Bangalore District Court
State By vs A1 Tulasi @ Tulasi Ram on 20 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK-II, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015
Present;- Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, B.A., L.L.B.
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II.
: SESSIONS CASE NO.101/2012 :
COMPLAINANT: State by :-
Mico Layout Police Station,
Bangalore.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor,
Sri. S.V. Bhat)
--Vs --
ACCUSED: A1 Tulasi @ Tulasi Ram,
S/o Ramachandra T.R.,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.48, 2nd Cross,
Taverekere Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
BENGALURU.
A2 T.R. Manjunath @ Manja @
Santosh,
S/o Ramdas,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.48, 2nd Cross,
Taverekere Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
BENGALURU.
A3 T.R. Sampath,
S/o Ramdas,
Aged about 34 years,
Taverekere Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
2 S.C.No.101/2012
BENGALURU.
A4 T.J. Kiran,
S/o Jayaram T.R.,
Aged about 24 years,
Taverekere Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
BENGALURU.
A5 T.J. Shashidhar @ Shashi,
S/o Jayaram,
Aged about 22 years,
Taverekere Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
BENGALURU.
(By Sri. Harish Babu, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of
19.09.2011
offence
2. Date of report of offence 19.09.2011
3. Name of the complainant Gajendra
4.Date of commencement of
28.06.2014
evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence. 09.02.2015
U/Sec.143, 147, 148,
6. Offences complained of 302, 324 r/w Sec.149 of
Indian Penal Code
7. Opinion of the Judge. Charge not proved.
3 S.C.No.101/2012
JUDGMENT
These accused have been facing instant trial for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 147, 148, 302, 324 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The nub of the prosecution case is as follows:-
PW.1 Gajendra, who was friend of deceased Manu lodged verbal First Information Statement which reduced into writing by PW.30 B.S. Mohan Kumar, Officer In-charge of complainant police station as per Ex.P1 on 19/9/2011 at 20.20 hours. PW.1 has informed and alleged to the following effect;
He was resident of 9th Cross, 21st Main, Venkateshwara Layout, Behind Oxford Circle, Madivala Main Road, Bengaluru.
First informer had a friend by name Manu. Ganesha Idol was not installed in the last year at Taverekere Circle. Manu, Prashanth, Umesh and others were talking to install idol of Lord Ganesha at Taverekere Circle in the year 2011. These accused raised objection to install idol of Lord Ganesha at the circle. In this regard, there was an eye ray between two parties. Party of first informer got abandoned idol of Lord Ganesha on 11/9/2011 after got it installed. Since the time of dissolution of idol of Lord Ganesha, all these accused had been nurturing grudge against persons of party 4 S.C.No.101/2012 of first informer and attempted to assault them after making galata.
All the accused have also had been hatching plan to kill Manu. On 19/9/2011 at 6.30 p.m. first informer/PW.1 came near Taverekere Circle through his Dio vehicle. All the accused came and obstructed first informer to proceed further. At that time, Manu (deceased) came and attempted to pacify the obstruction of these accused. All of a sudden A3 herein Sampath hit on the neck of Manu with chopper. A1 stabbed Manu with knife. A2 hit on the head of Manu with stone and bat. Suri and his younger brother hit on the neck of Manu with long. Manu fell on surface with pool of blood. A1 to 3 and Suri and his younger brother hit on the head of first informer with 7up bottles. First informer developed giddiness.
