Bangalore District Court
State By C.O.D. (Special Enquiry) vs M.R. Harish S/O Ramanna on 9 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.C.M.M, Bengaluru
Present: Smt. Hema Pastapur
B.A.,LL.B.,
I Addl. C. M. M, Bengaluru
C.C.No.22469/2008
Dated this the 9th day of January 2017
Judgment under section 355 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Complainant:- State by C.O.D. (Special Enquiry), Bengaluru.
(By Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS
Accused:- 1. M.R. Harish s/o Ramanna,
age:26 years, r/o Bili Mallenahalli,
Jade Mayasandra Hobli, Turuvekere taluk,
Tumkur district.
2. Smt. M.C. Umadevamma w/o Siddalingaswamy,
age: 43 years, Advocate, r/o No.43/13,
3rd main, Srinivasnagar, Bengaluru,
(That, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
vide its order dated 15-07-2009 in Crl. Petition
No.5123/2007 had quashed the proceedings against the
accused no.2)
(Accused no.1 by Shri Ravi K. Advocate)
2 C.C.No.22469/2008
Offences complained : U/secs 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w
sec 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Opinion of the Court : Accused no.1 is not found guilty
Date of Judgment : 09.01.2017.
JUDGMENT
That, the Police Inspector, Special Enquiry, C.O.D, Bengaluru, has filed the Final report against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
1. That, the gist of the prosecution case is that on 05-06-2004 at about 7-15 p.m. in National High way no.48 near to Neelathahalli cross of Kunigal town an accident was occurred between Tractor bearing no.KA-06-T-6144 and Trailer bearing no. KA-06-T-6145 and KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-01-F-7355 and on alleged day the accused no.1 was driving the said tractor and CW6 was driving the said bus. That, in said accident the accused no.1 had sustained the simple injuries and inmates of the said tractor i.e., Shri Prakash and Shri Abdul Saleem have sustained the grievous injuries and the said 3 C.C.No.22469/2008 Abdul Saleem succumbed to the said injuries. That, the said Prakash took treatment in Government Hospital, Kunigal and also in Tulasi Nursing Home and the said Tulasi Nursing Home had issued the wound certificate of said Prakash stating that he had sustained the grievous injuries. That, the accused no.1 took the treatment in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru from 15-06-2004 to 22-06-2004 and the said hospital had issued the wound certificate of accused no.1 stating that he had sustained the simple injuries. That, the accused no.1 in order to seek the higher compensation had filed a claim petition in MVC No.4800/2004 on the board of Hon'ble M.A.C.T. Court, Bengaluru. That, the accused no.1 inspite of sustaining the simple injuries in said accident, in order to seek higher compensation and make a wrongful gain had produced the wound certificate of said Prakash before the Hon'ble MACT Court, Bengaluru, in MVC no.4800/2004.
2. That, on complaint being lodged the Ulsoor Gate Police, Bengaluru, have registered the case against the accused and thereafter, the matter was transferred to S.E. C.O.D, Bengaluru, for investigation. That, the Investigating Officer after completion of 4 C.C.No.22469/2008 investigation filed the Final report against the accused for aforesaid offences.
3. That, this court after taking the cognizance of the aforesaid offences issued summons to the accused no.1 and inpursuance of said summons the accused no.1 appeared before this court through his Learned counsel and he was enlarged on bail. That, the provisions of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, have complied here with. That, the charge of the accused no.1 has framed and read over to him in language known to him and he has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. That, after completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused no.1 as contemplated under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has recorded and read over to him in language known to him and he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him and not chosen to lead either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
4. That, I have heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record. That, the following points arise for My consideration and determination:-
5 C.C.No.22469/2008
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused no.1 in order to seek higher compensation had produced the wound certificate of the said Prakash before the Hon'ble M.A.C.T., Bengaluru in MVC no.4800/2004 and also fabricated others bills and thereby has committed the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ?
2. What order?
5. That, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined PWs1 to 22 and got marked the documents at EXsP1 to P43(a) and closed its side.
6. That, My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1:- In the NEGATIVE Point No.2:- As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused no.1 in order to get higher compensation and to make wrongful gain had produced the wound certificate of said Prakash before the Hon'ble M.A.C.T. and also fabricated the some bills. 6 C.C.No.22469/2008
It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined CW3-Shri Srinivasmurthy s/o Late Govindappa- the Depot Manager, KSRTC, Pandavapura as PW2. It is pertinent to note here that, PW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2014 he received the credible information that in NH-48 Nelathahalli cross of Kunigal town, an accident occurred between one bus and tractor and after receiving the said information he visited the said spot and came to know that in said accident one Harish had sustained the simple injuries and Prakash and Abdul Saleem have sustained the grievous injuries and the said Abdul Saleem died due to said injuries. It is pertinent to note here that, PW2 has further deposed that after collecting the information he submitted his report to his higher authorities as per EXP2.
8. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW6-Shri K.S.Suresh s/o K. R. Siddalingaiah-the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-7335 as PW4. It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2010 he was on duty as a driver of the bus bearing No.KA-01-F-7355 and CW7 was 7 C.C.No.22469/2008 the conductor of the said bus and on that day they left Doddaballapur at 3-15 p.m. and reached Bengaluru at about 5.00 p.m. and again on that day they left Bengaluru at about 5.00 p.m. to go to Chikkamagalur and when their bus was going on NH-48 near Kunigal at about 7.00 to 7-30 p.m. a tractor came from opposite side and it was loaded with timber and the driver of the said tractor turned his vehicle towards right side without giving any indication and dashed against the said bus. It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 has further deposed that the inmates of the said bus have not sustained any injuries and the driver of the said tractor had sustained some minor injuries and the public have shifted the said driver to Kunigal Hospital for treatment and immediately he went to Kunigal Police Station and lodged the complaint and later he came to know that the persons by name Prakash and Harish have sustained some minor injuries and another injured person by name Abdul Saleem died after two days.
It is pertinent to note here that, the accused no.1 has not cross-examined PW4.
8 C.C.No.22469/2008
9. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW1-Shri S. Srinivasan s/o A. Subramani-the Deputy Chief Secretary and Vigilance Officer, Bengaluru as PW5. It is pertinent to note here that, PW5 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 14-03-2007 the Chief Secretary and the Vigilance Officer, KSRTC, Bengaluru, Central Police, had directed him for making preliminary investigation in respect of claim petition filed in MVC 4800/2004 and along with said letter the said Officer had also sent the copy of the claim petition, FIR, spot mahazar, wound certificate, judgment copy and medical bills. It is pertinent to note here that, PW5 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that after collecting all aforesaid documents he cross checked the same along with records available in accident section of their department and after verifying the records he came to know that on 15-06-2004 near to Neerathhalli cross of Kunigal taluk an accident had occurred between the bus bearing no.KA-01-F-7355 and a tractor bearing No.KA-06-T-6144 and one Shri Harish s/o Ramanna and Shri Prakash s/o Huchaiah, who were traveling in the said tractor have sustained some injuries and the driver of the 9 C.C.No.22469/2008 tractor Abdul Saleem was succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It is pertinent to note here that, PW5 has further deposed that at the time of an enquiry he also noticed that Harish had taken treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and other injured person by name Prakash had taken the treatment at Tulasi Nursing Home and the said Prakash had filed the claim petition in MVC 6207/2004 and Harish had filed the claim petition in MVC 4800/2004.
It is pertinent to note here that, PW5 in his examination-in- chief has further deposed that in the month of April 2007 he went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital to verify the medical records pertaining to said Harish and the concerned medical officer had issued a letter to him on 03-04-2007 stating that said Harish had taken treatment as an in-patient in their hospital from 15-06-2004 to 22-06-2004. It is pertinent to note here that, PW5, has also deposed that he visited Tulasi Nursing Home and met a doctor by name Shri Tulasiram and enquired him about the treatment taken by said Prakash and after enquiring him he went to native of the said Harish, but, the said Harish had refused to give his statement to him and on perusal of 10 C.C.No.22469/2008 the wound certificate he found that it was belonging to other injured person by name Prakash and in this regard he submitted his detailed report to their Chief Vigilance Security Officer as per EXP17.
10. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW2-Shri N. S. Basavaraju s/o M. L. Siddaramegowda-the Learned counsel as PW6. It is pertinent to note here that, PW6 in his evidence has deposed that in MVC no.4800/2004 it was found that the present accused no.1 by submitting the medical reports of another person had filed the said claim petition and the accused no.1 by submitting the fake documents in said MVC case had cheated the Hon'ble court.
11. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW8-Dr. G.V. Basavaraj s/o G. N. Veerappa- the Assistant Professor, IGICH, Bengaluru, as PW7. It is pertinent to note here that, PW7 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2004 at about 7-30 p.m, he examined the injured persons by name Shri Abdul Saleem, Shri Harish and Shri Prakash and he sent the said Abdul Saleem and Prakash for further treatment and as said Prakash had sustained the 11 C.C.No.22469/2008 simple injuries he gave first aid to him in his said hospital and on 16-06-2004 he conducted the postmortem of the body of said Abdul Saleem.
12. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW11 Dr. Tulasiram s/o T. Attanna as PW9. It is pertinent to note here that, PW9 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 16-06-2004 at about 10.00 a.m. he examined one Prakash and issued his wound certificate stating that the injuries mentioned at sl.no.4 to 6 as grievous in nature and injuries mentioned at sl.no.1 and 2 as simple in nature. It is pertinent to note here that, PW9 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that the injured by name Harish had not taken any treatment in his hospital and lateron, he came to know that the said Harish by colluding with the Learned counsel Smt.Umadevamma had produced the wound certificate of said Prakash in MVC case.
13. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW10 Dr. Lakshmikar s/o Venkatappa as PW10. It is pertinent to note here that, PW10 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2004 at about 12 C.C.No.22469/2008 10-20 p.m. he examined the accused mo.1 and issued the wound certificate stating that he had sustained the simple injuries and later on, he came to know that said Harish-accused no.1 colluding with the Learned counsel Smt.Umadevamma had filed the claim petition before the Hon'ble Court and in said case had produced the wound certificate of said Prakash.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW9 Dr. V. Gopya Nayak s/o Valya Nayak as PW1. It is pertinent to note here that, PW1 has partly tuned hostile and in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2004 at about 11-30 p.m. he examined the injured by name Harish and found that the said Harish had sustained the simple injuries.
15. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW12-Shri K. N. Ramanna s/o Ningegowda as PW8. It is pertinent to note here that, PW8 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused no.1 is his son-in- law and at about 10 years back the accused no.1 had met with an accident and after receiving the said information he went to Sanjay 13 C.C.No.22469/2008 Gandhi Hospital and his said son-in-law had sustained only simple injuries and had taken the treatment only in Government Hospital, Kunigal and another person by name Shri Abdul Saleem had sustained the grievous injuries in said accident and succumbed due to said injuries.
16. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW23-Dr. T. Prabhakar s/o S. C. Thiruvenganam as PW16. It is pertinent to note here that, PW16 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2004 at about 11-20 p.m. he examined one injured person by name Harish.
17. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW22-Dr. Mohankumar S. L. s/o Late Lakshmaiah as PW18. It is pertinent to note here that, PW18 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 22-10-2008 as per the information sought by the COD Police, Bengaluru, he furnished them the medical records pertaining to the injured persons by name Harish, Prakash and Abdul Saleem.
18. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW20-Shri Balegowda 14 C.C.No.22469/2008 s/o Marilingegowda- the Investigating Officer as PW17. It is pertinent to note here that, PW17 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 15-06-2004 at about 7-30 p.m. he received the credible information about the alleged incident and went to the spot and thereafter, visited the Government Hospital, Kunigal and in that hospital one Prakash was taking the treatment and in presence of doctor he recorded the statement of said Prakash and registered the case and visited the spot at about 9-40 p.m. and drawn the spot mahazar and on that day at about 1-15 a.m. one Noor Pasha came to their Police Station and informed him about the death of said Abdul Saleem and for which he recorded the statement of said Noor Pasha.
19. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW26- Shri K. C. Lakshminarayana s/o Chowdappa the Investigating Officer as PW19. It is pertinent to note here that, PW19 in his examination- in-chief has deposed that on 06-08-2008 he received the certified copies and the records pertaining to the Crime no.111/2004 of Kunigal Police Station and also received the records pertaining to the 15 C.C.No.22469/2008 MVC case filed by the present accused no.1 before the Hon'ble M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
20. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW21-Shri D. Krishna Urs s/o Late G. Devaraj Urs-the another Investigating Officer as PW20. It is pertinent to note here that, PW20 in his examination-in-chief has deposed about the investigation conducted by him.
21. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW25-Shri B. G. Rudresh s/o Gangadharaiah-the another Investigating Officer as PW21.
22. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW24-Shri Kadaiah s/o Kariyappa-the another Investigating Officer as PW22. It is pertinent to note here that, PW22 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 26-10-2007 CW1 had lodged the complaint in their station and after receiving the said complaint he registered the case.
23. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW4-Shri Ganganna T. s/o Thimmaiah-the Learned counsel as PW3. It is pertinent to note 16 C.C.No.22469/2008 here that, PW3 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
24. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW11-Shri Mohammed Hussain s/o Mohammed Khasim-the owner of the alleged tractor as PW16. It is pertinent to note here that, PW16 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
25. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW18-Shri K.S.Sheshanna s/o Shamanna as PW12 and CW17 Shri Syed Umar s/o Syed Rafeeq as PW13. It is pertinent to note here that, PWs12 and 13 are the eye witnesses to the alleged accident and have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
26. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW13-Shri Noor Pasha s/o Ameer Sab as PW14. It is pertinent to note here that, PW14 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
27. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW15-Shri Mavu Pasha 17 C.C.No.22469/2008 s/o Salam as PW15. It is pertinent to note here that, PW15 is the son of the deceased Abdul Saleem. It is pertinent to note here that, PW15 has also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
28. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case admittedly the accused no.1 is facing the trial for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(i) It is to be noted here that, for the offence of cheating under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, there must be deception which should always precede the fraudulent or dishonest inducement and it must be established that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the time of making the promise. It is pertinent to note here that, mere deceit, fraudulent or dishonest inducement will not suffice to convict the accused under section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) It is pertinent to note here that, to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 468 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had committed 18 C.C.No.22469/2008 the forgery and that he did it with the intention that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
It is pertinent to note here that, to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 471 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the accused had used the forged document as a genuine document.
It is pertinent to note here that, to establish forgery under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove not only the document is a false document, but, the accused knew that the document was forged one.
29. It is pertinent to note here that, in criminal jurisprudence it is most fundamental that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence charged. It is pertinent to note here that, the another golden thread which runs through the web of administration of criminal justice is that if two views are possible on evidence, one pointing to the guilty of the accused and the other innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. 19 C.C.No.22469/2008
30. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case the alleged accident is not in dispute. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case now the question arises, whether the accused no.1 has committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution? It is pertinent to note here that, at this juncture it is very much necessary to have a glance over the cross-examination of PW19.
It is pertinent to note here that, PW19 in his cross-examination at page no.7 has deposed that "DgÉÆæ ºÀjñï EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁrgÀ°®è ºÁUÀÆ D¸ÀàvÉæ ºÉ¸Àj£À®Æè wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁrgÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 3 zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀæPÁ±ï JA§ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQ ºÀjñï JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
It is pertinent to note here that, PW19 in his cross-examination at page no.10 has further deposed that "¤¦-11£ÀÄß N¢ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ CzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ".
It is pertinent to note here that, PW19 in his cross-examination at page no.13 has further deposed and admitted that "¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄzÀ 20 C.C.No.22469/2008 ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÀÄÝ UÁAiÀÄzÀ £ÉÊdvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
It is significant to note here that, from the said evidence of PW19 it clearly appears that the accused no.1 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note here that, on careful perusal of EXP11- the wound certificate (EXP5 in MVC no.4800/2004) it was clearly appears that the said document is belonging to the deceased Prakash and no corrections have been made in it as alleged by the prosecution. It is significant to note here that, the present case has been registered against the accused no.1 and 2 only after pronouncing the judgment by the Hon'ble M.A.C.T, Bengaluru, in MVC no.4800/2004 and till then the KSRTC authorities have kept mum. It is further pertinent to note here that, the accused no.1 has produced before the court the certified copies of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents in MVC no.4800/2004 and also the application filed by the Learned counsel under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of the said application it appears that the Learned counsel who was appearing for the accused no.1 before the Hon'ble M.A.C.T, 21 C.C.No.22469/2008 Bengaluru, had filed the memorandum of facts stating that due to oversight the wound certificate at EXP5 has got marked. It is pertinent to note here that, from the available records it clearly appears that the accused no.1 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note here that, due to mistakes committed by any other person, the accused no.1 cannot be penalised. It is to be noted here that, in view of My above findings and without much discussion, I hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the same, point no.1 is answered in the NEGATIVE.
31. Point No.2:- That, as discussed on point no.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER That, acting under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused no.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.22 C.C.No.22469/2008
That, the bail and surety bonds of the accused no.1 are stands cancelled.
That, the accused no.1 shall comply with the provisions of section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the day of 9th day of January 2017) Date:09.01.2017 (Hema Pastapur) Place:Bengaluru I Addl. C. M. M, Bengaluru.
Annexure List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution PW1: Dr.V.Gopya Nayak s/o Valya Nayak; PW2: Shri Srinivasmurthy s/o Late Govindappa;
PW3: Shri Ganganna T. s/o Thimmaiah,
PW4: Shri K.S.Suresh s/o K.R. Siddalingaiah;
PW5: Shri S.Srinivasan s/o late A. Subramani;
PW6: Shri N.S. Basavaraju s/o M.L. Siddaramegowda;
PW7: Dr. G.V.Basavaraj s/o G. N. Veerappa;
PW8: Shri K.N.Ramanna s/o Ningegowda;
PW9: Dr.Tulasiramu s/o T. Attanna;
PW10: Dr. Lakshmikar s/o Venkatappa;
PW11: Shri Mohammed Hussain s/o Mohammed Khasim;
PW12: Shri K.S. Sheshanna s/o Shamanna;
23 C.C.No.22469/2008
PW13 Shri Syed Umar s/o Syed Rafiq;
PW14: Shri Noor Pasha s/o Ameer Sab;
PW15: Shri Mavu Pasha s/o Salam;
PW16: Dr.T. Prabhakar s/o S.C. Thiruvenganam;
PW17: Shri Balegowda s/o Mari Lingegowda;
PW18: Dr.Mohankumar S.L. s/o Late lakshmaiah;
PW19: Shri K.C. Lakshminarayana s/o Chowdappa;
PW20: Shri D. Krishna Urs s/o Late G. Devaraj Urs;
PW21: Shri B.G. Rudresh s/o Gangadharaiah and
PW22: Shri Kadaiah s/o Kariyappa.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution EXP1: Certified copy of case sheet of accused no.1;
EXP2: Certified copy of Report of PW2;
EXP2(a): Signature of PW2;
EXP3: Certified copy of Accident report Form;
EXP4: Certified copy of attendance certificate;
EXP5: Certified copy of log sheet;
EXP6: Statement of PW3;
EXP7: Portion of statement of PW1;
EXP8: Certified copy of Claim petition in MVC
No.4800/2004;
EXP9: Certified copy of FIR and complaint in
Crime No.111/2004;
EXP10: Certified copy of Spot panchanama;
24 C.C.No.22469/2008
EXP11; Certified copy of wound certificate of
Prakash;
EXP12: Certified copy of Judgment in MVC
no.4800/2004;
EXP13: Certified copies of medical records of
M.R.Harish-accused no.1;
EXP13(a): Signature of PW16;
EXP14: Letter dated 03-04-2007;
EXP15; Certified copy of Extract of MLC register;
EXP16: Certified copy of Extract of case summary
and discharge of records of accused no.1;
EXP17: Report of PW5;
EXP17(a): Signature of PW5;
EXP18: Complaint;
EXP18(a): Signature of PW5;
EXP19: Memo dated 14-03-2007;
EXP19(a): Signature of PW5;
EXP20: Order copy dated 11-10-2007;
EXP20(a): Signature of PW5;
EXP21: Certified copy of Postmortem report of
deceased Abdul Saleem;
EXP22: Certified copy of MLC register;
EXP23: Certified copy of wound certificate of
Prakash;
EXP23(a): Signature of PW9;
25 C.C.No.22469/2008
EXP24: Certified copy of wound certificate of
Harish-accused no.1;
EXP24(a): Signature of PW10;
EXP25: Statement of PW11;
EXP26: Statement of PW12;
EXP27: Statement of PW13;
EXP28: Statement of PW14;
EXP29: Statement of PW15;
EXP30: Certified copy of statement of Prakash;
EXP31: Certified copy of FIR in Crime no.111/2004;
EXP32: Certified copy of Spot panchanama;
EXP33: Certified copy of statement of Noor Pasha;
EXP34; Certified copy of postmortem report of
Abdul Saleem;
EXP35: Covering letter;
EXP35(a): Signature of PW18;
EXP36: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.111/2004;
EXP37: Certified copy of deposition of accused no.1
in MVC no.4800/2004;
EXP38: Covering letter;
EXP38(a): Signature of PW19;
EXP39: Covering letter;
EXP39(a): Signature of PW18;
EXP40: Certified copy of order sheet in MVC
no.771/2004;
26 C.C.No.22469/2008
EXP41: Certified copy of case sheet of Kunigal
Hospital pertaining to accused;
EXP42: Certified copy of out-patient register
dated 16-06-2004;
EXP43: FIR and
EXP43(a): Signature of PW22.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused no.1 Nil List of documents marked on behalf of the accused no.1 Nil Date:09.01.2017 (Hema Pastapur) Place:Bengaluru I Addl. C. M. M, Bengaluru. 27 C.C.No.22469/2008 28 C.C.No.22469/2008 09-01-2017 State by Sr.APP Accused For judgment.
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate order) ORDER That, acting under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused no.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 511 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
That, the bail and surety bonds of the accused no.1 are stands cancelled.
That, the accused no.1 shall comply with the provisions of section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Hema Pastapur) I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.