Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Surya .............Split Up on 24 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th Day of September 2018
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No. 197/2017
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Jnana Bharathi Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Surya .............Split up
ACCUSED No.2 Veerappan @ Veerapande.R @ Pandesh,
S/o. Rathnam, 33 years,
R/at. C/o. Murgesh Shed, Service Road,
Malagala, Nagarbhavi,
Bengaluru.
Permanent resident of:
Veerattagaram Village,
Tirukoil Taluk, Millapuram District,
Tamil Nadu.
Sri.K.S.P-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 14-03-2016
2 Date of report of occurrence 17-03-2016
2 Spl.C.C.197/2017
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.2 19-03-2016
Date of release of Accused No.2 15-04-2016
Period undergone in custody 26 days
by Accused No.2
4 Date of commencement of evidence 04-06-2018
5 Date of closing of evidence 04-09-2018
6 Name of the complainant Kiran
7 Offences complained of Section 370, 506
r/w. 34- IPC
Sec.81-J.J. Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2 is
acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet filed by Police Sub-Inspector, Jnana Bharathi Police Station-Bengaluru, against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C, and Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
The accused No.1 residing along with his family members viz., wife and children at Jnana Bharathi 2nd Stage, near Maramma Temple of Malagala, Bengaluru. He is having three sons and a daughter. The said daughter is Tanushree-aged
3 Spl.C.C.197/2017 about 2 years six months. The accused No.1 with an intention to gain money and without the consent of his wife-Cw.2- Renuka and also threatening her with dire consequences on 14- 03-2015 at about 4.00 p.m., enticed his daughter-Tanushree by way of human trafficking and sold her to the accused No.2- Veerappan @ Veerapande.R. @ Pandesh. The accused No.2 knowing fully well the victim was minor purchased her from the accused No.1, taken her to Tiruvannamallai and left the said girl near bus stop. On the basis of complaint lodged by Social Worker-Kiran., the Police registered the case against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, and Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 370, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C, and Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015. Thereafter, after filing the charge sheet,as usual, the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court, the Committal Court furnished copy of charge sheet to accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under 4 Spl.C.C.197/2017 Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the victim girl is minor, the Committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, and in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, as usual the summons was issued to the accused No.1 and 2. The accused No.1 remained absent inspite of issuance of process through Police Inspector, through D.C.P., as such the case against accused No.1 was splitted up and proceeded against accused No.2 only. Thereafter, the learned advocate for accused No.2 submitted that there is no argument before framing charge and requested to frame charge. On perusal of charge sheet, there is prima facie material available on record against accused No.2. Hence, the charge was framed against accused No.2, the contents of charge read over and explained in Kannada to the accused No.2. The accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and submit crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused No.2 was set down for prosecution evidence.
5 Spl.C.C.197/2017
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused No.2 has examined 7 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.7, got marked as many as 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and closed its side evidence. In view of incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No.2, he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording his statement. The accused No.2 denied the alleged incriminating evidence appeared against him as false. The accused No.2 complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. by executing personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. eÁÕ£¨ À sÁgÀw ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸Àgº À ¢À £ Ý À £ÁUÀg¨ À sÁ« 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÁ¼ÀzÀ ªÀiÁgÀªÀÄä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À §½ ¥ÀævÉåÃQvÀ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ DvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«zÀÄÝ 2.6 ªÀµð À zÀ ¨Éé vÀ£ÀIJæà JA§ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2¼À M¦àUÉ E®è¢zÀg Ý ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DPÉUÉ ¥Áæt ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQ ¢£ÁAPÀB14-03-2016gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ-2UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÄ,Ý 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨Éé-
vÀ£ÀIJæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À wgÀĪÀuÁÚªÀįÉÊ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ §½ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃV, ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 370 ¸Àºª À ÁZÀPÀ 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
6 Spl.C.C.197/2017
2. ¥ÀævÉåÃQvÀ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ DvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«zÀÄÝ 2.6 ªÀµð À zÀ ¨Éé vÀ£ÀIJæà JA§ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2¼À M¦àUÉ E®è¢zÀg Ý ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DPÉUÉ ¥Áæt ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQ ¢£ÁAPÀB-14-03-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ-2UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÄ,Ý 2£Éà DgÉÆæ-¨Éé vÀ£ÀIJæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À wgÀĪÀuÁÚªÀįÉÊ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ §½ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃV ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 506 ¸Àº À ªÀ ÁZÀPÀ 34gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀª s £ À ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgA ÀÉ zÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀª À ÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgA É iÉÄ?
