Bangalore District Court
State By vs Manjunatha @ Hebbattu Manja on 4 May, 2023
KABC010240762013
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SRI.KASHIM CHURIKHAN.
B.A., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of May 2023.
S.C.No.131/2013
COMPLAINANT : State by
Basavanagudi Police,
Bengaluru.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Manjunatha @ Hebbattu Manja.
... (Split-up)
2. Vighnesh @ Poya,
S/o.Ali,
21 years,
R/of.Vinayaka Extension,
Nayandahalli,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru.
3. Subhash Bhimappa Hubli @
Subhash,
S/o.Bhimappa,
S.C.No.131/2013
2
36 years,
R/at.No.35/5,
Near Chamundeshwari Temple,
4th Block, Dodda Bommasandra,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru.
4. R.Santhosh,
S/o.K.Rangaswamaiah,
28 years,
R/at.No.10, Srihari Nilaya,
Sidedahalli Main Road,
Near Nisarga School,
4th Cross Road,
Nagasandra Post,
Sampangiramaiah Extension,
Bengaluru.
5. Mallikarjuna Bhimappa Hubli @
Mallikarjuna,
S/o.Bhimappa,
34 years,
R/of.Near Water Tank,
Kumbara Oni,
Bailahongala Road,
Thimmapura Village,
Marewada Hobli @ Post,
Saundatti Road,
Dharwad Rural Taluk & District.
6. Arun Kumar.Y @ Dinku.
7. K.Raghu @ Thimma.
(The accused Nos.6 and 7 left
from the charge sheet)
8. Gadekal Veerareddy @ Veerareddy,
S/o.Nageshwara Reddy,
37 years,
Present Address :
C.S.17th Ward, Railway Quarters,
S.C.No.131/2013
3
Lakshmipura, Hindupura,
Ananthapura District,
Andhra Pradesh.
Permanent Address :
No.29/1980,
Electricity Office Colony,
Alur Road,
Guntakal Town @ Mandalam,
Gutti Taluk,
Ananthapura District,
Andhra Pradesh.
9. Chittaranjan @ Ranjith.
...... (Split-up)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 201, 212 and 120(B) of IPC and under Sections 3, 5 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., against the accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 by splitting up the case against the accused Nos.1 and 9 to the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore as the offences alleged against them are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and thereafter, this case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
S.C.No.131/2013 4
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is alleged that the accused No.1 was having enmity with C.W.1 in respect of the land dispute. Due to enmity, the accused No.1 decided to commit the murder of C.W.1 and thus, all the accused criminally conspired and in furtherance of their common intention, while C.W.1 was proceeding in his car, the accused Nos.2 and 3 came on motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-K-2927 keeping communication with accused No.4 through internet, attempted to commit the murder of C.W.1 on 9.10.2012 and 12.10.2012. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2012 in the evening while C.W.1 was traveling in his car bearing No.DL-3-FGA-7777 near National College, Bengaluru, the accused Nos.2 and 3 on motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-HC-4726 followed C.W.1's car and at 6-00 p.m., in Sheshamahal Traffic Signal, as per the directions of accused No.1, the accused No.3 shot fire towards left side rear window of the car and also shot fire towards driver's side window and attempted to commit the murder of C.Ws.1 and 2. It is further alleged that after the alleged incident, to conceal the evidence used by accused No.3 contacted accused Nos.1 and 4, destroy the sim card No.8951480449. It is further alleged that the accused No.4 does know the fact that there is reason to believe that the accused No.3 is an offender, with an intention S.C.No.131/2013 5 of screening him from legal punishment harboured him by providing phone purchase in the name of C.W.25. It is alleged that the accused No.5 was in possession of fire arms without valid permit or licence. It is alleged that the accused No.1 has made the accused Nos.4 and 8 to supply ammunitions to accused No.3 to commit the crime. It is alleged that the accused No.3 was having illegal possession of ammunitions and used the same to commit the crime and thereby, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 201 and 212 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 5 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.
4. On securing the presence of accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8, my learned predecessor has framed the charge against them for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 201 and 212 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 5 and 27 of Indian Arms Act. The accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 have pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 26 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 75 and M.Os.1 to 27. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statements of accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded. The accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them and they have not chosen to adduce defense evidence.
S.C.No.131/2013 6
5. Heard.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that before 16.10.2012 the split-up accused No.1 colluding with accused Nos.2 to 4 and 8 with common intention had criminally conspired to kill C.W.1 and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w.
Section 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that with common intention to commit the crime, the split-up accused No.1 instructed to accused No.4 to arrange communication between sharp shooter accused No.3 with accused No.1 through internet and in furtherance of their intention, the accused No.2 on the vehicle of C.W.26 bearing No.KA-41-K- 2927 had took accused No.3 on 9.10.2012 & 12.10.2012 and attempted to commit murder of C.W.1, on 16.10.2012 at 6-00 p.m., near Basavanagudi Vani Vilas Road Sheshamahal Signal, the accused No.3 came on motorcycle KA-03-HC-4726 fired through pistol towards left side rear window of C.W.1's car and also towards driver of the car and attempted to commit the murder of C.W.1 and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that the accused No.3 to S.C.No.131/2013 7 screening the evidence, the sim card No.8951480449 used to communicate with accused Nos.1 and 4 destroyed and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 201 r/w.
Section 34 of IPC ?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that the accused No.4 knowing fully well that the accused No.3 has attempted to commit the murder and to screening him from legal punishment, intentionally provided to him a separate mobile phone purchased in the name of C.W.25 and gave asylum to him and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 212 r/w.
Section 34 of IPC ?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that the accused No.5 was in possession of ammunitions without licence or permission and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of Indian Arms Act ?
6. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that the split-up accused No.1had supplied ammunitions to accused No.3 through accused Nos.4 and 8 to commit the crime and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of Indian Arms Act ?
7. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that the accused No.3 was in possession of ammunitions without S.C.No.131/2013 8 licence or permit and used the same to commit the crime and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 27 of Indian Arms Act ?
8. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative, POINT No.2 - Negative, POINT No.3 - Negative, POINT No.4 - Negative, POINT No.5 - Negative, POINT No.6 - Negative, POINT No.7 - Negative, POINT No.8 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 TO 7 : Since all these points are interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the first informant Dr.B.Dayananda Pai as P.W.1. He has deposed before the court that he does not know the accused. On 16.10.2012 at about 5-00 p.m, he was going from Vasanthanagar office to BMS Engineering College in his car. When the car was moving near National College, he has received a call, a S.C.No.131/2013 9 person made call to him introduced himself as Hebbettu Manju from Dubai, he has asked about the property dispute. He has denied the same. After some time, he has received another call about property settlement, again he has denied the same. During that period, the Metro work was going on, he heard some sound and came to know that the car glass was damaged. When he reached the office, he came to know through telecasting in T.V., that somebody had attempted to commit his murder. Sri.Nagaraj, Police Inspector of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru came and asked about the incident, meanwhile the Police Commissioner also came and asked him to show the place of incident, they made search and found bullet in the place. The police took his signature on the report to the police, it is marked at Ex.P.1. The police drew mahazar Ex.P.2. The police have drawn mahazar where the car is parked, it is marked at Ex.P.3. The police have seized his car, thereafter the police did not call him. The bullet is marked at M.O.1.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has stated that he had got registered 120 acres of land at Devanahalli- Doddaballapura Road in favour of his family friend Sri.Naresh, it was belong to Rajkumar Menon. The said person had filed criminal case in Madras Police Station, S.C.No.131/2013 10 it was transferred to Bengaluru on the point of jurisdiction and Devanahalli Police after investigation, had filed 'B' Report in the said case. He has denied that he has given further statement as per Ex.P.4 before the police.
9. P.W.2-Sri.Siddaraju, Driver of P.W.1 has nothing stated incriminating evidence against the accused. He is also panch witness to Exs.P.2 and 3. He has stated that he does not know the contents of Exs.P.2 and 3. He has not given statement to the police.
During the cross examination by the prosecution after treating him as hostile witness, he has denied that while he and P.W.1 were moving in car, the accused shot fire on them and caused damage to the car. He has denied that he has given statement Ex.P.5 to the police. He has denied that the police have drawn Exs.P.2 and 3-Mahazars in his presence.
10. P.W.3-Sri.Vincent and P.W.4-Sri.Pugalendi are seizure panchas, they are turned hostile to the prosecution case. They have stated that the police have neither seized any articles in their presence nor drew mahazar Ex.P.7.
They are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that S.C.No.131/2013 11 on 20.10.2012, the police have arrested the accused No.2-Vighnesh and seized his mobile phone and ten live bullets from his possession under mahazar.
11. P.W.5-Sri.Vijay and P.W.13-Sri.Srikanth Bhat are seizure panchas.
Though P.W.5 at the beginning of his evidence has stated that the police have seized computer, jacket and bullets under Ex.P.8, he has denied that he does know the accused and as per the say of the accused, the police have seized the articles.
P.W.13 has nothing stated about seizure of articles in his presence. These both witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross examined.
During the cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that on 31.10.2012 in their presence, the police have seized the above said articles under mahazar Ex.P.8. They have further denied that on 1.11.2012, the police drew mahazar Ex.P.9
12. P.W.6-Sri.Sunil Kumar and P.W.8-Sri.Nagaraju are seizure panchas. They are turned hostile.
They are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that on 1.11.2012, as per the say of accused No.2-Vighnesh, S.C.No.131/2013 12 the police have seized motorcycle under mahazar Ex.P.10 in their presence.
13. P.W.7-Sri.Guruprasad and P.W.12-Sri.Ravikumar are motorcycle seizure panchas. They are turned hostile to the prosecution case.
They are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, they have denied that on 30.10.2012 in their presence, on the say of accused No.3-Subhash, the police have seized motorcycle under mahazar Ex.P.11.
14. P.W.9-Sri.Santhosh is seizure mahazar witness. He turns hostile to the prosecution case.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. He has denied that on 1.11.2012, in his presence, the accused No.5-Mallikarjuna has shown two pistols and 30 bullets hidden in land bearing survey No.372 of Hubli, the police have seized the said articles under mahazar Ex.P.12.
15. P.W.10-Sri.Srinivas and P.W.11-Sri.Ramesh are seizure mahazar witnesses. They have deposed that the police have taken their signature, no property seized in their presence under mahazar.
They are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross S.C.No.131/2013 13 examination by the prosecution, they have denied that on 3.11.2012 in their presence, the accused No.2 has produced ATM Card, which was used to draw Rs.20,000/- to give supari to commit the murder of C.W.1. They have denied that to assist the accused, they have deposed that no property seized from accused No.2 in their presence under mahazar.
16. P.W.14-Sri.Champalal, Cloth businessman and also running mobile shop. He has stated that he has not sold sim to the accused. He has stated that while selling the mobile, they used to receive customer form and address proof. He has identified his shop seal on customer form, it is marked at Ex.P.14 and the copy of address proof is marked at Ex.P.15. However he has denied that he sold sim No.8951480449 to the accused No.5, which is used for the commission of alleged offences.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that he sold the above said sim to the accused No.5 and only with an intention to help the accused, he denied the same. He has denied that he has given statement Ex.P.16 against the accused No.5 before the police.
17. P.W.15-Sri.Suresh Babu is seizure mahazar witness to Ex.P.17. He turns hostile to the prosecution case.
S.C.No.131/2013 14 He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that on 4.11.2012 in his presence, the accused No.3 has produced some empty cartridges, which have been seized under mahazar Ex.P.17.
18. P.W.16-Smt.Uma, wife of accused No.3, who is doing tailoring work. She has stated that she does not know the facts of the case. She has not given statement to the police regarding this case.
She is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, she has denied that her husband/accused No.3 was in contact with the accused Nos.4 and 8. She has denied that her husband/ accused No.3 has disclosed that they shot fire against the car of C.W.1. She has further denied that the accused No.4 has given another mobile to her husband and asked to destroy the earlier mobile given to him through which communicated regarding the commission of offence. She has further denied that her husband told her that the accused No.1 Hebbettu Manju has sent gun and cartridges to kill C.W1. She has denied that she came to know that her husband sent accused No.5 to hide the gun and cartridges in some place. She has denied that she came to know that the accused had plan to kill S.C.No.131/2013 15 C.W.1. She has denied that she has given statement Ex.P.15 to the police regarding incident.
19. P.W.17-Sri.Syed Ul Imran, Mobile Shop Keeper has deposed that he has not sold mobile to the accused No.3.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that the accused Nos.3 and 4 came to his shop to purchase mobile. He is not able to identify the accused No.3. The receipt is marked at Ex.P.19. He has denied that he has given statement Ex.P.20 to the police.
20. P.W.18-Sri.Eshwar, Mobile Shop Keeper has deposed that he does not know the accused No.4. He has stated that he has not sold mobile to the accused No.4. The Invoice is marked at Ex.P.21 and it does not bear the signature of this witness.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that on 10.11.2012, the police brought the accused No.4 to his shop and enquired about the purchase of mobile by accused No.4. He has denied that the accused No.4 has purchased mobile from his shop. He has denied that he has given statement Ex.P.22 in this regard.
S.C.No.131/2013 16
21. P.W.19-Sri.Adrushappa, the then Police Constable of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed that on 16.10.2012, C.W.45-Investigating Officer has asked him to make portraits of features given by P.W.2. He has stated that he has prepared the portraits as per the features disclosed by P.W.2. On 17.10.2012, as per the disclosure of culprits by P.W.2, he has prepared four portraits, these are marked at Exs.P.23 to 26.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has stated that he has not obtained any special qualification in preparing the portraits. He has not signed on the portraits prepared by him. Exs.P.23 to 26 do not bear the date and time of preparation. He has denied that he has not prepared the portraits.
22. P.W.20-Sri.Nagaraj, the then Police Constable of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed that on 16.10.2012, the Investigating Officer has deputed him to collect the telecasted matter in Suvarna News and TV-9 channels. On 19.10.2012, he has visited the office of said T.V. channels and requested them to furnish telecasted matter regarding the alleged incident. On 26.10.2012, he has obtained the telecasted matter in C.D., from Suvarna News T.V. Channel, and produced the same before the Investigating Officer with his report Ex.P.27. The C.D., is marked at M.O.4.
S.C.No.131/2013 17 During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that he has not received M.O.4-C.D., from Suvarna News TV channel. He has stated that though he has requested TV-9 official to furnish the telecasted matter in respect of the alleged incident, they did not furnish the same.
23. P.W.21-Sri.Arun Kumar is owner of bike bearing No.KA-41-K-2927. He has stated that he never permitted anybody to ride his motorcycle. He does not know the accused Nos.2, 4 and 8. He has not given motorcycle to the accused. He has not given statement to the police.
He is treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and cross examined. During the cross examination by the prosecution, he has denied that on 9.10.2012, the accused No.2 took his bike and used to commit the offence. He has denied that in this regard, he has given statement Ex.P.28 to the police.
24. P.W.22-Sri.B.C.Raveendra, Assistant Director, F.S.L., Bengaluru has deposed that on 16.10.2012, the Investigating Officer has requested him to examine the vehicle parked within the premises of BMS Engineering College, Bengaluru. He had been to the said college premises and examined the car bearing No.DL-3-FG- A7777. On examination, he noticed gun shot entry hold on the left rear door. There was partly fracture of S.C.No.131/2013 18 the glass at one side. The paint around the beading is chipped off and a dent mark is present on the inner portion of the right side portion of the front door. He has taken the swab of the hole present on the left rear side door and inner side. A small lead piece is found inside the car. He has taken the sample control swab. He has handed over the articles to the Investigating Officer.
On 22.11.2012, he has received 16 articles sent by the Investigating Officer. The seals were intact thereon. The 1st article is pistol, 2nd article is pistol chamber, 3 rd and 4th articles are cartridges, 5th to 7th articles are swab, 8th article is small lead piece, 9 th articles is fired cartridge, 10th article is magazine and 11th to 16th articles are cartridges. He has examined all the articles scientifically and opined that the Article Nos.1 to 4 are Fire Arms. The pistols in Article Nos.1 to 4 are illegally manufactured fire arms. The Article Nos.1 to 4 bear the signs of discharge, but he is not able to give opinion regarding actual date and time of firing. The Article Nos.1, 3 and 4 are in working condition. The Article No.2 is not in working conditions. The range of Article Nos.1 and 4 is about 25 yards and Article No.3 is about 20 yards. The ammunitions in Article Nos.11 to 16 are alive. The magazine is component of country made pistol chamber. The Article Nos.9(a) and 9(b) have been fired through Article No.3. The Article No.8 S.C.No.131/2013 19 could be the component of a disintegrated part of the bullet.
On 28.11.2012 he has received one sealed article for examination and the seals found intact. It is caliber pistol cartridge, it is live. He has issued report as seals regarding examination and his opinion. These are marked at Exs.P.29 to 32. The reasons for examination letter is marked at Ex.P.33. The pistols are marked at M.Os.5 to 7. The Revolver is marked at M.O.8.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has stated that he has not mentioned the photo call number received from the Investigating Officer. He took photograph of the car, but did not handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has stated that the name of company, proof of mark, serial number are not available on Article Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, he has stated that these are illegally manufactured. He has denied that there was no fire from Article No.3. He has stated that it is not possible to state the date and time of fire by pistol. He has stated that he cannot say that firing is done from the pistol. He has stated that Article No.2 is not in working condition. He has denied that he has issued false report.
25. P.W.23-Sri.Nanjegowda, the then A.S.I., of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed S.C.No.131/2013 20 that on 2.12.2012, he and his staff had deputed to carry the C.P.U., for CFSL Examination, Hyderabad. One Hard Disc and documents are forwarded for examination. They have handed over the above said articles to CFSL at Hyderabad. The acknowledgement is marked at Ex.P.34. He has submitted his report Ex.P.35. The C.P.U., is marked at M.O.9.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that he had not carried the above said articles to C.F.S.L., for examination at Hyderabad. He has denied that he has submitted false report in this regard.
26. P.W.24-Sri.S.P.Kumaraswamy, the then P.S.I., of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed that on 30.10.2012, the Investigating Officer in this case has directed him to trace the accused No.4. He has apprehended the accused No.4 near Shivananda Circle Suvarna News TV channel office and produced him before the Investigating Officer.
During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that he has not apprehended the accused No.4 at the place stated in the chief examination.
27. P.W.25-Sri.S.K.Umesh, the then Police Inspector of Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed that on 16.06.2012, A.C.P., Jayanagar had directed him S.C.No.131/2013 21 and issue Memo to assist in investigation of this case. He has approached C.W.45/Investigating Officer and had assisted him in investigation. He has stated that on 19.10.2012, he apprehended the accused No.2 at KSRTC Bus-stand, Madikere and found live 10 rounds of cartridges in his possession & one black colour Spice mobile No.7406708115. These articles were seized in the presence of panchas under mahazar Ex.P.8. He has produced the accused No.3 & mahazar with his report Ex.P.36 before C.W.45.
On 30.10.2012, near Chamundeshwari Temple at Dodda Bommasandra, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru, he found accused No.3 on riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-HC-4726. They have apprehended the accused No.3 and found Samsung mobile bearing No.8861722204 and Nokia Mobile No.9902787738. They have seized the said articles in the presence of witnesses under mahazar Ex.P.11. He has produced the accused No.3 and articles before the Investigating Officer with his report Ex.P.37. On the very same day, they have apprehended the accused No.4 near Suvarna News office and produced him before the Investigating Officer with report Ex.P.38.
On 31.10.2012, they have apprehended the accused No.5 in Thimmapura Grama, Bailahongala, Dharawad Rural and came to know that he has concealed 2 pistols and 30 live round cartridges. The accused No.5 has led S.C.No.131/2013 22 them to the place where he concealed the articles and has shown the articles, he has seized the articles in the presence of panchas under mahazar Ex.P.12. Two pistols are already marked at M.Os.5 and 6. 30 live round cartridges are already marked at M.O.10. He has further stated that on 1.11.2012, he has produced accused No.5 with requisition and mahazar with his report Ex.P.39 before C.W.45. He has further stated that on that day, C.W.45-Investigating Officer, he and panchas led them to the land situated at Nayakanapalya in Tumkur District and near bush, seized pistol and five round cartridges, revolver, pistol magazine and 9 round cartridges were seized under mahazar Ex.P.40 in the presence of panchas. The pistol is marked at M.O.7 and Revolver is marked at M.O.8. Seven live pistol bullets are marked at M.O.11. The magazine is marked at M.O.12 and Nine bullets are marked at M.O.13. He has further stated that on 16.11.2012, they have apprehended the accused No.2 at Karnool and brought him and produced before C.W.45 with report Ex.P.41. He has recovered ten live bullets marked at M.O.14 from accused No.2, Spice mobile is marked at M.O.15. They have seized Samsung mobile M.O.16 and Nokia mobile at M.O.17 from accused No.3.
During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has stated that they S.C.No.131/2013 23 went to Madikere in private vehicle and they have not taken any assistance of Madikere police. They have not issued notice to the panchas. He has denied that he has not seized M.Os., under mahazar in the presence of panchas. He has denied that they have prepared the mahazar at Police Station. He has denied that the accused No.3 was not apprehended at Vidyaranyapura and seized vehicle from his possession. He has denied that they have not apprehended the accused No.4 near Suvarna TV News office. He has stated that they have not given notice to the panchas of mahazar Ex.P.12. He has denied that he has not seized M.Os.5, 6 and 10 under mahazar in the presence of panchas. He has denied that they have not visited to Nayakanapalya Village or seized articles under mahazar Ex.P.40. He has denied that they have created all the documents for the purpose of the case.
28. P.W.26-Sri.Y.Nagaraju, the then Police Inspector of Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru has deposed that on 16.10.2012 at about 5-00 p.m., C.W.1 has lodged the report to the police as per Ex.P.1, he has registered crime and sent FIR-Ex.P.42 to the court. He has requested the Director of F.S.L., Madiwala, Bengaluru through phone to come and inspect the place of incident. The Assistant Director of F.S.L., Bengaluru came to the spot and found the articles seized under mahazar Ex.P.3. The official of F.S.L., S.C.No.131/2013 24 Bengaluru has handed over four articles with his report Ex.P.43 and he has submitted P.F.-Ex.P.44 to the court. On the very same day, he drew spot mahazar and seized live bullets on the spot and sent P.F.-Ex.P.45 in this regard to the court. He has recorded the statements of C.Ws.2 and 4. As per the directions of A.C.P., Jayanagar, C.Ws.43, 44 and other staff have assisted him in investigation. He sought for call records from Nodal Officer, Jayanagar, he got portrait of suspected persons from C.W.32. He has issued requisition to Suvarna News and TV News to give telecasted matter. His staff has apprehended the accused No.2 produced him with 10 live bullets and Spice black mobile. He has submitted P.F.-Ex.P.46 in this regard to the court. He has arrested the accused No.2 and recorded his voluntary statement. He has produced the accused No.2 before the learned Magistrate and took him to police custody. He has obtained the tower location and the details of mobiles of accused Nos.1 and 2. He written a letter to the HDFC Bank, Kathriguppe Branch, Bengaluru for details of drawing amount by accused No.2 from the account of Sri.Akhil Vijay. He has obtained the copies of statement of account as per Exs.P.47 and 48. On the voluntary statement of accused No.2 pertaining to discovery is marked at Ex.P.49, seized the articles. His staff C.W.33 has produced the C.D., with regard to firing S.C.No.131/2013 25 incident. He has received M.O.4-C.D., and submit the same under P.F.-Ex.P.50 to the court. He has seized the motorcycle KA-41-K-2921 & mobile and sent P.F.- Exs.P.51 and 52. He has seized Debit Card and sent P.F.-Ex.P.53 to the court. His staff has produced the accused No.3 with panchanama and report. The mobiles are already marked at M.Os.16 & 17 and sent P.F.-Ex.P.54 to the court. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.3. He has seized three mobiles and sim cards, marked at Exs.P.19 to 21 and submit P.F.-Ex.P.55 to the court. Two empty cartridges are marked at M.O.22 and submits P.F.-Ex.P.56 to the court. He has seized HDFC Bank Debit Card at M.O.23, Micromax mobile phone at M.O.24 and submit P.F.- Ex.P.57. He has seized three simcards marked at M.O.25. He has seized M.Os.2, 9 & 26 and submit P.F.- Ex.P.58 to the court. He has submitted P.Fs., in respect of M.Os.27 as per Exs.P.59 and 60. He has stated that C.W.44 has produced the accused No.4 before him with report Ex.P.38. He has produced the accused Nos.3 and 4 before the court and took them to police custody. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.3, the portion connecting to discovery is marked at Ex.P.61. Accordingly, he has seized M.Os.2, 3, 9 and 26 under mahazar Ex.P.8. The accused No.4 has produced M.Os.24 & 25 and he seized the same under mahazar Ex.P.9, for which he has submitted P.F.-Ex.P.57 to the S.C.No.131/2013 26 court. He has obtained B-Extract of bike No.KA-41-K- 2927, it is marked at Ex.P.62. He has recorded further voluntary statement of accused No.3, the portion connecting to discovery of motorcycle is marked at Ex.P.63. He has seized M.Os.7, 8 and 11 to 13 under mahazar Ex.P.40 on the say of accused No.3 and submit P.F.-ExP.60 to the court. The B-Extract of motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-HC-4726 is marked at Ex.P.64. He has purchased hard disc in the name of Basavanagudi Police. On his request, Reliance, Airtel, TATA Docoma and Vodafone companies have furnished the documents regarding identification of sim card purchasers, those used by the accused. The letters issued by the said companies are marked at Exs.P.65 to
68. His staff has produced accused No.6 and he has given voluntary statement, the portion connecting to discovery is marked at Ex.P.70. Accordingly, he has seized the articles M.Os.18 to 21 in the presence of panchas under mahazar Ex.P.71 and submit P.F.-Ex.P.72. The endorsement issued by FSL Authorities is marked at Ex.P.73. He has requested the superior officer to issue look out circular against the accused No.1. He sent other articles to F.S.L., for examination. The report for submitting the same is marked at Ex.P.74 and the acknowledgement is at Ex.P.75. He sent CPU and Hard Disc to CFSL for examination. He has conducted Identification Parade of the accused Nos.2 and 3. He S.C.No.131/2013 27 has received F.S.L.Report with sample seal. He has completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.
During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he has denied that he has not visited the spot and drew spot mahazar, he has not seized any articles in the place of incident, no accused have given voluntary statements or shown any articles. He has denied that he has registered false case against the accused. He has denied that C.W.1 has not given report to the police as per Ex.P.1. He has denied that he has prepared the documents and got signature of panchas in the Police Station. He has denied that the Scientific Officer of FSL has not seized any articles on the spot under Ex.P.44. He has denied that he has not seized any articles under Ex.P.45. He has stated that he has not issued notice to C.W.32 to prepared portrait of suspected persons. He has denied that CW.32 is not an Expert or qualified person to prepare the portraits. He has denied that the accused No.2 has not apprehended at Madikere. He has denied that he has not conducted mahazar while the motorcycle seized. He has denied that the accused No.3 has not shown any articles to him or he seized the same under mahazar. He has denied that he has not seized M.Os.7, 8, 11 to 13, 19 to 21 and 24 to 27. He has denied that he has not sent articles to F.S.L., for examination. He has denied that the accused have not used Reliance, S.C.No.131/2013 28 Airtel, TATA Docoma and Vodafone sim cards. He has denied that he has not conducted Test Identification Parade of accused Nos.2 and 3. He has denied that he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.
29. Let me appreciate theevidence led by the prosecution.
The prosecution case is that in respect of the property dispute, all the accused criminally conspired to commit the murder of first informant Dr.B.Dayanand Pai and in furtherance of conspiracy, on 16.10.2012 while the first informant was traveling in his car with his driver C.W.2, the accused fired gun shots against the car, caused damage to the car and attempted to commit the murder of first informant. It is mentioned here that the first informant P.W.1 and his driver P.W.2 have denied the story of prosecution.
Even in their cross examination by the prosecution after treating them as hostile witnesses, the first informant/P.W.1 has denied that he has lodged report to the police as per Ex.P.1 and the police drew spot mahazar ExP.2 and in the place of car parking, drew panchanama Ex.P.3. Though he has admitted that there is dispute in respect of the land, he has denied that in this regard, the accused by using revolver and pistol shot fired against him and his driver.
S.C.No.131/2013 29
30. P.W.2-Driver of P.W.1 has also denied the suggestion made by the prosecution that the accused are culprits had fired against P.W.1 and him. Therefore, the evidence of these material witnesses would not come to support the prosecution case to say that the accused are the persons tried to commit the murder of P.W.1.
31. P.Ws.3 and 4-Seizure panch witnesses would not support the prosecution case that on 20.10.2012, as per the voluntary statement of accused No.2, the police have seized mobile and 10 live bullets in their presence under mahazar Ex.P.7. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove the contents of Ex.P.7 i.e., seizure of mobile and live bullets from accused No.2.
32. P.W.5-Seizure panch to Exs.P.8 & 9, has stated that the police have seized computer, jacket and bullet under Ex.P.8 and mobile sim card is seized under mahazar Ex.P.9.
Though this witness has stated that the police drew mahazars and seized the articles, he does not able to say the presence of accused. He is not able to identify the articles seized in his presence. After treating him as hostile witness by the prosecution, during the cross examination he has denied the suggestion made by the prosecution that in the presence of accused Nos.3 & 4, the police have seized the articles under Exs.P.8 and 9.
S.C.No.131/2013 30
33. Another seizure panch P.W.13 connecting to Ex.P.8 is also turned hostile. He does not support the prosecution case that in his presence the police have seized computer, jacket and bullet at room situated behind BHEL at Dodda Bommasandra, Bengaluru. Therefore, the prosecution miserably fails to prove the fact that the accused to commit the crime had used computer, jacket and bullet, which were seized in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 13 under Exs.P.8 and 9 from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 3.
The prosecution has alleged that to commit the crime, the accused had used Karishma Hero Honda motorcycle and it was seized in the presence of panchas under mahazar Ex.P.10 as per the say of accused No.2. The said fact has been denied by the seizure panch witnesses P.Ws.6 and 8, they are turned hostile to the prosecution case. In their cross examination by the prosecution after treating them as hostile witnesses, nothing has been elicited from their mouth to believe the prosecution case that in the presence of these panch witnesses, the Investigating Officer has seized the motorcycle used for the commission of offence under mahazar Ex.P.10. Therefore, the evidence of these seizure mahazar witnesses does not helpful to the prosecution case.
34. It is alleged that the accused used another motorcycle to commit the offence and it was seized S.C.No.131/2013 31 from the possession of accused No.3 under mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of seizure mahazar witnesses. P.Ws.7 and 12-Panch witnesses have deposed that the police have not seized any motorcycle in their presence under mahazar Ex.P.11.
During the cross examination by the prosecution side, these witnesses have denied that on 30.10.2012, in their presence the Investigating Officer has seized the motorcycle shown by accused No.3 under mahazar Ex.P.11. Therefore, the evidence of seizure mahazar witnesses does not come to help the prosecution case to prove the seizure of vehicle used for the commission of offences.
35. It is alleged by the prosecution that after commission of offence, as per the say of accused No.2, two pistols and 30 bullets were concealed in land bearing survey No.372 within the limits of Hubli by the accused No.5. To prove the seizure of pistols and 30 bullets from the said land, the prosecution has examined seizure mahazar witness as P.W.9. He turns hostile to the prosecution case.
Even in his cross examination by the prosecution after treating him as hostile witness, he has denied the suggestion made to him that on 1.11.2012, in his presence under Ex.P.12-Mahazar, the Investigating Officer has seized two pistols and 30 bullets shown by S.C.No.131/2013 32 accused No.5. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove the fact that the accused used the alleged pistols & 30 bullets and after the incident, concealed the said ammunitions.
36. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused No.2 used ATM Card to draw amount to give supari to commit the murder of C.W.1 and the ATM Card was seized in the presence of seizure panchs P.Ws.10 and 11 under mahazar Ex.P.13 as shown by accused No.2. The seizure panchas P.Ws.10 and 11 both would not come to support the seizure of ATM Card under Ex.P.13. So, the prosecution fails to prove the seizure of ATM Card fromaccused No.2 under Ex.P.13.
37. It is alleged by the prosecution that P.W.14- Businessman, who sold sim No.8951480449 to accused No.5, which has been used by the accused for the commission of crime. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution has examined P.W.14. He has denied that he sold the said sim to accused No.5. Even he has denied that in connection thereof, he has given statement Ex.P.16 to the police against accused No.5. So, the evidence of this witness does not helpful to the prosecution case that the said sim has been purchased by accused No.5 to commit the offence.
38. It is alleged that after the alleged incident, the accused No.3 has produced empty cartridges in the S.C.No.131/2013 33 presence of panchs, which have been seized by the Investigating Officer under Ex.P.17. This fact has not been proved by the prosecution. P.W.15-Seizure pancha has denied that on 4.11.2012, in his presence the accused No.3 has produced empty cartridges and the Investigating Officer has seized the same under Ex.P.17. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.3 has produced empty cartridges.
39. P.W.16 is wife of accused No.3. It is alleged by the prosecution that she told by her husband that the accused No.1 had hatched plan to commit the murder of C.W.1 and he & other accused were involved in the commission of offence and therefore he came in contact with other accused and they shot fire against C.W.1. However, she has denied all those facts. She has denied that her husband/accused No.3 was in contact with accused Nos.4 and 8 in connection of crime. She has denied that her husband/accused No.3 had disclosed before her that they shot fire against the first informant/P.W.1, but he has escaped. She has denied that after the incident, the accused No.4 has given another mobile to her husband and asked him to destroy the earlier mobile. She has further denied that she told by her husband that the accused No.1 supplied gun and cartridges to kill the first informant. She has denied that her husband sent accused No.4 to conceal the gun and cartridges. She has denied that S.C.No.131/2013 34 she has given statement Ex.P.18 in this regard. The evidence of this witness does not helpful to the prosecution case that she does have knowledge of commission of offence and thereafter ammunitions were concealed.
40. It is alleged by the prosecution that P.Ws.17 and 18-Mobile shop keepers sold mobile to accused Nos.3 and 4, which alleged said to have been used for communication between the accused. It is denied by these witnesses that to purchase mobile, the accused Nos.3 and 4 came to their shop and they sold mobiles which were under mahazars Exs.P.19 & 21. They have denied that they have given statements Exs.P.20 and 22 in this regard. They could not able to identify the accused No.3. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove that the accused No.3 has purchased mobile from these witnesses for communication with other accused in respect of the incident.
41. It is alleged that the accused No.2 used Bike No.KA-41-K-2927 belong to P.W.21 to commit the crime and the R.C.Owner Sri.Arun Kumar/P.W.21 has handed over the said vehicle to the accused No.2.
P.W.21-Sri.Arun Kumar, R.C.Owner of the said vehicle has denied that he has handed over the said vehicle to the accused No.2. He has denied that he S.C.No.131/2013 35 does not know the accused Nos.2, 4 and 8. He has denied that he has given statement Ex.P.28 in this regard. Therefore, the prosecution miserably fails to prove the fact that the accused Nos.2, 4 and 8 were on said motorcycle on the day of alleged incident to commit the murder of C.W.1.
42. The evidence of P.W.19-Police Constable is in respect of drawing portrait of suspicious culprits. He has stated that on the say of Investigating Officer, he drew four portraits of the culprits as per Exs.P.23 to 26.
In the cross examination, he has stated that he does not have special qualification in preparing portraits. He has stated that he has not signed on Exs.P.23 to 26 as he has prepared. His evidence is formal in nature regarding discharge of his duty towards the instruction given by the Investigating Officer. Without cogent evidence, the portraits Exs.P.23 to 26 do not come to support the prosecution case that the accused are the persons have tried to commit the murder of C.W.1.
43. P.W.20-Police Constable has stated about collection of telecasted C.D., from Suvarna Nws. It is denied by the accused side that he has collected C.D.- M.O.4 from Suvarna News TV Channel. To support the contents of M.O.4-C.D., the prosecution fails to place corroborative evidence to say that the accused are only persons have hatched plan to commit the murder of S.C.No.131/2013 36 C.W.1 and attempted to commit his murder by firing towards him.
44. P.W.22-Assistant Director of F.S.L., Bengaluru has examined the articles scientifically sent by the Investigating Officer and submit his report. The prosecution fails to prove that the articles sent to F.S.L., for examination are seized from the possession of accused. The efforts made by the prosecution to prove the said facts does not fruitful as all seizure panchas are turned hostile and nothing stated incriminating evidence against the accused that the accused have produced the articles, which were sent to F.S.L., for examination. Unless it is proved that the articles sent had used by the accused, the evidence of this Expert does not come to support the prosecution case to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offences.
45. The evidence of P.W.23 is regarding deputation of staff to carry CPU for C.F.S.L., for examination. It is formal in nature regarding discharging of his official duty.
46. The evidence of P.W.24 is regarding apprehension of accused No.4, it is formal in nature regarding discharging of his official duty. The evidence of this S.C.No.131/2013 37 witness does not have more weight without corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
47. P.Ws.25 and 26 are SHO and Investigating Officer. Though they have deposed that P.W.1 has lodged report against the accused as per Ex.P.1, it is denied by P.W.1. These police official witnesses have stated that they have arrested the accused and as per the say of voluntary statements of accused Nos.2 to 5, they have seized articles used by them to commit the offence in the presence of panchas under mahazars. None of the seizure panchas would come to support the fact of seizure of articles in their presence from the possession or on the say of accused. They have stated that they have recorded the statements of witnesses,but none of the independent witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have stated that they have given statements before Investigating Officer. Therefore, mere evidence of the police witnesses, without cogent and corroborative evidence, it could not safe to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offences. The materials placed before the court are not sufficient to say that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, S.C.No.131/2013 38 the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer the Point Nos.1 to 7 in the Negative.
48. POINT No.8 : In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 7, my finding on this point is as per the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 are acquitted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 201 and 212 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 5 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.2 to 5 and 8 stand cancelled subject to appeal/appeal period.
M.Os.1 to 27 shall be retained till disposal of the case registered against the split-up accused Nos.1 & 9. (Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of May 2023) (KASHIM CHURIKHAN) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1 Dr.B.Dayananda Pai
P.W.2 Siddaraju
P.W.3 Vincent
S.C.No.131/2013
39
P.W.4 Pugalendi
P.W.5 Vijay Desai
P.W.6 Sunil Kumar
P.W.7 Guruprasad
P.W.8 Nagaraju
P.W.9 Santhosh
P.W.10 Srinivas
P.W.11 Ramesh
P.W.12 Ravikumar
P.W.13 Srikanth Bhat
P.W.14 Champalal
P.W.15 Suresh Babu
P.W.16 Uma
P.W.17 Syed Ul Imran
P.W.18 Eshwar
P.W.19 Adrushappa
P.W.20 Nagaraj
P.W.21 Arun Kumar
P.W.22 B.C.Raveendra
P.W.23 Nanjegowda
P.W.24 Kumaraswamy.S.P.
P.W.25 S.K.Umesh
P.W.26 Y.Nagaraju
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Report/Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.4 Further Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.5 Statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.6 Statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.7 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.3
S.C.No.131/2013
40
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.7(c) Signature of P.W.25
Ex.P.8 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P.8(c) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.9 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.10 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.10(c) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.11 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.11(c) Signature of P.W.25
Ex.P.12 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.12(b) Signature of P.W.25
Ex.P.13 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.13(c) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.13(d) Signature of C.W.15
Ex.P.14 Customer application form
Ex.P.15 Election Identity Card
Ex.P.16 Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.17 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.17(b) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.18 Statement of P.W.16
Ex.P.19 Receipt
Ex.P.20 Statement of P.W.17
Ex.P.21 Invoice
Ex.P.22 Statement of P.W.18
Exs.P.23 to 26 Portraits of culprits Ex.P.27 Report of P.W.20 Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.20 Ex.P.28 Statement of P.W.21 Ex.P.29 F.S.L.Report S.C.No.131/2013 41 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.30 Sample Seal Ex.P.30(a) Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.31 F.S.L.Report Ex.P.31(a) Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.32 Sample Seal Ex.P.32(a) Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.33 Reasons for examination Ex.P.33(a) Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.34 Requisition Ex.P.35 Report of P.W.23 Ex.P.35(a) Signature of P.W.23 Ex.P.36 Report of P.W.25 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.37 Report of P.W.25 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.38 Report of P.W.25 Ex.P38(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.38(b) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.39 Report of P.W.25 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.40 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.40(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.40(b) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.41 Report of P.W.25 Ex.P.41(a) Signature of P.W.25 Ex.P.42 F.I.R.
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.43 Report of C.W.31 Ex.P.43(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.44 Property Form Ex.P.44(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.45 Property Form Ex.P.45(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.46 Property Form Ex.P.46(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.47 Statement of Account of Akhil Vijay Ex.P.48 Details of Credit/Challan Ex.P.49 Further Voluntary Statement of accused No.2 (relevant portion) Ex.P.50 Property Form S.C.No.131/2013 42 Ex.P.50(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.51 Further Voluntary Statement of accused No.2 (relevant portion) Ex.P.52 Property Form Ex.P.52(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.53 Property Form Ex.P.53(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.54 Property Form Ex.P.54(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.55 Property Form Ex.P.55(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.56 Property Form Ex.P.56(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.57 Property Form Ex.P.57(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.58 Property Form Ex.P.58(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.59 Property Form Ex.P.59(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.60 Property Form Ex.P.60(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.61 Voluntary Statement of accused No.4 (relevant portion) Ex.P.62 B-Extract of Karishma Bike bearing No.KA-41-8-2927 Ex.P.62(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.63 Further Voluntary Statement of accused No.3 (relevant portion) Ex.P.64 B-Extract of Karishma Bike bearing No.KA-03-HC-4726 Ex.P.64(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.65 Letter issued by TATA Teleservice Ltd. Exs.P.65(a) to Annexed Documents
(d) Ex.P.66 Letter Ex.P.66(a) Annexed Document Ex.P.67 Letter of Vodafone Company Ex.P.68 Letter of Reliance Company Ex.P.69 Voluntary Statement of accused No.8 (relevant portion) Ex.P.70 Further Voluntary Statement of accused S.C.No.131/2013 43 No.6 (relevant portion) Ex.P.71 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.71(a) Signature of P.W.26 Exs.P.71(b) & Signatures of panchas
(c) Ex.P.72 Report of C.W.34 Ex.P.72(a) Signature of P.W.26 Ex.P.73 Endorsement issued by F.S.L., Bengaluru.
Ex.P.74 Report of C.W.34
Ex.P.74(a) Signature of P.W.26
Ex.P.75 Endorsement issued by F.S.L.,
Bengaluru.
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 Bullet
M.O.2 Jerkin
M.O.3 Chit annexed to P.F.No.161/2012
M.O.3(a) Signature of P.W.5
M.O.4 C.D.
M.O.5 Pistol
M.O.5(a) Signature of P.W.22
M.O.6 Pistol
M.O.6(a) Signature of P.W.22
M.O.7 Pistol
M.O.7(a) Signature of P.W.22
M.O.8 Revolver
M.O.8(a) Signature of P.W.22
M.O.9 C.P.U.
M.O.10 30 Live Rounds
M.O.11 7 Live Pistol bullets
M.O.12 Magazine
M.O.13 9 Live bullets
M.O.14 10 Live bullets
M.O.15 Spice Mobile
M.O.16 Samsung Mobile
M.O.17 Nokia Mobile
M.O.18 6 Live Bullets
M.O.18(a) Signature of P.W.26
S.C.No.131/2013
44
M.Os.19 to 21 3 Mobile Phones
M.O.22 Two empty cases
M.O.22(a) Signature of P.W.26
M.O.23 HDFC Bank Debit Card
M.O.24 Micromax Mobile Phone
M.O.25 Three sim cards
M.O.26 C.D.Clippings
M.O.26(a) Signature of P.W.26
M.O.27 Small Led Piece
M.O.27(a) Signature of P.W.26
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
- NIL -
(KASHIM CHURIKHAN) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.