Nandan who is younger brother of Pw.1 came to the crime scene and brought first informer through an auto rickshaw. Injured Manu was in the crime scene. First informer has further alleged that A1 to 3, Suri and his younger brothers murdered Manu with having grudge in connection to installation of idol Lord Ganesha and they attempted to kill first informer. With above allegation and information, first informer sought to initiate legal action against above noted accused and others.5 S.C.No.101/2012
3. PW.30 B.S. Mohan Kumar, Station In-charge Officer of complainant police station, after receipt of above First Information Statement of PW.1 registered crime for investigation of offences punishable U/Sec.141, 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code and forwarded First Information Report as per Ex.P30. PW.30 rushed to the crime scene and found dead body of Manu. Manu succumbed to injuries at the spot caused by accused. PW.30 transmitted corpus of Manu for post-mortem examination to Victoria hospital. He drew spot panchanama as per Ex.P18 and seized M.O.10 to 14 and enquired and recorded statements of PW.23 Santhosh Kumar, PW.17 Pradeepa, PW.10 Ananda, PW.6 Fairoz Khan, PW.7 Chakravarthy and PW.121 Prabhu. He seized material objects to property form of his police station. On 20/9/2011 PW.30 rushed to mortuary of Victoria hospital and drew inquest mahazar as per Ex.P1 and recorded statements of PW.4 Srinivasa, PW.5 Mahesha and PW.2 Kaveramma, Jagadeesha, Ramya and Manjunath. On 21/9/2011 one Purushotham, police inspector of Madivala police station produced A1 before PW.30 at complainant police station. PW.30 arrested A1 and took him for police custody for 4 days after caught him and produce before court. PW.30 recorded voluntary 6 S.C.No.101/2012 statement of A1. A1 stated to have volunteered that he will show the place where knife and clothes have been stored as per Ex.P32. Pw.30 along with two panchas followed A1 in his government jeep. A1 led PW.30 and panchas in culvert and shown M.O.8 knife and clothes M.O.15 and 16. Pw.30 seized them through seizure mahazar as per ex.P10. PW.30 again recorded statements of PW.3 Shailaja and Smt. Sumathi Ramachandra and also further statement of PW.2 Kaveramma and Ramya. He has also recorded statements of PW.12 Kousalya, PW.13 Sharada, PW.14 Bhagyalakshmi, PW.15 Mareseenaiah and PW.16 Vasantha. On 24/9/2011 police personal of PW.30 brought A2 to 5 to police station. PW.30 arrested A2 to 5. A2 volunteered and disclosed the information on the existence of wicket and cloth as per Ex.P33. Pw.30 followed A2 based on his voluntary information in his jeep along with A3 Sampath and A2 T.R. Manjunath and panchas. A2 led PW.30 others across the bush near tank and shown M.O.9, 17 and 18. PW.30 seized them through mahazar as per Ex.P5. PW.30 enquired and recorded statements of Shivananda, Raju, Venkataswamy, Siddappa and submitted A2 to 5 to judicial custody. PW.30 seized M.O.1 to 6 clothes on 2/10/2011 and transmitted them to forensic laboratory for examination. PW.30 7 S.C.No.101/2012 again obtained report as per Ex.P28 from the doctor on the weapons M.O.8 and 11 on 9/10/2011. PW.30 received rough sketch as per Ex.P29 and post mortem report as per Ex.P27 on 2/2/2011 and also FSL report as per Ex.P34. PW.30 received wound certificates of A1 and 3 as per Ex.P25 and 26. He recorded statement of Ramesh, who said to have photographed the crime scene and also recorded statement of Govindraju through him First Information Report was transmitted. PW.30 after completion of investigation, prepared charge sheet against these accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.141, 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code alleging that these accused intentionally murdered Manu on the above noted material date, time and place and other allegations. He transmitted charge sheet and other papers collected during the course of investigation to Hon'ble committal court. Hon'ble committal court registered case in C.C.No.36436/2011 after having taken cognizance on the charge sheet/challan forwarded by PW.30 for the offences punishable U/Sec.141, 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 of Indian Penal Code against these accused. Hon'ble committal court after having complied the provision of Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure committed case on hand to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for 8 S.C.No.101/2012 trial. Again case on hand has been assigned to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
4. All the accused are on bail. They are represented by their advocate. This court by order dated 10/4/2014 found sufficient material to proceed against these accused for the alleged offences. In the result, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 147, 148, 302, 324 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code was framed. Contents of charge were read over and explained to all the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to bring home the above alleged guilty of these accused got examined 31 witnesses as PW.1 to 31 out of 42 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and got produced 35 documents exhibited as Ex.P1 to P35 and got identified 18 material objects as M.O.1 to 18. CW.2 Manish reported to be dead. Learned public prosecutor has given up CW.19, 31, 32, 34, 36 and 41. After completion of evidence of prosecution all these accused were examined U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied all incriminating evidence appeared against them.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perused the papers.
