Bangalore District Court
SPL.C/180/2014 on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2015
- : PRESENT : -
SMT.SHUBHA GOWDAR, B.A.LL.B,
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
SPECIAL C.C.NO. 180/2014
COMPLAINANT :
The State of Karnataka by
Mahadevapura Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Represented by learned Public
Prosecutor, Bangalore.]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED :
Dharmendra Pandit
S/o Late Shivapaijan Pandit
Aged 20 years, r/at
3rd main, Home Tech Building,
L.B.Shastrinagar, HAL Post,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address at
Ramhalli, Maharaj Ganj Post,
Shivan District,
Bihar State.
/2/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014
[Represented by learned counsel
Sri.V.Lakshmi Kanth Rao.]
***
JUDGMENT
Mahadevapura Police, Bangalore City have chargesheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as under :
Akshay Kumar is the son of C.W-1, Oshiyar Pandit. Accused who belongs to native place of P.W-1 was working under him as Mason, also residing with him. C.W-1 was a Contractor. He was due to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards coolie wages to the accused. Number of times galata took place between themselves with respect to non-payment of the said amount. With that vengeance, accused had kidnapped the Akshay Kumar, who was of 4 years while he was coming alongwith his sister from the school. He was kidnapped on 13/01/2010 at 2.45pm. On /3/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 16/01/2010 he made a call to C.W-6 Sumit to intimate C.W-1 about his demand for ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-
otherwise he would finish off his son. C.W-1 had lodged a complaint before the police on the same day, accused was apprehended in under ground passage nearby the Majestic bus stop, rescued the victim boy.
The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses, drew Mahazar, by completing the investigation he submitted the Charge Sheet to the Court for the aforesaid offences.
3. The chargesheet was submitted to X ACMM Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court as it is triable by Sessions Court. After registering the case in SC No.783/2010, it was entrusted to FTC-VII Court. The learned Presiding Officer of FTC-VII had framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of I.P.C, recorded the evidence of 9 prosecution witnesses out of 13 witnesses, marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 on prosecution side and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 on defence side, the details /4/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 of which are given in the annexure of this Judgment. Accused statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded against accused. Accused has denied the whole incriminating evidence against him and he has not chosen to lead evidence on his side. When the case stood posted for arguments, on the point of jurisdiction this case has been transferred to his Court.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused and posted for Judgment.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as under :
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had kidnapped Akshay Kumar S/o C.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit on 13/01/2010 at 2.45pm near Anugraha Classic Apartment, 7th A Cross, Kaggadasapura, Bengaluru for ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- to /5/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 release the victim boy punishable under Section 364(A) of I.P.C ?
2) What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final orders for the
following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1 :- It is the case of the prosecution that P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit is a Contractor, accused who is from native place of P.W-1 had been residing with him for the last 3 years prior to the incident after he came to Bengaluru for his employment. They are originally from Bihar. P.W-1 has 2 children namely P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari, 7 years as on that date and one Akshay Kumar. He alongwith his children and P.W-3 Shakunthala Devi were residing together. Accused was also residing with them. Whenever he had work he used to reside in the site at Shastrinagar, /6/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 otherwise he was with them in their house. P.W-1 was due to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards coolie wages to accused, because of financial crisis he did not pay the said amount, he was taking time to make payment to the accused. In respect of this matter the galata took place between themselves on 11/01/2010. Again P.W-1 sought time to make payment. On 13/01/2010 as usual, P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari alongwith his brother Akshay Kumar had gone to Ever Grace Public School, Nayandahalli. She was studying in I Standard, victim boy Akshay Kumar was studying in LKG. By 3 'o' clock after their school hours they both were coming beside Anugraha Classic Apartment, 7th A Cross, Kaggadasapura, then accused took away the victim boy offering that he would take him to shop for chocolates, asked P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari to go to house. But accused did not return with the victim boy. After sometime, P.W-3 Shakuntala Devi intimated to P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit about non-return of accused with Akshay Kumar. Till morning on 16/01/2010 /7/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 P.W-1 alongwith his associates searched for victim boy. On 16/01/2010 at 6.30am, P.W-10 Sumit received ransom call from the accused, P.W-6 Jithendra Pandit, the brother-in-law of the accused was asked by the accused to intimate P.W-1 to pay ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-, he should bring the amount to underground passage of Majestic bus stop, otherwise he would finish off the victim boy. After intimating the same, P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit had lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1 on 16/01/2010 at 7.30am. Thereafter, the police alongwith P.W-1 and others went to the spot, apprehended the accused by rescuing the victim boy. This is the story projected by the prosecution.
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution has got examined 9 witnesses. Out of them P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari, P.W-4 Kishore Sharma, P.W-5 Harishankar Pandit are the material witnesses in the present case. Even P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit, the complainant and also the father of the victim boy, P.W-10 Sumit, P.W-6 /8/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 Jithendra Pandi are also the material witnesses in the present case.
9. According to prosecution, P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari, sister of victim boy had seen the accused with victim boy, had seen the accused taking away the victim boy on 13/01/2010 at 2.45pm while they both were coming from school beside Anugraha Classic Apartment, 7th Cross, Kaggadasapura. She is the first person who had seen the accused taking away the victim boy. The accused is not a stranger to the family of P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit and he is also not a stranger to P.W-2 and victim boy. According to prosecution, he had been residing in the house of complainant itself. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari plays a vital role in the present case. In the chief examination, she has reiterated the prosecution case. In the cross-examination led by the learned counsel for defence has categorically stated at page No.4 that "on 13/01/2010 accused himself had dropped both of them to the school, on the same day at 3 'o' clock /9/ Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 her mother had brought them home from the school". When her statement in the cross-examination is very much contrary to her oral testimony in the chief examination, such inconsistent evidence is not safe to be based to implicate the accused to the alleged crime. As stated in supra, she is the first person who had seen the accused taking away the victim boy offering chocolates. But as per her cross-examination, her mother had brought home herself and her brother by 3.00pm. In further she has stated that "accused is a good uncle, he had not taken away the victim Akshay Kumar to anywhere, he was at home itself". Therefore, when her evidence is not worthy of credence, inference cannot be drawn against the accused he had kidnapped the victim boy on that day.
10. According to prosecution, there are other witnesses who had seen the accused taking away the victim boy on 13/01/2010. P.W-4 Kishore Sharma is a Carpenter. He is the friend of P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit, the complainant. They both are from Bihar State.
/ 10 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 P.W-1 is from the neighbour village. He has stated
that accused had resided with P.W-1 for 2-3 years. In view of his oral testimony in the chief examination, P.W-1 was due to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the wages of the accused. According to prosecution, he had also seen the accused taking away the victim boy Akshay Kumar. When he came to know about missing of victim boy, he intimated the same to P.W-1 complainant. In para No.7 page No.5 of his cross- examination, he has given contradictory statement that he has not given statement as per Ex.D.4 before the police. Ex.D.4 is the part of 161 statement dated 17/01/2010. According to prosecution, he heard that P.W-1 accompanied the police to Majestic bus stop and found accused with the victim boy. Police surrounded him, apprehended the accused and rescued the victim boy. He is a hear say witness with respect to other facts, but he had seen the accused taking away the victim boy. But nowhere he has disclosed this fact either in his chief examination or in his cross-
/ 11 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 examination. He has stated in his chief examination that "Complainant intimated over phone at 5.00pm on 13/01/2010 to search the accused and the child, inspite of search he could not find them, on the next day P.W-1 who had been to Bellary returned. On 12/01/2010 PW-1 had returned to Bengaluru, they both searched, thereafter they had lodged a complaint before the Mahadevapura police. After 2 days accused made a call for ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-, if ransom amount is not paid he would kill the child, then P.W-1 requested the relatives and known persons of the accused to ask the accused to return the child safely, he is ready to pay ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-".
/ 12 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 If his entire evidence is read, it suffers from material contradictions of which goes to the root of the prosecution case. He cannot withstand the cross- examination. In para No.6 of his cross-examination, he has categorically stated "he came to know about the kidnapping of the child on 11/01/2010 at 7.30 itself, he alongwith P.W-7 and others searched in Mariyanapalya and Shastrinagar, on 13/01/2010 between 9-9.30am, P.W-1 had received a ransom call from accused for Rs.5,00,000/-. Since the mobile had loud speaker, he heard the illegal demand of the accused". This is very much contrary to the prosecution case. As per the prosecution, the alleged incident took place on 13/01/2010 at 2.45pm. Whereas according to P.W-4, for the first time he came to know about it on 11/01/2010 and the accused made a call to P.W-1 demanding Rs.5,00,000/- on 13/01/2010. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is not worthy of acceptance.
/ 13 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014
11. When it is the case of the prosecution that accused had kidnapped the victim child for ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-, the initial burden lies upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 364(A) of I.P.C. To attract the provisions of Section 364(A) of I.P.C, what is required to prove is :
1) whether accused kidnapped or abducted the person
2) whether kept under detention after such kidnapping or abduction, that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.
12. P.W-5 Harishankar Pandit is another material witness as per the prosecution. He is the maternal uncle of P.W-1. As per the prosecution, he had also seen the accused and victim while taking him away on 13/01/2010. In his chief examination, he has stated that "about one year back the accused had kidnapped while the victim boy was coming from the school, at that time he was in Bellary, / 14 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 thereafter, he had returned to Bengaluru and searched alongwith P.W-1". According to oral testimony of this witness, he was not in station as on the date of the alleged incident, but at Bellary, when that is so, question of seeing the accused taking away the victim boy is far away from the truth. As per the prosecution, his 161 statement was recorded on 17/01/2010, he had stated before the Investigating Officer that "on 13/01/2010 at 2.45pm while he and his friend P.W-4 Kishore Sharma were coming nearby Anugraha Apartments, Kaggadasapura railway gate, seen the children of P.W-1, accused had also come to that place and took away the Akshay Kumar offering chocolates and P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari accepted the same, went home. As per the prosecution he had specifically stated before the Investigating Officer that "he had seen the accused taking away Akshay Kumar. He was under the impression that he might have come to take the children from school. After coming to know of the alleged kidnapping he / 15 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 intimated to P.W-1 what he had seen". But his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. In the chief examination itself, he has categorically stated that he was not in station on that day, but he was at Bellary. In the cross-examination led by the learned counsel for the defence, he has specifically stated at page No.3 that he had not given the statement as per Ex.D.1. Ex.D.1 is the part of 161 statement stated to have been given by him before the Investigating Officer on 17/01/2010. According to this Ex.D.1, he had intimated P.W-1 and his wife what they had seen the accused taking away the victim boy. His evidence runs in 5 pages. He is the material witness. According to prosecution he had seen the accused kidnapping the victim boy, he did not know at that time that it was kidnapping, after he came to know about the missing of victim boy he thought what he had seen is a fact of kidnapping. But his whole evidence is read, he has not supported the prosecution on this vital aspect. What he has stated the other facts is with respect to / 16 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 hear say only. Ex.D.2 is another part of his 161 statement with respect to he came to know later about apprehending the accused with victim boy by the police from Majestic bus stop. He has also not supported the prosecution on this aspect. His evidence does not positively establish the case of the prosecution. The discrepancy finding in his evidence is fatal to prosecution.
13. P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari, P.W-4 Kishore Sharma, P.W-5 Harishankar Pandit are the persons who had seen the accused taking away the victim boy and the victim boy was lastly seen with the accused on 13/01/2010. But as discussed in supra, their evidence suffers from material contradictions, they have not supported the prosecution on the material point of seeing the accused with the victim boy on 13/01/2010 at 2.45pm. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses are not helpful to the prosecution in proving its case.
/ 17 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 14. According to prosecution, accused had
kidnapped the victim boy on 13/01/2010, he made a call to mobile of P.W-10 Sumit. His mobile No. is 9035770021. P.W-6 Jithendra Pandit is brother-in- law of accused. 6 months before, he came to Bengaluru, he was residing with the accused. P.W-10 Sumit is the friend of Jithendra Pandit. Their houses are adjacent to each other. On 16/01/2010 at 6.30am there was a call to P.W-10's Sumit mobile, P.W-6 Jithendra Pandit who was with P.W-10 Sumit at that time, received a call and heard the demand of the accused for ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-, he was asked by the accused to intimate P.W-1 that he should bring the money to Majestic bus stop otherwise he would kill the victim boy. Thereafter, P.W-1 had lodged a complaint before the police. This is the story of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is also very material in proving the case of the prosecution. The investigating agency has collected the details of the call sheets of mobile No. 9035770021. On going through / 18 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 the evidence of P.W-10, 6, and P.W-11 Ravi Kumar, it is found that this mobile originally belongs to C.W-9 Rukmini. P.W-11 Ravikumar is the son of C.W-9 Rukmini. Mani is well known to the family of Ravi Kumar. Rukmini had given this sim to C.W-10 Mani. Mani had given the sim to P.W-1 Oshiyar Pandit. In turn he had given to P.W-10 Sumit. P.W-11 Ravikumar has been examined to speak out on this aspect. As on the date of the alleged incident, this mobile was with P.W-10 Sumit, not with P.W-1 complainant. This is an undisputed fact. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-10 Sumit, P.W-6 Jithendra Pandit assumes more importance in the present case. But on going through the evidence of these witnesses, they have not supported the prosecution with respect to receiving the phone call from the accused. In the chief examination itself, P.W-6 Jithendra Pandit has stated that :
"he does not know P.W-1 had lodged a complaint, he does not know the / 19 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 accused had kidnapped son of P.W-1 and took him to Bihar, he came to know that accused was apprehended by the police in kidnapping case and he is in jail since 3 months".
In the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that :
"he does not know the dispute between the accused and the P.W-1, mobile having sim No. 9035770021 is with the P.W-10 Sumit. He does not know about kidnapping of the son of P.W-1".
He is subjected to cross-examination at length by learned Public Prosecutor. He has flatly denied the whole suggestion made by him including receiving of phone calls from the accused. Admittedly this mobile was not with Jithendra Pandit, but with Sumit. Therefore, though the call sheet at Ex.P.6 is placed before the Court, the inference cannot be drawn / 20 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 against this witness that he is falsely deposing. It is not his mobile. As per the prosecution case, accused made a call to this number. P.W-6 has not at all supported the prosecution case. Here also the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
15. The another material witness is P.W-10 Sumit. As already discussed in supra, the aforesaid mobile was with Sumit as on the date of the alleged incident and also on 16/01/2010. Ofcourse, he admits in his evidence the said sim was given by C.W-10 Mani. According to his chief examination, "he came to know about kidnapping of son of P.W-1. When accused made a call to his number, one Vinod had received the said call, then only he came to know that accused had kidnapped the son of P.W-1, he did not speak to accused over phone, he does not know the mobile number of the accused, / 21 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 Vinod did not say anything more to him".
As discussed in supra, according to prosecution, it is the P.W-6 Jithendra Pandit had received the phone call on the aforesaid mobile, he was asked by the accused to intimate the P.W-1, whereas P.W-l0's chief examination does not suggest Jithendra Pandit received the call, but it is one Vinod. In the cross- examination led by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has flatly denied he had given the statement before the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.10. Therefore, on the point of receiving the phone calls, stated to have been made by the accused is not supported by P.W-6 and P.W-10. Here also prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case that accused had made a call for ransom. Ofcourse, according to call sheet at Ex.P.6, mobile No. 9035770021 had received 3 calls on 16/01/2010. According to prosecution, the call from accused was received at 6.30am. It is not the case of the prosecution that he made several calls to this / 22 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 mobile. According to prosecution, the accused made a call to this number from his mobile No.8041146723. There is no piece of evidence to show this number is of accused. Merely because the Ex.P.6 with respect to call details of mobile No. 9035770021 which was with P.W- 6 is placed before the Court, does not establish that accused made a ransom call to this number, in the absence of any iota of evidence that mobile No.8041146723 is of accused. Here also prosecution fails to place convincing, satisfactory and reliable evidence to prove the evidence of kidnapping by the accused.
16. On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents placed by the prosecution, I do not find anywhere the mobile number of P.W-1. Nowhere I do find that accused made the calls to mobile of P.W-1, the complainant. Ex.P.6 is related to period from 15/01/2010 to 03/02/2010. Even so far as apprehending the accused with kidnapee boy I do not find any piece of document and / 23 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 also credible evidence. Admittedly there is no Mahazar drawn in the place of apprehending the accused with kidnapee. There is only inconsistent evidence with respect to finding the accused with kidnapee in the Majestic. Except P.W-1, the other witnesses are hear say witnesses on this point. Ofcourse, he has reiterated the case of the prosecution that he alongwith the police went to Majestic, found accused with kidnapee, he had given a oral complaint on this aspect and it is at Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 is dated 16/01/2010, according to prosecution he had lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 at 7.30am after he was intimated by Jithendra Pandit with respect to phone call from the accused at 6.30am. But according to his chief examination, after apprehending the accused and tracing the kidnapee he had given a oral complaint. On going through his evidence, it suffers from material contradictions, such inconsistent evidence cannot be based to draw conviction against the accused for the alleged offences. As already stated in supra, nowhere / 24 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 he had given his mobile number, he has not referred to anywhere. Ofcourse, he has stated in the cross- examination at page No.6 that :
"he knows the mobile number of the accused, he tried to call to his number, but it was switched off".
He has admitted that he has not disclosed this fact before the police. Even he has stated in his chief examination that "accused knows his mobile number, but he never made a call to his mobile".
According to evidence of P.W-1 at page No.4 para No.4 in his chief examination, accused made a call to Sumit's mobile number from Agra, as per his evidence in the cross-examination at page No.6 para No.6, accused made calls from Jhansi on 16/01/2010 at 6.00am and put forth demand for ransom. He admits that Jhansi is at the distance of 2,000kms from Bengaluru. As per the complaint at / 25 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 Ex.P.1 lodged by himself, as on the date of the alleged incident, he was not in station, as per his chief examination before the Court, he was not in station, but at Bellary on next day i.e., on 14/01/2010 returned to Bengaluru and searched for accused and his son. Except the vague statement of P.W-1 that he tried to call the accused to his number, there is no other evidence to substantiate the same. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not corroborative, contradictory evidence of such witnesses cannot be relied to hold guilt of the accused. If the Court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied upon, the testimony has to be accepted and acted on. In the absence of such evidence, it is not safe to base reliance to draw conviction.
17. At the first style itself, the prosecution has failed to prove the accused had taken away the victim boy. P.W-2 Sandhya Kumari, P.W-5 Harishankar Pandit have not supported the prosecution on this point. Therefore, in the absence of acceptable / 26 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 evidence, accused cannot be linked to the alleged crime. There is no proof with respect to taking the kidnapee by the accused. On this point the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond shadow. Secondly again the prosecution has failed to put forth credible piece of evidence with respect to receiving ransom calls from the accused. Thirdly the prosecution again has not succeeded in putting forth the convincing and satisfactory evidence with respect to finding the accused with kidnapee in the Majestic bus stop. There is no credible piece of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not involve the accused in kidnapping of the victim boy. It is difficult to connect the accused with the crime on the basis of contradictory evidence of P.W-1. It would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt of accused. There is no enough materials to implicate the accused for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of I.P.C. In the absence of convincing and material piece / 27 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 of evidence, satisfactory and reliable evidence, the say of P.W-8 Manjunath, PSI, P.W-9 Mohammed Rafee, PI, P.W-7 Chikkanarasimhaiah, PC cannot be solely based to find the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I hold point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of my above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of March, 2015.) (SHUBHA GOWDAR) L Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
***
/ 28 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION P.W.-1 Oshiyar Pandit P.W.-2 Sandhya Kumari P.W.-3 Shakunthala Devi P.W.-4 Kishore Sharma P.W.-5 Harishankar Pandit P.W.-6 Jithendra Pandit P.W.-7 Chikkanarasimhaiah P.W.-8 Manjunatha P.W.-9 Mohammed Rafee P.W-10 Sumit P.W-11 Ravi Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.-1 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.-1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.-9 Ex.P.3 Statement of P.W-6 Ex.P.4 Report Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W-9 Ex.P.5 F.I.R Ex.P.6 Mobile call sheet / 29 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 Ex.P.7 Document regarding sim Ex.P.8 Election ID card Ex.P.9 Election ID card Ex.P.10 Statement of P.W-10 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Ex.D.1 Portion of Statement of P.W-5 Ex.D.2 Portion of Statement of P.W-5 Ex.D.3 Portion of statement of P.W-5 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, AND MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
(SHUBHA GOWDAR) L Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
*** / 30 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 / 31 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014 / 32 / Spl.C.C.No.180/2014