonds of accused No.1, 2 and 4 and their surety bonds shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to issue conviction warrant against accused No.1 accordingly.
The accused No.1 is entitled for set-off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. for the period which he is spent in Jail.
Intimate the Superintendent of Jail to release the accused No.4 if he is not required in any other cases.
Accused No.2 and 4 shall execute personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. which shall be in force for six months. Office to take bonds.
DLSA is recommended to award compensation as per Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. and as per scheme in favour of CW.1 / PW.1.
Office is directed to send certified copy of judgment to DLSA.
Material object Nos 1 to 3 (Articles mentioned in PF.No.33/2015) and Material object Nos 4 to 6 (Articles mentioned in PF No.35/2015) shall be preserved for trial of split up case pending against accused No.3, 5 and 6.
25 SC.No.1125/2015Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer directly on computer, script taken by him corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11 th day of March, 2022.) Sd/-11.03.2022 (Sadananda Nagappa Naik) LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Venaktesh R.
Pw.2 Mahesh
Pw.3 Gangadhar
Pw.4 Muniraju N.
Pw.5 Nagaraj
Pw.6 Dr. Shanthkumar
Pw.7 Venkatesh
Pw.8 Bataraj
Pw.9 Manjunath
PW.10 B.P. Manjunath
II. For Defence:-
- Nil-
26 SC.No.1125/2015
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint by PW.1 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 Mahazar dated 08.04.2015
Ex.P.3(a),(b) Signatures of PW.2 and 3 Ex.P3(c) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.4 Relevant portion of statement of PW.2 Ex.P.5 Mahazar dated 09.03.2015 Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.6 Wound certificate Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.7 Statement of PW.7 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW.8 Ex.P.9 FIR in Cr.No.134/2015 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.10 Relevant portion of statement of accused No.1 Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW 10 Ex.P.11 Statement of accused No.2 Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW 10 Ex.P.12 Statement of accused No.4 Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW 10 For Defence side:
-Nil-
4. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 shirt
Mo.2 Pant
Mo.3 Blood stained Banian
Mo.4 Machhu
27 SC.No.1125/2015
Mo.5 Sword
Mo.6 knife
Sd/-11.03.2022
(Sadananda Nagappa Naik)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60,
BENGALURU CITY.