9 S.C.No.101/2012
7. In the light of above materials, following points fall for decision making of this court:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 119/9/2011 at 6.30 p.m. in front of Ganesh Condiments, Taverekere Circle, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of complainant police station all the accused committed offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons after having formed an unlawful assembly in the said place and thereby all the accused committed offences punishable U/Sec.143, 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves with beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Manu on 19/9/2011 at 6.30 p.m. in front of Ganesh Condiments, Taverekere Circle, Bengaluru City is homicidal death?
3. Whether prosecution further proves with beyond all reasonable doubt that all these accused with common intention to murder Manu and in prosecution of such object caused the death of Manu with deadly weapons on above date, time and place and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec.302 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code?
4. Whether prosecution further proves with beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused with common objection of voluntary causing hurt to CW.1 Gajendra and in prosecution of such object A2 voluntarily 10 S.C.No.101/2012 caused simple hurt to CW.1 Gajendra with cricket wicket and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code?
5. What order?
8. My answers to above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the negative;
Point No.2: In the affirmative;
Point No.3: In the negative;
Point No.4: In the negative;
Point No.5: As per the final order,
for the following,
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 to 4:- As these points are inter-connected have been discussed together. Before advert to probe on the existence of rest of the material facts, it is profitable to determine the facts, which is the subject matter of point No.2. Prosecution has alleged that death of Manu was caused due to injuries sustained by him at the alleged date time and place. Though all the accused totally denied the case of prosecution, but they have not disputed the cause of death of Manu due to injuries suffered by him, in the cross-exmainaiton of medical evidence and oral evidence of few prosecution witnesses. Besides prosecution has produced inquest panchanama as per Ex.P4, post mortem report 11 S.C.No.101/2012 as per Ex.P27. Prosecution has examined PW.26 Dr. C.N. Sumangala, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Bengaluru Medical College, Bengaluru. She has given evidence that she conducted autopsy on the corpus of deceased Manu on 20/9/2011 and found external injuries, which have been described in page 4 and 5 post mortem report Ex.P27. She has also further given evidence that she found with temporaries muscle on either side is contused after reflection of scalp. She has further given evidence that death of Manu was caused due to cut throat injury sustained to the neck. PW.26 found nearly 11 injuries viz., cut throat wound across front and sides of the neck, incise wound over front of right side of neck, incise wound over right side of the neck, incise wound over right side of the neck, laceration over left side of forehead, situate just above the medial end of eye brow, laceration over right side of forehead situated nearer the hairline, laceration over right side of forehead, transverse incise wound below left eyelid, contusion over left side of face, contusion over left cheek and left meta-carpo phalangeal joint of index finger is fractured and dislocated. These injuries have been further detailed in post mortem report. Evidence of doctor tested in the cross-examination. Learned defence counsel has not disputed the presence of above 12 S.C.No.101/2012 noted external and internal injuries on the corpus of deceased Manu. Learned doctor in her cross-examination has given opinion on the possibility of cause of above noted external injuries. In the circumstances, other than the one projected by the prosecution in the case. So far as existence of injury and also death of Manu due to impugned injuries are not disputed. Inquest panchanama has been produced as per Ex.P4. Prosecution has examined PW.4 Srinivasa, Pw.5 Mahesha to prove inquest panchanama. These witnesses have turned hostile. Nevertheless PW.30 B.S. Mohan Kumar who conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.P4 on 20/9/2011 with the presence of above noted witnesses has given evidence to that effect. Evidence of Pw.30 remained unchallenged. Defence counsel suggested PW.30 that Ex.P4 was prepared at police station for the convenience of the police. Therefore, evidence of PW.30 proves the existence of Ex.P4 inquest panchanama. Inquest panchanama not only evidence the death of Manu also evidence homicidal death of Manu. Besides PW.1 who is first informer in the present case has also given evidence that his friend Manu was murdered by some unknown persons on 19/9/2011 at Taverekere circle of BTM Layout. Evidence of PW.1, PW.30, PW.27 13 S.C.No.101/2012 and Ex.P27 post mortem report and Ex.P4 inquest panchanama abundantly establish that death of Manu was a homicidal one.
10. To bring home the alleged guilt of these accused, prosecution to further prove that these accused formed an unlawful assembly to commit offence of murder and with common object committed murder of Manu caused the murder of Manu with intention to kill him. Prosecution has examined PW.1 who said to be the eye witness to the alleged act of accused. He has given evidence to the effect that he does not know all these accused and he never seen them any way and he did not lodge Ex.P1 First Information Statement and he does not know who murdered his friend Manu. Thus PW.1 who is a material witness to the prosecution to prove alleged act of accused turned hostile. Pw.1 has admitted that himself, deceased Manu and Jagadeesh were standing near Ganesh Condiments, Taverekere Circle, on 19/9/2011 at 6.30 p.m. and they were talking for installation of idol of Lord Ganesha. Pw.1 has categorically denied any of the alleged act of accused. Thus PW.1 turned hostile to the entire version of prosecution. In the cross-examination of PW.1, nothing is brought out to believe the existence of version of prosecution. Pw.2 Kaveramma who is none other than the mother of deceased 14 S.C.No.101/2012 has given evidence to the effect that his son Manu was murdered at Taverekere Circle about 3 years back and she was not informed by Pw.1 on the murder of his son and she does not know who are accused and who murdered her son. Thus mother of deceased also turned hostile. Pw.3 Shylaja who is sister of deceased Manu also given evidence to the effect that her brother was murdered at Taverekere circle and she does not know who murdered her brother and for what motive and purpose. Therefore, sister of deceased also turned hostile. PW.4 Srinivas who is friend of deceased and inquest witness also turned hostile to the effect that no inquest panchanama was drawn on the corpus of his friend Manu. He has admitted that his signature was obtained outside the Victoria hospital when he had been to mortuary of Victoria hospital to see corpus of his friend Manu. PW.5 Mahesh who said to be the panch witness to the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P4 also turned hostile. PW.6 Fairoz Khan, PW.7 Chakravarthi who are said to be the panch witnesses to the mahazar drawn at the time of seizure of material object have also turned hostile. PW.8 Jagadish who said to be another eye witness to the alleged act of accused and friend of deceased Manu and PW.1 Gajendra have also turned hostile to the prosecution case. He has deposed that his friend Manu was 15 S.C.No.101/2012 murdered and he does not know where and when and who murdered his friend Manu. Evidence of PW.8 was tested in the cross-examination. IN the cross-examination of Pw.8 nothing is brought out to believe existence of version of prosecution. Pw.9 Lokesh who is said to be the another eye witness to the incident also turned hostile by giving evidence that he does not know the accused and deceased Manu and he did not see any of the alleged act. PW.10 Ananda who said to be the another panch witness to the mahazar as per Ex.p10 while seizing blood stained knife and also blood stained clothes on the basis of information disclosed by A1 also turned hostile. PW.11 who is said to be panch witness to the mahazar as per ex.P10 also turned hostile. Pw.12 who said to be another direct witness to the alleged act of accused turned hostile. PW.3 Sharada who said to be the eye witness to the alleged act of accused also turned hostile. PW.14 Bhagyalakshmi who said to be the eye witness to the alleged act of accused also turned hostile. Pw.15 Mareseenaiah who said to be another eye witness to the alleged act of accused also turned hostile. Pw.16 Smt. Vasantha who said to be another eye witness to the act of accused turned hostile. Pw.17 Pradeepa who said to be the panch witness to the mahazar drawn as per Ex.P18 at the time of seizure of blood 16 S.C.No.101/2012 stained clothes and other articles form the place of occurrence is also turned hostile. Pw.18 Nataraja who is a worker of Ganesh Condiments and who is said to be the eye witness to the alleged act also turned hostile. Pw.19 Shekar who said to be another eye witness to the incident also turned hostile. PW.20 Rangaswamy Shetty who said to be another eye witness to the act of accused also turned hostile by giving ignorance evidence. PW.21 Manjunatha who said to be another alleged witness to the act of accused also turned hostile. PW.22 Umesh Kumar who said to be the eye witness to the alleged act of accused also turned hostile. Pw.23 N.G. Santhosh Kumar who said to be the panch witness to the mahazar drawn as per Ex.P18 also turned hostile. PW.31 Devadas who said to be another eye witness to the alleged act of accused also turned hostile to the case. Thus all the material witnesses who said to have witnessed the alleged act of accused and formal witnesses including relatives and friends of deceased Manu have turned hostile to the version of prosecution. In the evidence of these witnesses it is evidence that Manu was murdered on 19/9/2011 at Taverekere Circle. No witnesses who have been examined on behalf of prosecution have whispered any thing against all these accused. Prosecution indisputably has relied on 17 S.C.No.101/2012 direct evidence to prove the alleged guilt of these accused. As noted supra, all the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution have turned hostile to the version of prosecution. These witnesses have not stated anything either on commission of rioting armed with deadly weapons after having formed an unlawful assembly by the accused and also commission of cause of death of Manu.
11. PW.24 Dr. Geetha has given evidence that she examined A3 T.R. Sampath and A1 Tulasiram and they were brought by Mico Layout police with history of assault about 5 days back and she examined them on 24/9/2011 at 12.30 p.m. and she found skin superficial abrasion measuring 2 inches on right little finger on A3 and she found epigastic pain on A1. Learned doctor has admitted that MLC register of her hospital does not contain entry regarding who gave history of assault in case of A1 and she had written as no complaint on examination. She has admitted that epigastic pain could be resulted due to health reason and it is not an injury. Therefore, evidence of PW.24 is not believable. Ex.P25 and 26 are said to be the wound certificates of A1 and 3. Even assuming that Ex.P26 wound certificate of a1 is proved before court from the evidence of PW.24 it results nothing. A1 might have developed epigastic pain due to his health problem. In so far as Ex.P25 18 S.C.No.101/2012 wound certificate of A3 is concerned, there is no fact revealed to link A1 to the alleged crime. PW.25 D. Puttaswamy, H.C. 462, has given evidence for having watched body and handed over the dead body in favour of relatives. This evidence of PW.25 does not establish any kind of link of these accused to the death of deceased Manu. PW.27 Parameshwarappa, Assistant Engineer has given evidence of the preparation of rough sketch on the crime as per Ex.P29. Evidence of this witness also does not establish the link between these accused on the death of Manu. PW.28 Puttamadaiah H.D. has given evidence on the factum of receipt of post mortem report and clothes from doctor and submission of them to the FSL etc. This evidence will not connect these accused for the death of Manu. Pw.29 Venkata Swamy P.C. has given evidence on the trace of A2 to 4 along with other accused. PW.30 B.S. Mohan Kumar, I.O. has given evidence on the factum of voluntary statement of A1, A2 and a3 and also seizure of material objects based on information of accused. Factum of seizure of material objects through mahazar based on the information of any of the accused nothing been proved as all the material panch witnesses have turned hostile in the case. Therefore, evidence of PW.30 also not much helpful to the prosecution to connect these 19 S.C.No.101/2012 accused for the death of deceased Manu. Thus testimonies of PW.1 to 31 will not probabalize the link of these accused for the death of Manu. Evaluation of documents and material objects does not warrant in the present case in lieu of the aforementioned discussion. Available materials are not sufficient to bring home the alleged any guilt of accused with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence. In the result, this court has to answer point No.1, 3 and 4 in the negative and point nO.2 in the affirmative. Accordingly these points are answered.