3. ¥ÀævÉåÃQvÀ DgÉÆæ-1 ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð Às zÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ DvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ«zÀÄÝ 2.6 ªÀµðÀ zÀ ¨Éé vÀ£ÀIJæà JA§ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2¼À M¦àUÉ E®è¢zÀg Ý ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DPÉUÉ ¥Áæt ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQ ¢£ÁAPÀB14-03-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ-2ÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÄ,Ý 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨Éé vÀ£ÀIJæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁr PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À wgÀĪÀuÁÚªÀįÉÊ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ §½ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ eÉeÉ DåPïÖ 2015gÀ PÀ®A 81 gÀrAiÀÄ°è
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per the final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3:- As these points are inter-related, hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to avoid repetition of reasons.
7 Spl.C.C.197/2017
9. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused No.2, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.7, got marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant, Pw.3 is the mother of victim girl, Pw.4 to Pw.6 are the circumstantial witness, Pw.2 and Pw.7 are the police personnel and Investigation Officer. Out of the above said witnesses, Pw.3 to Pw.6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, this Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences against accused No.2.
10. In order to establish the alleged offences against accused No.2, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused No.1 residing along with his family members viz., wife and children at Jnana Bharathi 2nd Stage, near Maramma Temple of Malagala, Bengaluru, he is having three sons and a daughter, the said daughter is Tanushree-aged about 2 years six months, the accused No.1 with an intention to gain money and without the consent of his wife-Cw.2-Renuka and also threatening her with dire consequences on 14-03-2015 at about 8 Spl.C.C.197/2017 4.00 p.m., enticed his daughter-Tanushree by way of human trafficking and sold her to the accused No.2-Veerappan @ Veerapande.R. @ Pandesh, the accused No.2 knowing fully well the victim was minor purchased her from the accused No.1, taken her to Tiruvannamallai and left the said girl near bus stop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015. Hence this Court shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. Before venturing into scan the available materials produced by the prosecution and the defense taken by the accused No.2, it is necessary to mention the very definition of offences under Section 370, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015.
Section 370 of I.P.C defines that:
Trafficking of persons-[1] Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation,(a) recruits, (b)transports, (c) harbours,
(d)transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by- First-
using threats, or Secondly-using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly -by abduction, orFourthly -by 9 Spl.C.C.197/2017 practicing fraud, or deception, or Fifthly -by abuse of power, or Sixthly -by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Section 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as it were done by him alone.
Section 506 of IPC defines that:
Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
If threat to be cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to be cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchasity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. .
Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015 defines that:
Sale and procurement of children for any purpose- Any person who sells or buys a child for any purpose shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees:
Provided that where such offence is committed by a person having actual charge of the child, including employees of a hospital or nursing home or maternity
10 Spl.C.C.197/2017 home, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years and may extend up to seven years. With these observations now left with available material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider whether the prosecution proved the alleged offences against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt or it probablise the defense of the accused No.2.
12. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Kiran.N- Advocate, he has deposed that his friend-Ganesh in the month of February-2016 called him over phone and informed that the father of the victim having bad habit of drinking alcohol and he had taken the said girl and sold her in order to satisfy his bad habit, after receiving the said information, he went near the house of accused No.2, ascertained his name and his family members and also information given by his friend, immediately he went to Jnana Bharathi Police Station lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. On enquiry with the mother of the victim, she has stated that in order to satisfy the bad habit of drinking alcohol by the accused No.1 has sold her daughter to the accused No.2. The accused No.2 also told her that he is going to take her 11 Spl.C.C.197/2017 daughter and also he is ready to take care of her, since the said girl is an active girl, at that time she refused for giving her daughter to accused No.2, but the accused No.1 and 2 with dire consequences taken the victim girl, but in the night the accused No.1 alone return to home, on enquiry with him he told that he has sold the girl to the accused. He also enquired with the accused No.1 about missing of his daughter, he also told that he has sold the girl to the accused No.2 and also threatened his wife with dire consequences. He has also deposed that Ex.P1 is his complaint and his signatures are Ex.P1(a)(b) and (c).
13. Here no doubt it is true the prosecution has produced evidence through this witness in respect of the alleged offences, but at the same time, the accused No.2 not cross- examined this witness and his evidence remains unassailed. At the same time this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this witness is hear say witness and he has not seen the accused No.2 also. His complaint mainly depending upon the evidence of Cw.2-Renuka the mother of victim girl and not more than that.
12 Spl.C.C.197/2017
14. On perusal of evidence of Smt.Renuka-wife of accused No.1, she has deposed that she doesn't know the accused No.2, she got four children and Tanushree is her daughter, now she is aged about 5 years. At no point of time she was kidnapped by anybody and she has not given any statement before police. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, her evidence is not corroborative with the evidence of Pw.1 who is an hear say witness. When the material witness that too the mother of the victim girl turned hostile to the case of prosecution, it is not safe to accept the alleged offences against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the case of prosecution and suggested each and every word of Ex.P2, for that he has denied the same and she went to the extent of saying that at no point of time she has stated about the contents of Ex.p2 and also she denied her LTM to spot Panchanama. Through the material witness, the prosecution fails to establish the alleged offences against accused No.2.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Jyothi-the sister of Pw.3, according to the prosecution case, she has 13 Spl.C.C.197/2017 informed to her friend-Ganesh and Ganesh in turn informed to the complainant about the incident and after enquiry the complainant lodged complaint in this case. Further she has deposed about the admitted fact of relationship. Further she has deposed that she doesn't know the accused No.2, she doesn't know the fact of accused No.1 sold his daughter- Tanushree to the accused No.2 and she has not given any statement before police. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to prosecution case and suggested each and every word of Ex.P3, for that she has denied the same. Her definite answer is that she has not given any statement before police regarding the incident.
16. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Anand who is none other than the husband of Pw.4 and brother-in-law of Pw.3, he has deposed that he know the accused No.1 who is his co-brother, but he doesn't the accused No.2 and he has not seen him any where. The victim girl-Tanushree is the daughter of the accused No.1, but he doesn't know the alleged fact of accused No.1 sold his daughter to the accused No.2. He has not given any statement before police. The prosecution treated 14 Spl.C.C.197/2017 this witness as hostile to the prosecution case and suggested each and every word of Ex.P4, for that he has denied the same. It is his definite answer that he has not given any statement as per Ex.P4 before the police.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Siddamma, she has also deposed that Cw.2 and Cw.7 are her sisters, the accused No.1 is the husband of Cw.2, Cw.8 is the husband of Cw.7. She has not seen the accused No.2 any where earlier. She doesn't know anything about the case. She doesn't know the accused No.1 sold his daughter-Tanushree to accused No.2. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the prosecution case and suggested each and every word of Ex.P5, for that she has denied the same. It is her definite answer that he has not given any statement as per Ex.P5 before the police.
18. By going through the evidence of Pw.7-S.Surya Prakash-P.S.I., he has deposed that on 17-03-2016 at about 05.30 p.m., he has received complaint from the complainant as per Ex.P1 and registered the case against accused No.1 and 2 and his signature is Ex.P1(a), prepared FIR as per Ex.P6 and his 15 Spl.C.C.197/2017 signature is Ex.P6(a). Further he has entrusted the work of tracing out the victim girl and the accused No.2 and went to Tiruvannamallai, traced the accused No.2 and the victim girl, brought them to the station, taken custody of accused No.2 and handed the victim girl to CWC-Bengaluru. He has also received documents from CWC as per Ex.P7 to Ex.P11. On 18-03-2018 he has arrested the accused No.2, recorded his voluntary statement, he has shown the spot where he has received the victim girl and the place where he left the victim girl and thereafter he has produced the accused No.2 before the Court along with remand application.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Kantharaje Urs-H.C.No.4780, he has deposed that on 19-03-2016 he has received direction from P.S.I-1 to trace out the accused No.1 and produced before him, accordingly he received information from Bathimidar, went to Malagala Bus stop, taken custody of the accused No.1 at 08.30 a.m., brought him to the police station and produced before the P.S.I-1 at about 09.00 a.m. 16 Spl.C.C.197/2017
20. Pw.7 further deposed that he has arrested the accused No.1, after enquiry recorded his voluntary statement and produced before Court along with remand application. On 28-03-2016 Cw.2 showed the spot, he has conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a) and she has given her statement as per Ex.P2. Further he has recorded the statement of Cw.5 to Cw.9, wherein Cw.7 has given her statement as per Ex.P3, Cw.8 given his statement as per Ex.P5 and Cw.9 has given her statement as per Ex.P5 and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
21. The accused No.2 cross-examined this witness by eliciting some commission and omission, except denial suggestion nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by the accused No.2. Here, it is relevant to note the mother of the victim and other circumstantial witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and even they have not identified the accused No.2. When such being the case, believing the evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.7 doesn't arises and it is a formal one.
17 Spl.C.C.197/2017
22. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged offences against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused No.2 and the facts and circumstances of the case including materials on record discussed above probablise the defense of the accused No.2 rather than the case of the prosecution.
23. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.7 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, placed on record in respect of alleged offences, is insufficient to prove that the accused No.1 residing along with his family members viz., wife and children at Jnana Bharathi 2nd Stage, near Maramma Temple of Malagala, Bengaluru, he is having three sons and a daughter, the said daughter is Tanushree-aged about 2 years six months, the accused No.1 with an intention to gain money and without the consent of his wife-Cw.2-Renuka and also threatening her with dire consequences on 14-03-2015 at about 4.00 p.m., enticed his daughter-Tanushree by way of human trafficking and sold her to the accused No.2-Veerappan @ Veerapande.R. @ Pandesh, 18 Spl.C.C.197/2017 the accused No.2 knowing fully well the victim was minor purchased her from the accused No.1, taken her to Tiruvannamallai and left the said girl near bus stop and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 370, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and 81 of J.J. Act of 2015, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I hold Point No.1 to 3 in the "Negative".
24. Point No.4:- For the above said reasons and discussions on Point No.1 to 3, I hold that the accused No.2 is entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 370, 506 read with section 34 of IPC, Section 81 of J.J. Act. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th Day of September 2018.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE 19 Spl.C.C.197/2017 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Kiran Cw.1 04-06-2018 Pw.2 Kantha Raje Urs Cw.10 20-08-2018 Pw.3 Renukha Cw.2 20-08-2018 Pw.4 Jyothi Cw.7 20-08-2018 Pw.5 Anand Cw.8 20-08-2018 Pw.6 Siddamma Cw.9 20-08-2018 Pw.7 S.Surya Prakash Cw.11 04-09-2018 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 04-06-2018 Ex.P 1a, 1b, Signatures of Pw.1 Pw.1 04-06-2018 1c Ex.P 1d Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 04-09-2018 Ex.P 2 Statement of Pw.3 Pw.3 20-08-2018 Ex.P 3 Statement of Pw.4 Pw.4 20-08-2018 Ex.P 4 Statement of Pw.5 Pw.5 20-08-2018 Ex.P 5 Statement of Pw.6 Pw.6 20-08-2018 Ex.P 6 FIR Pw.7 04-09-2018 Ex.P 6a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 04-09-2018 Ex.P 7 Requisition given to Pw.7 04-09-2018 CWC-Tiruvannamalai Ex.P 8 Letter of PSI Pw.7 04-09-2018 Tiruvannamalai Ex.P 9 to 11 Proceedings before- Pw.7 04-09-2018 Tiruvannamalai Ex.P 12 Mahazar Pw.7 04-09-2018 20 Spl.C.C.197/2017 Ex.P 12a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 04-09-2018 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
-NIL-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE