Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs S.Babu @ Vende Babu on 3 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI Addl. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-62)
Dated this the 3 rd day of March, 2020
PRESENT :-
SRI S.R.MANIKYA., B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, (CCH-62)
SESSIONS CASE NO.582/2011
Complainant : The State of Karnataka
By Malleshwaram Police Station,
Bangalore.
Reptd. by Public Prosecutor,
Bangalore.
V/s.
Accused : 1. S.Babu @ Vende Babu
S/o.Late Subramani
28 years
Kempapura Agraha, Magadi Road
Bangalore.
(Accused No.1)
2. A.Kumar @ Bayappa
S/o.Arunachalam
33years
No.54, 3rd cross
Swathanthra Palya
Srirampura
Bangalore
(Accused No.2)
2 SC No.582/2011
(By Sri.N.S.R., Advocate for A-1&2)
3. Vinod @ Kutti
S/o.Muniswamy
No.2006, Housing Board Colony
Gindi, Near Aadam, Chennai
Tamil Nadu.
(Accused No.3 - Split up)
4. Gopi @ AGS Gopi
S/o.Dalayan
22 years
R/a.Saidapet, Behind High Court,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu
(Accused No.4-Split up)
5. Lingaraju
S/o.Nithyananda
22 years
No.12, MGR Nagar
Velacherry, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu
(Accused No.5-Split Up)
6. V.Nagaraju
S/o.Late Varadaraju
50 years, No.U-32, 4th Main,
Swathanthrapalya, Srirampura,
Bangalore.
(Accused No.6)
7. Santosh
(Absconding)
8. Lakshman @ Lachi
3 SC No.582/2011
S/o.Late Srinivas
21 years
No.45, Near Anjana Talkies
8th Cross, Magadi Road,
Bangalore.
(Accused No.8)
(By Sri.C.N.R., Advocate)
9. Naresh
(Absconding)
1. Date of occurrence of 21.06.2010
offence
2. Date of report of offence 21.06.2010
3. Arrest of the accused 18.08.2010
4. Commencement of trial 01.12.2011
5. Closing of trial 10.01.2013
6. Name of the complainant Govindaraju
7. First information report 21.06.2010, 12.30 p.m. reached to the Magistrate
8. Offences complained of U/S. 307, 120(B) R/w.
Section 34 of IPC 9. Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1, 2, 6 & 8 not found guilty 10. Sentence or order Accused No.1, 2, 6 & 8 are acquitted as per the Judgment Split up case is pending against accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 4 SC No.582/2011 J UD GM E N T This case is a charge sheet filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 307, 120(B) R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
The accused No.1 along with accused No.2 and 6, on account of political enmity existing between CW-1 and accused No.6 in the corporation election, CW-1 helped Pushpavathi to get the caste certificate and on account of this political enmity between them, accused No.1, 2 and 6 hatched conspiracy to commit murder of CW-1 by giving supari to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- and called the other accused persons from Tamil Nadu and contacted Accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 on 21.06.2010 at about 7.30 a.m., when CW-1 and 2 were in the Hallimane Hotel, of Malleshwaram and sitting on the plat form of Juice Shop along with CW-16 and 17, three - four persons assaulted CW-1 with hands on the face portion, accused No.8 has assaulted CW-1 with knife on cheek, face portion and also to the head and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.7, 3 to 5 and 9 have also assaulted CW-1 with knife and razor and caused grievous injuries to cause the death of CW-1 and also held a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons to cause the murder of CW-1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 307, 120(B) R/w. Section 34 of IPC.5 SC No.582/2011
3. After committal of the case, this Court has taken cognizance of the offences and the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., thereafter, after hearing before charge this court has framed the charge against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 307, 120(B) R/w. Section 34 of IPC. Inorder to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined, PW-1 to 23, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.78 and got material objects marked at MO-1 to 12, Ex.P.1(a),(b), Ex.P.2(a to c), Ex.P.3(a,
b), Ex.P.4(a, b), Ex.P.6(a, b), Ex.7(a, b), Ex.P.37(a),Ex.P.38(a), Ex.P.39(a), Ex.P.40(a), Ex.P.41(a), Ex.P.42(a), Ex.P.43(a), Ex.P.44(a), Ex.P.45(a), Ex.P.46(a), Ex.P.47(a), Ex.P.48(a), Ex.P.49(a, b), Ex.P.50(a, b), Ex.P.51(a), Ex.P.52(a, b), Ex.P.53(a), Ex.P.54(a, b), Ex.P.55(a), Ex.P.56(a), Ex.P.57(a,b), Ex.P.58(a), Ex.P.59(a), Ex.P.60(a), Ex.P.61(a), Ex.P.62(a), Ex.P.63(a), Ex.P.64(a), Ex.P.65(a), Ex.P.66(a), Ex.P.67(a), Ex.P.69(a, b), Ex.P.70(a), Ex.P.71(a, b), Ex.P.72(a, b), Ex.P.74(a), Ex.P.75(a), Ex.P.76(a, b), Ex.P.77(a, b), Ex.P.78(a).
4. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, my predecessor has recorded the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., and in the course of progress of the case, case against accused No.3, 4, 5 and 7 has been split-up and case was proceeded against Accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8. Though the statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by my learned predecessor, but the statement was not filled-up and 6 SC No.582/2011 not signed by my learned predecessor. Hence, on the basis of very same statement, I have once again recorded the statement of the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 and obtained the signature of the accused persons by filling the same.
5. Thereafter, I have heard the arguments of accused No.1, 2 and 6 counsel and accused No.8 counsel as not addressed any arguments. Thereafter, I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor arguments.
6. Inview of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and documents got marked with the prosecution and arguments canvassed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned accused No.1, 2 and 6 counsel, now the following points arise for consideration;
i. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 21.06.2010 at about 7.30 a.m., when complainant along Raja, Ex-councilor Krishnakumar, auto driver Shankar was sitting infront of Hallimane Hotel to have coffee within the jurisdiction of Malleshwaram P.S., accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 along with accused No.3 to 5, absconding accused No.7 and 9 holding knives came near complainant caused injuries on left cheek, right head, nose, right hand with an intention to cause his death, knowingly that by this act death of complainant could have been caused and thereby you accused No.1, 2, 6 & 8 along with accused No.3 to 5, absconding accused No.7 and 9 have committed the offence punishable 307 R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
7 SC No.582/2011ii. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, you Accused No.1,2, 6 and 8 along with accused No.3 to 5, absconding accused No.7 and 9 in prosecution of your common object, hatched a criminal conspiracy of committing Murder of Sri Govindaraju and thereby you accused 1, 2, 6 and 8 along with accused No.3 to 5, absconding accused No.7 and 9 have committed the offence of Criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B r/w 34 I.P.C ?
iii. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.i & ii : In the negative against accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 Point No.iii : As per the final order for the following R E A S ON S
8. Point No.i & ii: I have taken up these two points together for consideration inorder to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
9. Since split up case is pending against accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 the same can be considered after securing accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. Hence, I have not discussed anything about accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 in this case.
8 SC No.582/201110. Now, it is the specific case of the complainant that accused No.6 and CW-1 were involved in political enmity and on account of contesting elections in the locality, there was enmity between the complainant and accused No.6. On account of this political enmity inorder to cause murder of CW-1, accused No.6 along with accused No.1, 2, 8 and absconding accused No.3, 4, 5, 7, 9 hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause murder of CW-1 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and accordingly he contacted the absconding accused No.3 to 5, 7 and accused No.9 in Tamil Nadu and made a contact with these accused persons to cause the murder of CW-1 and accordingly on 21.06.2010 at about 7.30 a.m., when CW-1 and Hanumantharaju/PW-6 who had been to Hallimane Hotel for taking coffee and when CW-1 was sitting on the plat form of the juice shop and CW-2 had been to take coffee, all of a sudden three persons had attacked with deadly weapons and caused injury on the right head portion, right hand portion and also nose portion. Thereafter he had been to the toilet of the hotel and later PW-8 and PW- 10 have took PW-1 to the Mallige Hospital, there he took treatment for a period of eight days. Thereafter he came to know that accused No.1 and 6 along with accused No.2, 8 have hatched a plan to cause the murder of PW-1 and contacted the other accused persons along with absconding accused persons and gave Rs.1,50,000/- for the absconding accused persons and accused No.7 and 9, thereby they have assaulted him with knife and other deadly weapons which 9 SC No.582/2011 sufficient to cause the death of PW-1 and hence the accused have committed the offence. Accordingly PW-1 has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and also identified the accused, in further statement. Upon investigating the case, the police have filed charge sheet. Now, in view of the allegation made against the accused persons, this court has to analyze the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
11. Out of 23 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-6 have supported the case of the prosecution. PW-8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21 turned hostile. The other witnesses PW-14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 are the police witnesses. PW-22 and 19 are the medical officers.
12. Now, PW-1 who is an injured witness in this case has specifically stated that when he was sitting on the plat form near the juice shop of the Hallimane Hotel, the accused have assaulted him with deadly weapons to cause the death of that person and also stated about the grievous injury sustained by him in the incident.
13. In support of sustaining of injury, PW-19 has also stated and also issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.54 wherein states about sustaining of injury grievous in nature. PW-19 has given a specific evidence and PW-19 in the cross-examination portion has specifically stated that the complainant has not stated where he sustained injury and also about the assault. In Ex.P.54 also there was no mention 10 SC No.582/2011 of about how many persons have assaulted him and also specifically stated that he has not verified the weapons under which the injuries has been caused. He specifically states that such an injury can also be caused if a person has fallen down on a road. According to the evidence of PW-1 and other eye witnesses, PW-1 after the assault was taken to K.C.G. hospital wherein he has been given first aid treatment and thereafter he has been shifted to Mallige Hospital. But in the course of cross-examination of PW-19 he has specifically stated that he has not enquired about the treatment given in any other hospital. Now, it has to be specifically noted in the course of cross-examination of the accused counsel, PW-1 says that MO-8 was held by accused No.1 and MO-10 was held by accused No.2. But in the forensic examination made by the laboratory which is marked as Ex.P.52, there was a blood stain only on item No.1, 2, 3 and 7 which are one pair of slippers, one pant, one churi and one razor. There is no mention of blood stain on MO-8 and 10.
14. Further, PW-1 also specifically admits in the course of cross-examination that after the lapse of two months from the date of incident, he was further examined and at that point of time, the police have instructed him about involvement of accused No.6 and hence he has stated about that fact. He has also specifically admitted that accused No.2 was not present and accused No.2 is not seen in the C.D. which has been seized by the police from the spot i.e., Hallimane Hotel which is marked as MO-12. It is also to be 11 SC No.582/2011 noted that in the course of cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that there was no seizer of money, also specifically stated that in the presence of police the conspiracy was came to the knowledge of him at the first instance. CW-1 has specifically stated that only two - three persons have assaulted him at first point of time. The name of accused No.6 was not mentioned as rightly contended by the accused No.6 counsel. It is the improvement made by PW-1 during the course of further statement. About the involvement of accused No.1 also there is no specific evidence given by PW-1. He has specifically admitted in the course of cross-examination that he has not given any statement stating that accused No.6 has assaulted him. Inorder to prove the seizer of articles, PW-2, 3, 4 have been examined and the seizer of the articles though established and seizer of vehicle is also established by the evidence of PW-5, but about the involvement of the vehicle there is no specific evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution side. Now, the evidence of PW-6 who is an eye witness supported the case of PW-1 and states that the accused No.4 only assaulted CW-1 and other accused persons have ran away from the spot after the incident and he has not stated about the involvement of other accused persons which is a contrary to the evidence of PW-1 and he is also treated as partly hostile.
15. Even in the evidence of PW-6, who is an eye witness there is no specific evidence with regard to the running of PW-1 to the toilet of Hallimane hotel. He also specifically 12 SC No.582/2011 admitted in the course of cross-examination that till the further recording of statement of PW-1, there was no suspicion with regard to the involvement of accused No.6. Further, it is also the case of PW-1 and 6 that they took the PW-1 to the K.C.G. Hospital and Mallige Hospital through an auto rickshaw and the driver who have been examined as PW-8. But he has turned hostile and he has not spoken anything with regard to the taking of the injured to the hospital. In the same way PW-1 and 6 states that S.R.Krishna Kumar who was PW-9 was also present at the time of incident and he is aware of the incident. But when he was examined before the court, he turned hostile and denied about giving statement, identifying the accused and also about the commission of the crime by the accused persons.
16. PW-10, 11 and 12 who are the workers of Hallimane Hostel they have also turned hostile. PW-2 is the important witness to be noted because according to the prosecution version PW-2 had been to the coffee counter for taking coffee for PW-1, at that point of time there was assault. But PW-2 has not given any corroborative evidence with regard to the incident or presence of the accused person. PW-7 is a person who is the owner of the hotel who has given the C.D. to the investigating officer. To substantiate or to prove the presence of accused persons. In the course of cross-examination portion he has specifically stated that at the time of taking the C.D. there was no mahazar drawn and also denied about 13 SC No.582/2011 contents of Ex.P.7. In such event, the evidence of these witnesses will in no way help the case of the prosecution.
17. The other witnesses PW-14, to 18 and 23 who are the police witnesses who have specifically stated that they have apprehended the accused persons and accused No.3 to 5, 7 and 9 were apprehended in Tamil Nadu. Some of the witnesses states that these accused persons were apprehended in Chennai Town, some of the witnesses says that they were apprehended at Sowdapet. All these witnesses states that they along with the Investigating Officer went to Tamil Nadu along with accused No.1 to secure these accused persons. But to corroborate that fact about they had been to Tamil Nadu and they were staying at Tamil Nadu and to establish that fact, neither the lodge owner where they have been stayed has not been examined, nor the receipt for having payment of amount to the lodge is produced, nor the register maintained by the lodge for establishing the fact that they were residing there is also not produced. More particularly it is to be noted that all these persons have specifically stated that they went to Tamil Nadu, through a cab. But they specifically states that they cannot say the number of the vehicle since it is an important evidence to establish the fact that the police have went to Tamil Nadu to apprehend the accused person. But the person PW-20 who has been examined as cab driver who has specifically denied incident and he turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In the absence of such a document, the 14 SC No.582/2011 evidence of this witnesses about apprehending the accused persons from Tamil Nadu creates doubt in the mind of the court and also it creates doubt with respect to the case of the prosecution stating that accused No.1 has hatched conspiracy with other accused persons to assault CW-1.
18. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-20 & 21 were the eye witness for the criminal conspiracy made by accused No.1, 2 and 6 who assaulted CW-1 with the other accused persons. They were present when these accused No.1, 2 and 6 have disclosed about the criminal conspiracy against CW-1. Accused No.6 has told the accused No.1 he will make the payment if the work is done. They were also aware of these facts and also known about the conspiracy held by accused No.1, 2 and 6 with other accused and made an attempt to call the accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 from Tamil Nadu and tried to commit the murder of CW-1. But when these two witnesses have been examined before the court as PW-20 and 21 they have specifically denied about this fact. Also specifically denied about giving statement as per Ex.P.55 and Ex.P.56 by which prosecution have failed to establish the guilt of accused No. 1, 2 and 6 with respect to the offences of 120(B) of IPC.
19. The witnesses who according to the prosecution were eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have given a complete go bye to the supportive evidence of the prosecution. Further, the 15 SC No.582/2011 investigating officer who has been examined as PW-23, has given evidence with regard to the seizer of MO-3 to 6. Also states about apprehension of accused person, also about investigation made with respect to the case. He has given evidence with regard to the apprehension of accused No.3 to 5 from Tamil Nadu. But in the course of cross-examination he admits that he has recorded the statement of CW-18 and 19 after lapse of two months. But they have not stated anything about the involvement of accused No.6. Further, it is also to be noted that according to the FIR, the case was registered at about 11.15 a.m., But in Ex.P.1, the statement of CW-1 was also recorded till 11.15 a.m., This also creates doubt in the mind of the Court. Though in the chief examination, he has specifically stated that there was blood stain in the spot, according to the prosecution where the assault was made, but he has not drawn any mahazar to establish that fact. He has also specifically admitted that there was no blood stain in the bathroom. He has also specifically admitted that the CCTV footages were not shown to CW-1 earlier to 25.08.2010 Thereafter recorded the statement stating that accused No.3 to 5 have assaulted CW-
1. Further admitted that accused No.3 to 5 were residents of Tamil Nadu State and they were only knowing Tamil Language, but voluntary statement was recorded in Kannada Language.
20. It is also specifically admitted that he has not shown the footage of CD to PW-1 but there is no recording in 16 SC No.582/2011 CD to establish who have assaulted PW-1. He also specifically admitted that there is no mention why PW-17 about visiting to Tamil Nadu, also there is no document to show that the PSI and other officials were stayed in Tamil Nadu for a period of 4 to 5 days. Further he also specifically admitted that they have not taken support of local police in arresting accused persons. It is also admitted by PW-23 that he has not enquired the owner of Milk Juice Corner and the workers of Milk Juice Corner with regard to the incident, also not recorded any statement. By looking into these admissions of PW-23 in the course of cross-examination, it can be noted that the vital and important witness who is the owner of the Milk Juice Corner where the CW-1 was sitting and where the incident has happened and their statement has not been recorded.
21. Even he has not enquired with regard to that aspect. This, is a vital and important evidence to establish about the case of the prosecution. But that aspect is completely absent in this case. According to PW-23 also, the accused No. 3 to 5 who were according to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, were the main assailants of CW- 1 were apprehended in Tamil Nadu. But to corroborate that the PSI and other officials had been to Tamil Nadu no material is placed on record, no documents have been produced to establish the fact about residing in Tamil Nadu to apprehended the accused No.3 to 5. It is also to be noted about the apprehension of accused No.3 to 5 there is 17 SC No.582/2011 contrary statement in the officials who alleged to have been to Tamil Nadu. Some of the witnesses says that they were apprehended in Chennai Market, some of the witnesses states that they were apprehended at Burial ground, some of the witnesses says that they were apprehended at Saidapet. There is no specific and guarantee place mentioned with regard to the apprehension of the accused No.3 to 5. Though according to all the witnesses the officials were residing at Tamil Nadu for four to five days, neither the register of the lodge is produced nor the receipt for having paid the rent to the lodge is also not produced. The non production of these document will be a fatal to the prosecution case to prove about the apprehension of accused No.3 to 5 as contended. Now by considering all these evidence and cumulative effect of all these evidences of witnesses, if it is considered that the evidences of these witnesses will not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 because according to the prosecution a criminal conspiracy was made by accused No.1, 2, 6 to assault and to commit murder of CW-1. But to corroborate such a fact the eye witnesses who have been examined have turned hostile.
22. There is no specific evidence with regard to the conspiracy held by accused No.1, 2, 6, 8 with accused No.3 to 5, 7 and 9 who are the absconding accused persons and according to the prosecution case, accused No.3 to 5 were residing at Tamil Nadu and that though criminal conspiracy 18 SC No.582/2011 was held with them and they were instructed to assault CW-1 and they were apprehended at Tamil Nadu. But as already discussed in the earlier part of my judgment, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the police and other witnesses will not specifically prove about the apprehension of the accused persons from Tamil Nadu and to prove that aspect there is absolutely no evidence except the oral say of the investigating officer and other police witnesses. Now, in the absence of any eye witnesses for the criminal conspiracy and in the absence of any specific evidence with regard to the intention of accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 to assault the complainant, the question of considering the offences under Section 307, 120(B) R/w. Section 34 of IPC does not arise at all. Further, the evidence of PW-1, 6 and 8 is full of contradictions. They are not to tallying with each other in particularly PW-8 in whose auto, PW-1 was shifted to hospital has not stated anything except stating about sustaining of injuries. He has also specifically stated that he was also sitting near the juice corner, but the owner of the juice corner has not been enquired and his statement was not recorded. PW-6 who was an eye witness to the incident, he states that the 1st accused was running towards the hotel and accused No.4 has assaulted PW-1. He does not say anything about the other accused persons Act. He has also not stated anything about the participation of accused No.1 and 2, in the incident. He has turned partly hostile also. Now, the other witnesses Krishna Kumar who was also according to the prosecution was eye witness has turned 19 SC No.582/2011 hostile and he has denied about giving statement as per Ex.P.39 and also giving statement as per Ex.P.40 where in he has identified accused No.1 to 5, he has also denied about giving statement with respect to the assault made to PW-1. When such being the case, all these witnesses evidence is taken away from the prosecution case, the only available evidence for proving the guilt of the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 is the sole evidence of PW-1. No doubt, PW-1 has given the evidence with respect to the assault. But his evidence has also not fully establishes about the commission of the crime by the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8. Because, PW-1 is the only competent person to give evidence with respect to the conspiracy held by accused No.6 to commit the murder of PW-1 along with accused No.1, 2 and other accused. But except the oral testimony of PW-1, there is no corroborative evidence of other witnesses to prove the conspiracy held by accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 and also does not establishes the Act of conspiracy. No doubt the criminal conspiracy is an Act will be made secretly with the confidential persons. According to the prosecution, PW-20 and 21 who were the confident persons of CW-1 in whose presence the conspiracy was held by accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8. But these witnesses have turned hostile and they have not stated anything about such an act committed by accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8.
23. In the absence of all these evidence and in the absence of specific evidence with regard to the apprehension of accused No.3 to 5 from Tamil Nadu and also by 20 SC No.582/2011 considering the contradictory evidence of the witnesses evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the guilt of the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 has not been established before the court beyond reasonable doubt, because it is well established principle of law that in criminal case, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them and it is also the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But where as in this case, by looking into the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution there arises a doubt with regard to the commission of the offence by accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 and I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused with respect to the offences alleged against the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8. Hence, I have no hesitation to answer Point No.i and ii in the negative.
24. Point No.iii : Having regard to my above observations and findings on point No.i & ii in 'negative, I proceed to pass the following :
O R DE R Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C, I do hereby acquit the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 for the offences punishable U/s. 307, 120(B) r/w. section 34 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 8 stand cancelled.21 SC No.582/2011
The accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 are set at liberty.
The properties produced in this case i.e., MO-1 to 12 are to be kept in Court since the split up case is pending before Court.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of March, 2020).
(S.R.MANIKYA) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 : Govindaraju
PW.2 : Gunashekar
PW.3 : Narayanaswamy
PW.4 : Puttaswamy
PW.5 : Ravi Kumar
PW.6 : Hanumantharaya
PW.7 : Babu Rao
PW.8 : Shankar
PW.9 : S.R.krishnakumar
PW.10 : Rajesh
PW.11 : Mohan
PW.12 : Satish
22 SC No.582/2011
PW.13 : Umapathi
PW.14 : K.Srnivas
PW.15 : Nataraj
PW.16 : Nagaraj
PW.17 : Kempanna
PW.18 : Smt.Malathi
PW.19 : Shanthakumar
PW.20 : Charan Raj
PW.21 : Narendra Babu
PW.22 : Dr.Sudarshan
PW.23 : M.Srinivas
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P.1 - Complaint
Ex.P.2 - Mahazar
Ex.P.3 - Seizer Mahazar
Ex.P.4 - Seizer Mahazar
Ex.P.5 - two Photos
Ex.P.6 - Requisition letter
Ex.P.7 - Letter issued by Halli mane to
Malleshwaram PSI
Ex.P.8 to 36 - Photos
Ex.P.37 - Portion of Statement of Shankar
Ex.P.38 - Portion of Statement of Shankar
Ex.P.39 - Portion of Statement of Krishnakumar
Ex.P.40 - Portion of Statement of Krishnakumar
23 SC No.582/2011
Ex.P.41 - Portion of Statement of Rajesh Ex.P.42 - Portion of Statement of Rajesh Ex.P.43 - Portion of Statement of Mohan Ex.P.44 - Portion of Statement of Mohan Ex.P.45 - Portion of Statement of Satish Ex.P.46 - Portion of Statement of Satish Ex.P.47 - Report of PC Ex.P.48 - FIR Ex.P.49 - Report of PSI Kempanna Ex.P.50 - Report of PSI Kempanna Ex.P.51 - Report of PSI Kempanna Ex.P.52 - FSL Report Ex.P.53 - Sample seal Ex.P.54 - Wound Certificate Ex.P.55 - Statement of Charanraj Ex.P.56 - Statement of Narendrababu Ex.P.57 - Medical report Ex.P.58 - Pf No.45/10 Ex.P.59 - PF No.48/10 Ex.P.60 - Statement of N.Babu Ex.P.61 - Statement of A.Kumar Ex.P.62 - Mahazar Ex.P.63 - PF No.58/2010 Ex.P.64 - Statement of M.Vinod Ex.P.65 - Statement of Gopi Ex.P.66 - Statement of Lingaraju Ex.P.67 - PF No.59/10 Ex.P.68 - Statement of Lakshman 24 SC No.582/2011 Ex.P.69 - PF No.61/10 Ex.P.70 - Statement of V.Nagaraj Ex.P.71 - Passport Ex.P.72 - Declaration of PSI Srinivas Ex.P.73 - Request Letter Ex.P.74 - Intimation letter Ex.P.75 - Case Invoice Ex.P.76 - Sample seal Ex.P.77 - Sample seal Ex.P.78 - Acknowledgment LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
MO-1 - Brown colour pant MO-2 - Knife MO-3 to 5 - Knife with steal handle MO-6 to 8 - Small knife with wooden handle MO-9 - steel button knife MO-10 - laser knife MO-11 - cloth cover MO-12 - DVD
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:-
NIL (S.R.MANIKYA) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.25 SC No.582/2011 26 SC No.582/2011
03.03.2020 S-PP A1,2-NSR A-3,4,5,7,9-Split up A-6 A-8-CNR Order pronounced in open Court (vide separate order) with the following operative portion:-
Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C, I do hereby acquit the accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8 for the offences punishable U/s. 307, 120(B) r/w. section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 8 stand cancelled.27 SC No.582/2011 The accused No.1, 2, 6 and 8
are set at liberty.
The properties produced in this case i.e., MO-1 to 12 are to be kept in Court since the split up case is pending before Court.
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.28 SC No.582/2011
Order pronounced in open Court (vide separate order) with the following operative portion:-
Accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Material Objects No.1 to 9 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
Issue warrant of commitment
accordingly.
Furnish copy of judgment to the
accused free of cost.
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.