12. POINT NO.5:- In the light finding on above points, all these accused to be acquitted for the alleged offences. In the result, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER In exercise of power vested with this court U/Sec.232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is ordered that A1 to 5 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused shall comply the provision of Sec.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure within a week from today.
M.O.1 to 18 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.20 S.C.No.101/2012
PW.2 Kaveramma, mother of deceased is at liberty to approach District Legal Services Authority for compensation. In the event of approach of PW.2 Kaveramma, District Legal Services Authority is requested to consider her prayer for grant of compensation, although accused in the case on hand acquitted for want of evidence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the day of 20th Day of February 2015) (K.R. NAGARAJA) Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION PW.1 Gajendra PW.2 Kaveramma PW.3 Smt. Shylaja PW.4 Srinivas PW.5 Mahesh PW.6 Fairoz Khan PW.7 Chakravarthi PW.8 Jagadish PW.9 Lokesh PW.10 Ananda PW.11 Prabhu PW.12 Kousalya Devi PW.13 Sharada PW.14 Bhagyalakshmi PW.15 Mariseenaiah PW.16 Smt. Vasantha 21 S.C.No.101/2012 PW.17 Pradeepa PW.18 Nataraja PW.19 Shekar PW.20 Rangaswamy Shetty PW.21 Manjunatha PW.22 Umesh Kumar PW.23 Santhosh Kumar PW.24 Dr. Geetha PW.25 D. Puttaswamy HC 462 PW.26 Dr. C.N. Sumangala PW.27 H.M. Parameshwarappa PW.28 Puttamadaiah PW.29 Venkataswamy P.C. 8904 PW.30 B.S. Mohan Kumar PW.31 Devadas LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P3 Statement of PW.3
Ex.P4 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P4(c) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P5 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P5(c) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P6 Statement of PW.6
Ex.P7 Statement of PW.7
Ex.P8 Statement of PW.8
Ex.P9 Statement of PW.9
Ex.P10 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P10(b) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P10(c) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P11 Statement of PW.10
Ex.P12 Statement of PW.11
22 S.C.No.101/2012
Ex.P13 Statement of PW.12
Ex.P14 Statement of PW.13
Ex.P15 Statement of PW.14
Ex.P16 Statement of PW.15
Ex.P17 Statement of PW.16
Ex.P18 Mahazar
Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW.17
Ex.P18(b) Signature of PW.23
Ex.P18(c) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P19 Statement of PW.18
Ex.P20 Statement of PW.19
Ex.P21 Statement of PW.20
Ex.P22 Statement of PW.21
Ex.P23 Statement of PW.22
Ex.P24 Statement of PW.23
Ex.P25 Wound certificate of Sampath
Ex.P25(a) Signature of PW.24
Ex.P26 Wound certificate of Tulsiram
Ex.P26(a) Signature of PW.24
Ex.P27 Post mortem report
Ex.P27(a) Signature of PW.27
Ex.P28 Medical examination opinion
Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW.27
Ex.P29 Rough sketch
Ex.P29(a) Signature of PW.28
Ex.P30 First Information Report
Ex.P30(a) Signature of PW.30
Ex.P31 Report of Pw.28
Ex.P31(a) Signature of PW.28
Ex.P32 Statement of Tulsi
Ex.P33 Statement of Manjunath T.R.
Ex.P34 F.S.L. Report
Ex.P35 Statement of PW.31.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Black Jeans pant
M.O.2 Shirt
M.O.3 Banyan
M.O.4 Underwear
M.O.5 Wrist Band
M.O.6 Black thread metal dollar
23 S.C.No.101/2012
M.O.7 One pair of shoes
M.O.8 Bread cutting knife
M.O.9 Wooden wicket
M.O.10 Two wooden pieces
M.O.11 Broken 7 up bottle
M.O.12 One pair of slippers
M.O.13 Blood of blood
M.O.14 Sample of tar
M.O.15 Shirt of A1
M.O.16 Pant of A1
M.O.17 Black pant of A2
M.O.18 Green shirt of A2.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED : Nil (K.R. NAGARAJA) Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore.