Bangalore District Court
Kothanur Ps vs A1-Devaraj on 9 April, 2025
KABC010043542018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2024.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.87/2018
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Kothanuru Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : A1 Devaraja,
S/o.Rajanna,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at N.G.Gollahalli, Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
A2. Kumara,
S/o.Rajanna,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at N.G.Gollahalli, Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
2 Spl.C.No.87/2018
A3. Sheela,
W/o.Devaraj,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.33, N.G.Gollahalli,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
A4. Rajanna,
S/o.Muninanjappa,
Agd about 68 years,
R/at No.33, N.G.Gollahalli,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
A5. Nagaraj (Abated)
S/o.Anjinappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.33, N.G.Gollahalli,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
A6. Madhu,
C/o.Devaraj,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.33, N.G.Gollahalli,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
A7. Lokesh,
S/o.Krishnappa,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at.N.G.Gollahalli, Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
(A-1 to 4, 6, 7 By Sri.M.G.,Advocate,
A-5-Abated)
3 Spl.C.No.87/2018
1. Date of commission of offence : 11.11.2016
2. Date of report of Offence : 12.11.2016
3. Name of the Complainant : Muniyappa
4. Date of commencement of : 31.10.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 03.09.2024
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.143, 147, 148, 504,
323, 324, 506 R/w 149 of
IPC, and sec.3(1) (r) (s) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
JUDGMENT
The ACP Yelahanka Police Station has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections U/sec.143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506 R/w 149 of IPC, and sec.3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the victim complainant Muniyappa on 12.11.2016 gave statement before the jurisdictional police that on 11.11.2016 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m, as he was near the house of Manjunath to hand over the cash, then Devaraju of same village came in car bearing 4 Spl.C.No.87/2018 No.KA-50-N-9938 and he stopped the car by the side of the road and abused the complainant as "ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮ್ಮ ನ್ ಸೂಳೆ ಮಗನೇ ಬೋಳಿ ಮಗನೆ, ಮಾದಿಗ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನೆ ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಈ ದಿವಸ ಸಾಯಿಸುತ್ತ್ತೇನೆ" and assaulted with rod on his forehead, later on his right hand, shoulder, and right hand finger. At that time, when Manjunath his employer came to pacify the quarrel, he assaulted him with rod on his shoulder and when JCB driver RajuRai came to pacify the quarrel, he assaulted him also with rod on his left hand, later Devaraj's wife Sheela and Devaraj father Rajanna came and restrained victim's employer Manjunath, and then Sheela assaulted Majunath with club on his back, Rajanna gave blow on the face of Manjunath, later Manjunath's father Munivenkatappa pacified the quarrel, later they informed to the police and when returning in the car, Devaraj's brother Kumara restrained and threatened by holding a stone that he will not leave them, later they parked the car on the left side by that time Hyosala came there patrolling and after that victim went to Government 5 Spl.C.No.87/2018 Hospital, Yelahanka. The I O took up investigation, on conclusion, the ACP has filed charge sheet against the accused.
3. After filing of charge sheet, charge framed for the above said offence by my Predecessor in office and the accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. At trial, to bring home guilt of the accused by prosecution, the prosecution has examined complainant as P.W.1, and witnesses up to 16, got exhibited 24 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and closed their side and on the defence side Exs.D.1 to 3 and matter reserved for recording of statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded.
5. Heard arguments and perused the documents and other materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 6 Spl.C.No.87/2018 11.11.2017 at about 8:30 pm, at N.G. Gollahalli, Doddagubbi Post Office, Bidaralli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore City, under the jurisdiction of Kothanur Police Station, accused persons in furtherance of their common object of committing offence formed unlawful assembly and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s 143 r/w 149 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object of committing offence, rioted there and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s 147 r/w 149 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object armed with deadly weapons such as sticks and iron rods and rioted and thereby have committed offence punishable u/s 148 R/w 149 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object, accused persons intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation to C.W.2 intending that such provocation will cause the said C.W.2 to breach the public peace and thereby committed an 7 Spl.C.No.87/2018 offence punishable u/s 504 r/w.149 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object accused have criminally intimidated by threatening the CWs.1, 2 and 11 with injury to their person with intent to cause alarm to them and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 506 r/w.149 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object, made galata with C.W.4, when accused No.3 went to assault with club , C.W.6 received the club and assaulted to C.W.1 and caused simple injuries, accused No.1 with iron rod and accused No.4 with club assaulted CWs. 1 and 2 and caused grievous bleeding injuries and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 324 r/w.149 of IPC?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object, accused persons made galata with C.W.4, accused Nos.6 and 7 assaulted C.W.4 with hands and dragged them and caused injuries and thereby 8 Spl.C.No.87/2018 committed the offence Punishable under Section 323 r/w.149 of IPC?
8. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of their common object, accused persons not being the members of SC/ST accused No.1 intentionally insulted/intimidated C.W.1 as "ಏನೋ ನಿನ್ನ ಮ್ಮ ನ ಕೇಯಾ ಮಾದಿಗ ನನ್ಮ ಗನೇ ಬೋವಿ ಮಗನೆ ಕತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತೇನೆ" with intent to humiliate the C.W.1 who belongs to schedule caste in a place within the public view and thereby accused has committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
9. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused not being the member of SC/ST has abused C.W.1 who belongs to schedule tribe by taking the name of his caste as "ಏನೋ ನಿನ್ನ ಮ್ಮ ನ ಕೇಯಾ ಮಾದಿಗ ನನ್ಮ ಗನೇ ಬೋವಿ ಮಗನೆ ಕತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತೇನೆ" in a place within the public view and thereby accused has committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)
(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
10. What Order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
9 Spl.C.No.87/2018
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : In the Negative
Point No.9 : In the Negative
Point No.10 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. The learned SPP argued that as the complainant lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police the complainant has given evidence as on 31.10.2018, he has examined by treating him as hostile and other witnesses who are eye witnesses and injured in the incident especially P.W.2 Manjunath has deposed about the incident.
9. The P.W.10 HC has deposed with regard to incident, the Hyosala patrolling party as such when there is corroborative evidence of eye witnesses the same is to be considered. The medical evidence with regard to treatment taken by the victim and the P.W.12 Gopal Krishna brother of the complainant who was also present at the incident have consistently deposed about the incident, in the 10 Spl.C.No.87/2018 cross examination other than the denial, nothing has been elicited so as to discredit the trustworthiness of the witness, as such the corroborative evidence is to be considered and the accused is to be convicted.
10. The Engineer who conducted spot inspection the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation the Medical Officer who treated the witnesses are being examined, in the evidence of Investigating Officer who has consistently deposed about conducting investigation, the drawing of Mahazar have been proved, as such the materials placed on record are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused with regard to alleged offence of commission of offence punishable u/s.143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. Moreover, knowing that victim Muniyappa belongs to schedule caste, the accused No.1 Devaraj had abused by taking the caste name of the victim in public as there are independent witnesses available on record who have deposed about the incident.
11 Spl.C.No.87/2018Accordingly, seeks to convict the accused for the alleged offence.
11. The learned counsel for the accused submits there is no prima facie case so as to consider the accused have committed any offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 since there is counter blast, complaint given by the accused as per the complaint Ex.D.1 to 3 the FIR being registered and crime No.167/2016 has been registered on 12.11.2016 at about 8.45 a.m itself, however the accused have reportedly made complaint, subsequently as such the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation in the present case has not at all taken up the counter blast to be investigated by him. In fact as per Ex.P.17 the complaint has been got registered on 12.11.2016 at about 4.30 a.m and the crime got registered by the accused is Cr.No.167/2016 which is subsequent within a gap of 4 hours in written complaint has been registered, therefore the Investigating Officer neglected to take up the counter case alongwith 12 Spl.C.No.87/2018 present case for investigation discloses there is no any prima facie case at the first instance. In fact the victim has been suffering since the date of alleged incident, this aspect has not at all been considered by the Investigating Officer, the accused have been falsely implicated as it is politically motivated case.
12. The material witnesses namely panch witnesses and the so called eye witnesses examined before the court have turned hostile. In fact the so called eye witness Raju Rai has not been made as a witness. The family members of the complainant have been made as witnesses namely C.W.11 and 12, in the absence of any independent witnesses the allegations with regard to SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 the observation made by the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma V/s. State of Uttarkhand the existence of alleged incident being happened as per the prosecution case itself becomes doubtful.
13. The learned counsel for the accused argues that P.W.1 Muniyappa has totally turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case. The complainant 13 Spl.C.No.87/2018 injured got examined and got marked Ex.P.1 complaint, Exs.P.2 and 3 photos of the car, and material objects M.O.1 Iron rod, M.O.2 Club, M.O.3 Club and M.O.4 Shirt.
14. The prosecuting is bound to prove the charges levelled against the accused in accordance with the charge. According to the prosecution the incident has occurred in N.G.Gollahally village. But it is not specific that the incident has taken place inside the compound or outside the compound, or in front of the house of the accused. But in the evidence P.W.2 says that the alleged incident is said to have taken place near the house of P.W.2. But he does not speak about whether incident had taken place inside the compound of P.W.2 house or on the street or the place where P.W.1 and P.W.2 were talking. But P.W.2 in his cross examination at page-
10 last 4 lines as admitted that at the time of incident he was standing at the back of his house so the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence and has suppression genesis the place 14 Spl.C.No.87/2018 of occurrence or the origin of assault. P.W.1 Muniyappa has turned hostile and has steed that he was not assaulted by A1. PW2 at page-15 of his cross examination has specifically deposed that he was not assaulted by accused No.1. P.W.10 Latha at page-3 would clearly depose that " ಯಾರ್ ಯಾರು ಹೊಡೆದಡಿಕೊಂಡರು ಎಂದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ . ನಾಗರಾಜಪ್ಪ ನಿಗುಾ ಮತ್ತು ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ಹೊಡೆದಾಟ ಆಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ದೇವರಾಜ ಕಾರ್ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಮನೆ ಒಳಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಬಂದ ಯಾವು ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಗಲಾಟೆ ಆಗುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಬಂದರು. ಸದರಿ ದೇವರಾಜುರವರು ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ಮತ್ತು ನಾಗರಾಜುರವರ ಜಗಳ ಬಿಡಿಸಿದರು."The Investigating Officer of this case has seized M.O1 rod, M.O.2 Club, M.O.3 Club from the place of occurring, but the recoveries not instance of accused and these M.Os were not stained with blood and were not sent to FSL for examination.
15. The prosecution has not put forward any motive for incident and the defence has suggested that due to some family arrangements P.W.10 was proposed to marry accused No.1 but it did not materialize and P.W.2 Manjunatha was objecting visiting accused 15 Spl.C.No.87/2018 No.1 to his house. On account of this P.W.2 was having ill-will towards accused No.1 as admitted by P.W.10 Latha in her cross examination. Hence, as P.W.1 has turned hostile, accused may be acquitted is the prayer.
16. In the case on hand, my Predecessor in office has framed charge u/s.143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506 R/w 149 of IPC and sec.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
17. POINT NOS.1 TO 3: In the case on hand, the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.143, 147, 148, R/w 149 of IPC, the prosecution basically relies on the evidence of P.W.1 Muniyappa complainant, P.W.2 Manjunath, P.W.3 Vittal, P.W.10 Latha, P.W.12 Gopalkrishna who are so called eye witnesses, the PWs. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are the Mahazar witnesses.
18. The learned SPP argues as per the complaint, there is specific complaint given against the accused persons being involved in unlawful assembly having armed with weapons like clubs and iron rod. The accused are being involved in a 16 Spl.C.No.87/2018 lawful assembly and have committed offence punishable 143, 147, 148 R/w 149 of IPC. In fact, with regard to identification of accused there is no material placed by the defence so as to prove their innocence. In fact as per the MLC the wound certificate discloses Ex.P.14 alleged assault with iron rod over the head of the victim in N.G.Gollahalli. The material objects being seized and even the blood stained clothes of the victim are being handed over to the Investigating Officer, all these materials corroborates that accused, came in the car bearing No.KA-50-N-9938, they assaulted the victim and the weapon of offence used has been seized by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, the Ex.P.14 wound certificate discloses victim has been assaulted with club. All these materials directly shows accused are actively involved in the alleged offence.
19. The learned counsel for the accused submits as per the cross examination made to P.W.1, the alleged place of incident is in front of the house.
17 Spl.C.No.87/2018When the police is very near to the house of the complainant, then the question of unlawful assembly does not arises as the accused persons are residing in the same locality at a distance not more than 500 meters, as such the allegations made by the prosecution with regard to ingredients of offence punishable u/s.143 of IPC being not made out is the submission. The learned counsel for the accused submits as per the allegations and the evidence of the complainant in Ex.D.1, there is assault made on the victim Nagaraj who is none other than the accused No.5. In the present case also a schedule caste person, however the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation in the present case namely ACP Yelahanka has not at all taken up the counter blast Cr.No.167/2016 for investigation, knowing fully that the accused No.5 is belonging to schedule caste but the Investigating Officer has ignored the counterblast, is to be investigated simultaneously at the same time the present complainant and other 18 Spl.C.No.87/2018 witnesses are present during the course of incident namely the CWs.2, 11, 15 are all of upper caste, in fact in the complaint Ex.D.3 it has been specifically mentioned the C.W.2 Manjunath, CW.11 Latha and another person Munivenkatappa and other 4 persons were also present during the assault made on now deceased accused No.5 Nagaraj. Therefore, there are discrepencies in the investigation itself which are not being conducted as per the provisions of police manual :
Commentary on Karnataka Police Manual Volume- II 1285: (7). When a discovery is made as the result of the statement of the accused a separate panchanama should be drawn up for the discovery as giving information and recovery that follows it are two different transactions. The information given by an accused person should not be mixed up in the panchanama drawn up for the recovery made in consequence of such information. It is the information given by an accused person that determines his mens-rea and that has a direct bearing on his guilt.
(8).When one of several accused persons who have taken part in an act, for example, the burial of the property at certain place, offers to 19 Spl.C.No.87/2018 point out the place and the property is found in consequence, his confessional statement is relevant against him u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, But if other accused persons suspected to have taken part in burying the property at the place subsequently point out the same place separately and in the absence of one another these confessional statements cannot be said to have led to the discovery of the property which has already been discovered and are not, therefore, relevant under the section. There is, however, nothing objectionable in the investigating officer trying to see for his moral satisfaction whether such persons point out the same place as the one previously shown by one of them.
Panchanama for recovery of stolen property otherwise than on house search-record or material facts.
1286.(1). When property is recovered by a Police Officer other than on a formal search a contemporaneous record of the facts relating to such recovery may be prepared in duplicate by him in form No.131 and may be attested by witnesses present at the time of such recovery. The record so made is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officer who prepared it or may be used to refresh his memory. The signatures of the attesting witnesses may be used in evidence only to corroborate the 20 Spl.C.No.87/2018 statement of the Police Officer that they were present at the time of the recovery and attested the record prepared by him.
Statements which read as statements of persons other than the Police Officer who prepares the record and the accused should not be entered therein. The record should reach the Magistrate with the least possible delay.
2)Persons, who attested panchanama prepared for such recoveries, should invariably be examined as witnesses in Court.
Panchanama 1287.(1) The only occasions on which a document which is popularly styled as a panchanama is required by law to be drawn up are when i) some articles are seized in the course of a search of a place u/s.100(5) Cr.P.C or ii) an investigation into the cause of death is made u/s.174 of Cr.P.C. The holding of panchanamas on other occasions is not a duty imposed upon a Police Officer by law, though, In practice a Police Officer resorts to it as a mode of procuring independent evidence to corroborate the results of his own inquiry and observation. In such cases a panchanama by itself has no evidentiary value. It is merely a memorandum of what has been observed by the witnesses and the Investigating officer, who are not forget many o the details observed 21 Spl.C.No.87/2018 by them, in the interval between the events themselves and the day on which they are called on to testify to them in Court. Hence, a panchanama is useful only as a piece of corroboration of the oral evidence of the witnesses(Panchayatdars), the investigating officer(Section 157 of Evidence Act) or as a memorandum of facts observed by them, which they may use to refresh their memory while giving evidence of those facts(Section 159, Evidence Act). For the latter purpose, it is essetial that the person using the panchanama must either have written it himself immediately after having observed certain facts or must have personally read it soon after it was written up by someone else, and found it to be correct.
(2) In view of the above legal position of panchanama the witnesses to be selected, should be respectable and disinterested. (3) The witnesses should be present from the beginning to the end of the transaction.
(4) the panchanama should begin with a mention of the full names, age, occupation and address of the panchayathadars followed by a preamble explaining the purpose, for with the panchanama is being held. It should contain full and accurate statements of the articles or other relevant circumstances found and the exact spots at which they were found. It should state clearly what articles, if any, were 22 Spl.C.No.87/2018 seized and from where they were seized. After it has been written up, it should be read over by or to the panchayatadars and they should be a true account of what they observed. The name of the writer should be mentioned and his signature taken. The time wen it was commenced and completed, the date and the place should be mentioned in it.
1302. Under Section 165(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Station House Officer or Investigating, Officer must, if practicable, perform the actual Searching, in person. 11 incapacitated from so doing. he must comply with Sub-section (3) of that section and deliver to his subordinate the prescribed order in writing. A verbal order given on the spot will not fulfill the requirements of the section. The Investigating Officer should use Form No. 290 when conducting a search.
PROCEDURE FOR SEARCH 1303. (1) At least two respectable witnesses of the locality shall be asked to be present at a search. (2) The search shall be conducted in their presence and the list of things seized should be signed by the witnesses.
(3) The occupant of the place or his representative shall be allowed to be present during the search and a list signed by the witnesses shall be given to them.
23 Spl.C.No.87/2018(4) When any person is searched under sub-section (3) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a copy of the listof things taken possession of shall be given to him.
(5) Before the commencement of the search, the person of the Police Officer and the witnesses should be searched, so thatt here may not be suspicion of something extraneous being planted in the house or the place to be searched.
(6) The law does not require a search under the Code of Criminal Procedure to be made only by daylight, but, normally, daylight should be awaited. If information is received after dusk necessitating the immediate search of a house and if it is apprehended that delay till daybreak might result in evidence being concealed or destroyed, the house should be sealed and guarded and if that is not possible, search should be conducted during the night itself. (7) Before entering the premises to be searched, the exterior of the place shall be inspected to see whether facilities exist for introducing property from outside, (8) Search must be systematic and thorough.
(9) Women should be allowed to withdraw.
(10) Indiscriminate search and damage to property should be avoided.
(11) A search list in Form No. 291shall be prepared on the completion of the search in 24 Spl.C.No.87/2018 quadruplicate, all the copies being signed by the Police Officer making the search and the witnesses to the search. One copy will be handed over to the owner or occupant of the house, the second copy should be sent to the Magistrate and the third copy should be sent with the case diary to the superior officer to whom case diaries are sent. The fourth copy will form the station record. If blank paper has unavoidably to be used, four copies of the list should be made and dealt with as above affixing the fourth copy to search list book, on return to the station.
SALIENT POINTS TO BE REMEMBERED WHILE CONDUCTING SEARCHES 1304. The following are the salient points which should be borne in mind by officers while conducting searches;
(1) Conduct searches, as far as possible during daytime,except when circumstances otherwise warrant.
(2) Before proceeding to conduct a search, prepare a record in Form No. 290 (triplicate) indicating-
(a) reasonable grounds for making the search;
(b) the place to be searched;
(c) the thing or things for which search is to be made, and
(d) why such thing or things cannot otherwise be obtained without undue delay.
(3) Send.-
25 Spl.C.No.87/2018(a) one copy of the record so prepared without delay to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(b) attach the duplicate to the case diary to be submitted to your officer; and
(c) file the triplicate in your case diary file.
(4) Before selecting Panchas, ensure that they are,-
(a) respectable and
(b) inhabitants of the locality (5) As far as practicable, select Panchas from the neighbourhood of the place to be searched.
(6) When it is not practicable to do so and Panchas have to be selected from any other place, make a record of the reasons in your case diary and search list.
(7) Avoid calling the same Panchas to witness several searches.
(8) If, for any reasons, the same Panchas have witnessed more than one search, make a record of those reasons in your case diary.
(9) When the Panchas are selected, serve an order on each of them requesting them to attend and witness the search.
(10) Commence the search only after securing the presence of witnesses and explaining to them the object of the search and the articles for which it is made.
(11) Before commencing the search, call out the inmates and have their bodies searched observing due formalities.
(12) Before commencing the search, request the occupants of 26 Spl.C.No.87/2018 the place to be searched to be present and to attend the search. (13) When the occupant deputes another person on his behalf, allow the deputee to be present and to attend the search.
(14) If the occupant is not willing or fails to be present to attend the search, make a record of it in the search list and the case diary. (15) If you reasonably apprehend that the delay caused in securing the attendance of the occupant frustrates the very object of search, proceed with the search in the presence of whosoever is present on his behalf and record the reasons for so proceeding, in your case diary and search list.
(16) Get yourself and the witnesses searched in the of the owner or occupier or any other adult male member of the house, if available, before the commencement of the search.
(17) When once the search is started, do not allow persons inside the house to go Out or those outside to come in (18) Conduct the search in each room in the actual presence of the witnesses.
(19) After the search is completed and the which the search was conducted and any other incriminating articles are found or brought out, get yourself and the witnesses again searched and make a record of it in the search list.
(20) Mention clearly in the search list every item of property seized, 27 Spl.C.No.87/2018 the exact place where it was found and how and by whát means it was taken out from that place.
(21) Note in the search list the descriptive particulars and identification marks of the incriminating articles recovered. (22) Make out the search list on the spot even if no articles are seized.
(23) Record the number of the house and other particulars including the occupant's name, parentage and occupation.
(24) Recover documents, if any, to prove the ownership or occupancy of the person from the place where incriminating articles are recovered and record such recovery in the search list.
(25) Sign with date on all pages of all copies of the search list and obtain the signatures of the witnesses on all pages of all the copies.
(26) Give under acknowledgment a copy of the search list immediately to the occupant of the house searched.
On completion of the proceedings-
(a) send without delay one copy of the search list to the jurisdictional Magistrate;
(b) attach another copy to the case diary of the relevant date to be sent to your officer;
(c) file the third copy in your case diary file; and
(d) attach the fourth copy to the final report to be sent to the Court.
1307: According to section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 28 Spl.C.No.87/2018 when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. If the property is subject to speedy or natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Thus this section provides for the interim custody of property."
1578: In the case of judgments in which there are strictures, the following action should be taken-
(1). As soon as a judgment in a criminal case filed by the police is concluded in the court, the concerned Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer will examine the judgment for any strictures or other remarks, either generally on the investigation or prosecution of the case of specially against any Police Officer or other Government servant.
(2). When there are strictures or other remarks, the Prosecutor will at once obtain a copy of the judgment and send it with his remarks to the Deputy Director of Prosecutions who will then 29 Spl.C.No.87/2018 examine the judgment and forward it to the concerned Range Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police with his report and arrange to take appropriate action against the concerned Police Officer for the judicial strictures passed against them. He will then submit the records to the Director General along with his report indicating the nature of action taken in the matter.
(3). In the case of strictures or other remarks in judgments pronounced by the High Court, the Advocate General will send with his comments, a copy of the judgments to the Director of Prosecutions who will transmit them to the Director General along with his remarks for appropriate action.
(4). The Superintendent while furnishing his remarks required under Sub-Order (2) will specifically mention whether or not the strictures or remarks are justified; and if unjustified, what action he has taken for their expunction. The IGP/Deputy Inspector General will also furnish his specific opinion that behalf.
(5). If any strictures or other animad versions, either against a Police Officer generally on the investigation or prosecution of the case, are wholly unjustified or excessive and deserve 30 Spl.C.No.87/2018 expunction, the Superintendent will take prompt action to obtain the opinion of the Advocate-
General and for addressing the Government for sanction to move the High Court for expunction.
(6). If the advocate general makes a recommendation and the Government sanction the filing of a revision for the expunction of the strictures or other remarks, the Superintendent should promptly send to the Director General a copy of the Government order and make availiable to the Advocate General all relevant records he may require in that behalf for filing the revision.
(7). If the Advocate General does not make a recommendation and the Government consider that no
action is called for, the opinion of the Advocate General and the orders of the Government will indicate to what extent the strictures or other remarks are justified. The Superintendent will then take appropriate action against the defaulting Police Officers.
(8). In either of the cases mentioned in Sub-Orders (7) & (8) the Superintendent will send a copy of the order of the Government to the Director General.
(9).When a revision is filed in the High Court for the expunction of the strictures or other adverse 31 Spl.C.No.87/2018 remarks, the Superintendent will obtain from the Advocate General, a copy of the judgment and send it to the Director General.
(10).If the High Court dismisses the revision petition refusing to expunge the strictures or other remarks, and observes that they are justified, the Superintendent will take appropriate action for their avoidance in the subsequent cases and also institute departmental proceedings against the defaulting Police Officers. He will send a report of action taken to the Director General.
(11).Every Commissioner/Range Inspector General and Superintendent of Police will maintain a register of judicial strictures and commendations in form No.161. The registers are useful for the officers to have an overall impression of the judicial appreciation of the standards of investigation and prosecution in a district;
(12).the Inspecting Officers at the time of their inspections will ensure that the registers have been properly maintained by the Commissioner/Inspector General/ Deputy Inspector General/Superintendent and that he has issued appropriate instructions for improving the investigation and prosecution his district/range. The Inspecting Officers will make a specific mention about their having 32 Spl.C.No.87/2018 checked the register in their inspector notes.
(13)Every judgment sent under this order should reach the Director General within one month from the date of its pronouncement.
(14).As soon as a copy of the judgment with the remarks of the officers as indicated in sub- Orders(2), (3) and (4) is received in Chief Office, the crime branch will examine it with reference to the relevant heinous crime file, if it is a judgment in a heinous crime and send the file to the law section obtaining the orders of the concerned Deputy Inspector General in the Chief Office.
(15). The law section will examine the judgment and the remarks furnished by the various officers and take action for the issue of appropriate instructions by law circulars and law bulletins, for the rectification of the defects and lapses pointed out in the judgment.
(16).When a copy of the judgment is received in other sections of the chief Office and it contains strictures or remarks against any Police Officer or on the investigation or prosecution of a case, the concerned Section Superintendents will obtain the orders of the concerned Assistant Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General, PRS and send the judgment to the law section. The 33 Spl.C.No.87/2018 law section will take action as indicated in Sub-Order(15).
(17). When a copy of the judgment referred to in sub-
Order (9) is received in the chief Office, the crime section will endorse it to the law section and the law section will examine the judgment and take appropriate action.
(18).On receipt of a copy of the order referred to in Sub-Order (8) the crime section will immediately endorse a copy to the law section and the law section will examine the order and take action to issue suitable instructions.
(19).All
departmental action
arising out of
judicial strictures in
the judgment of
courts will be pursued
by the crime
section of the Chief
Office till final
disposal.
(20).the law section in Chief Office will maintain registers of judicial strictures and judicial commendations in form No.161.
REVIEW OF JUDICIAL STRICTURES AND COMMENDATIONS:
1579. (1) A quarterly statement of judicial strictures and judicial commendations in form No.161 for quarter ending with 31st March, 30th June, 30th 34 Spl.C.No.87/2018 September and 31st December should be sent to chief Office on or before 10th of the succeeding month of the quarter.
(2).The law section in chief Office will compile and review the strictures. The review will be sent to the Commissioner, Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General and Superintendents.
CASE DIARIES-ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE SENT TO GOVERNMENT AS SOON AS A SENTENCE OF DEATH IS PASSED OR CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT 1580. (1). When a petition of mercy from a convict under sentence of death is to be forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by the State Government, it should invariably be accompanied by an English translation of the police diary along with the other records of the case.
(2). Superintendents shall, therefore, send direct to the Government in the Home Department two certified copies of the English translation of the police diary in all cases in which the accused are sentenced to death. The records should be sent to Government with the least possible delay as soon as the sentence of death is confirmed by the High Court or is 35 Spl.C.No.87/2018 inflicted by that court in enhancement of the sentence passed by the Sessions Court."
20. Accordingly seeks acquittal of the accused persons with regard to the alleged offence punishable u/s.143, 147, 148 r/w.149 of IPC seems reasonable. Accordingly, these Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
21. POINT NO.6 AND 7: The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.323 and 324 r/w.149 of IPC the allegations made by the complainant are as per the complaint are specific that in front of the house of Manjunath C.W.2 the accused No.1 drove the car bearing No.KA-50-N-
9938 and stopped the same by the side of the road and he has taken a rod and came near the victim abused him as "ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮ್ಮ ನ್ ಸೂಳೆ ಮಗನೇ ಬೋಳಿ ಮಗನೆ, ಮಾದಿಗ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನೆ ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಈ ದಿವಸ ಸಾಯಿಸುತ್ತ್ತೇನೆ" and assaulted with rod on his forehead, later to his right 36 Spl.C.No.87/2018 hand, shoulder, hand and right hand finger. At that time, when Manjunath his employer came to pacify the quarrel, the accused Devaraj assaulted employer with rod on his shoulder and when JCB driver RajuRai came to pacify the quarrel, he assaulted him also with rod on his left hand, later Devaraj's wife Sheela and Devaraj father Rajanna came and restrained employer Manjunath and Sheela assaulted with club on his back, Rajanna gave blow on the face of Manjunath, later Manjunath's father Munivenkatappa pacified the quarrel, later they informed to the police and when returning in the car, Devaraj's brother Kumara restrained and threatened by holding the stone that he will not leave them, later they parked the car on the left side and went to Government Hospital, Yelahanka. In the evidence of the complainant, examination in chief he has deposed in page-2 and 3 of his evidence that accused No.3 and accused No.1 father, accused No.4 have also assaulted this witness with a club is mentioned. Therefore, there is 37 Spl.C.No.87/2018 consistency in the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the clubs which are seized and deposited in court used to assault the victim. Further learned SPP brings to the court notice the evidence of P.W.2 who has similarly deposed in page-2 and 3 of his evidence about the assault made by the accused persons. The P.W.10 has also deposed about the assault made by the accused Devaraj on Muniyappa i.e. he has been mentioned as driver and this witness has also deposed a stone has been brought by the accused No.2 by which he has assaulted on CW.11 P.W.10. The learned SPP argues as there is consistency in the evidence of eye witnesses PWs.1, 2, 10 and 11 the accused are to be convicted is the prayer.
22. The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice the witnesses who are the panch witnesses in the case who are being examined as P.W.3 is the police who went in the Hoysala on 23.11.2016 near the spot and he pacified the dispute and sent the persons to hospital in vehicle 38 Spl.C.No.87/2018 KA-50-N-9938 and he found in the car Devaraj was present and he has been arrested and produced before ACP. With regard to incident, the P.W.4 is the spot Mahazar witness, this witness has turned hostile, similarly P.W.5 Narasimha is another Mahazar witness who has turned hostile with regard to conducting spot Mahazar and seizure of the vehicle. The P.W.6 Narayanaswamy is another so called eye witness and spot Mahazar witness who who has also turned hostile, the P.W.7 Srinivas is another seizure Mahazar witness who has deposed by turning hostile. The P.W.8 Santhosh Kumar.A.M is the driver who is also a witness to Ex.P.6 who has also turned hostile. Under such circumstances when the seizure of the articles being disputed, are not proved by the prosecution by placing cogent, corroborative evidence and the discrepancies in the evidence of the material witnesses, definitely goes against the case of prosecution since this material object used by the accused persons to assault the victim there is no any link provided with the 39 Spl.C.No.87/2018 material objects placed on record, are used by the accused persons to assault the victim and other charge sheet witnesses namely C.W.2, 11 and 12.
The learned counsel for the accused brings to the court notice by cross examining the P.W.1 in page-
14 and 15 wherein it has been admitted by P.W.1 that he has not at all specified that he has been assaulted with iron rod on his back is not specified in the statement is admitted. Further more the accused No.1 has been assaulted by Sheela the present accused No.3 with a club is denied. Accused Nos.5 and 1 have assaulted this witness has not been mentioned in the statement is admitted. This witness has specifically admitted there is any altercation taken place between his group and also group of accused No.5 is admitted. In the case on hand, whether the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are being family members are also members of the group of the accused No.5 has not been mentioned in the complaint or in the MLC which has been registered by the Medical Officer. Therefore the 40 Spl.C.No.87/2018 Ex.P.14 discloses alleged history of assault by 3-4 persons but the persons whether they are known persons or unknown persons are not specified in the wound certificate makes clear that complainant has not given any statement before the Medical Officer as per the wound certificate, he was fit to give information to the Medical Officer. Moreover, the alleged incident happened at about 8.30 pm and the victim and C.W.2 have gone to the Medical Officer at about 10.35 p.m on 11.11.2016 and at 11.25 a.m on 12.11.2016 namely C.W.1. Therefore there is discrepancy in the information provided to the police and the treatment obtained by the victim.
In fact the P.W.1 Muniyappa has been treated in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, however the C.W.2 has been attended in Yelahanka hospital as mentioned by C.W.11, however the C.W.2 has been examined in General hospital, Yelahanka PHC only as an outpatient. Therefore when the evidence of P.W.3 discloses as he is working in Hoysala Patrol vehicle and he stopped and came to know the 41 Spl.C.No.87/2018 dispute and he sent the injured to the hospital, then the question of present accused namely accused No.1 has been stopped by this P.W.3 and enquiry with regard to injuries to C.Ws.2 and has not been made and the discrepancy appearing in the wound certificate clearly goes against the case of prosecution with regard to assault being made either by way of any weapon of offence or the injuries sustained otherwise as per the evidence of PW.11/C.W.16. In cross examination has specifically admitted she has not at all prepared any MLC immediately after treating the victim namely C.W.2.
This witness has specifically deposed alongwith the injured she observed only family members of C.W.2 being present and no any police have accompanied the injured. This witness has specifically deposed MLC has been sent to the jurisdictional police however no such MLC has been placed on record seems reasonable. Under such circumstances the evidence of Investigating Officer cannot substitute to the material evidence which is to be placed on 42 Spl.C.No.87/2018 record. Moreover, admittedly Investigating Officer has not at all conducted investigation with regard to the counterblast simultaneously. Under these circumstances, in the absence of direct evidence with regard to the wound certificate of injured placed as per Ex.P.13 and 14 and the evidence of P.W.1, 2, 11 and 12 are partial with regard to the incident happened wherein injuries have been sustained by CWs.1 and 2. However there are discrepancy in the evidence of CWs.1 and 2 and CWs.11 and 12 with regard to assault made on the victim by accused Nos.1 to 4. Under these circumstances, the hostility of the material witnesses including the complainant who has turned hostile with regard to the seizure of the articles as per Ex.P.6, case goes against the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, in the absence of corroborative material witnesses, this court is satisfied to answer these Point Nos.6 and 7 in the Negative.
43 Spl.C.No.87/201823. POINT Nos.4 & 5: With regard to prove sec.504 r/w.149 of IPC the prosecution has examined P.W.1, 2, 10 and 12. In the evidence of material witnesses namely PWs.1, 2, 10 and 12 in the examination in chief these witnesses have specifically deposed there was altercation between the family of the accused No.1 and family of CW.2 herein. In fact there is assault and counter assault as deposed by PW.10 in her examination in chief itself. In her cross examination she has mentioned there was an assault being made by accused No.5 and present C.W.1 on each other. It is an admitted fact that in the cross examination of the material witnesses, he specifically admitted there is a case and counter case got registered by the Investigating Officer as Cr.No.166/2016 and 167/2016 being registered as per Ex.D.3 and Ex.P.17. The crime though registered by the Investigating Officer, both case and counter case the victims are belonging to schedule caste, but Investigating Officer has not taken seriously the counter case and it has been 44 Spl.C.No.87/2018 charge sheeted before the jurisdictional Magistrate though in the complaint itself is specified as victim belonging to schedule caste namely accused No.5 Nagaraj (abated). Therefore the abusive words used against the present complainant is by the accused No.1 is the allegation made. In the evidence of the P.W.2, the CW2 has deposed in page-2 of his evidence that he tried to pacify the dispute between the accused No.1 and C.W.1 and later accused No.5 entered the scene and he also assaulted C.W.1. In the cross examination has specifically denied his wife and accused persons are the relatives is denied. He pleads ignorance, that his wife and accused No.1 are related. However, he admits he and the accused persons are of the same village since his birth. This witness has specifically denied he had any ill-will towards the accused No.1, however this witness admits on 06.11.2015 the complaint has been lodged by his wife against the accused No.1. This witness admits in that complaint, his wife had compromised with the 45 Spl.C.No.87/2018 accused No.1. This witness specifically admits his wife is residing in her maternal house, since the date of disposal of that case. This witness admits as per the suggestion made by his wife's maternal family members, the compromise has been entered.
In page-9 of his cross examination he has admitted certain suggestions made with regard to his business and C.W.1 being his employee. This witness pleads ignorance in his cross examination at page-11 with regard to how the incident happened as per his statement he pleads he may have reported. This witness denies they have assaulted the accused No.5 and others is denied.
This witness specifically admits in his cross examination at page-12 a counter case has been registered. This witness has admitted certain suggestion in page-12, 13 and 14 last line with regard to the incident. This witness admits he has been assaulted by accused No.1 on his back with a rod is not mentioned. In the cross examination of P.W.2, the discrepancies have been brought out 46 Spl.C.No.87/2018 with regard to the incident and the M.O being used to assault the victim and this witness does not finds any corroboration. This witness P.W.2 further admits in page-20 of his cross examination that the M.Os.1 to 3 there is no any chit being affixed disclosing the seizure of the same and this witness has admitted certain suggestions with doubt with regard to assault being made. Under these circumstances, with regard to the abusive words used by the accused persons namely accused No.1, the P.W.1 being partly hostile who has compromised against the accused persons, the P.W.2 has not at all specified the actual words which were used by the accused No.1 against the victim C.W.1, as such to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.504 of IPC being not made out seems reasonable.
Further more, this court by following the citation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2023 (4) KCCR 3544 in case of Tammanna V/s. State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed:
47 Spl.C.No.87/2018" the abusive words are be as such that it should be provocative so as to commit breach of public peace". In the case on hand as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Part-A of Head Note :
"A. Penal Code, 1860-Section 504- Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Acquittal- Insult with intent to provoke breach of public peace, not spoken to by witnesses in a consistent manner-mentioning of alleged abusive words in complaint and evidence of complainant alone cannot be basis for conviction of accused -Hence, acquitted."
Therefore to prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable under section 504 of IPC are missing is the opinion of this court.
24. Similarly, In the case on hand, with regard to life threat being given to the complainant, the complainant has specifically deposed that accused No.1 mentioned he will not spare the complainant.
However in the evidence of P.W.1 during the course of cross examination dated:24.04.2019 at page-7 he admits he does not know the contents of complaint and it has not been read over to him and he has not specified any statement that he has been assaulted 48 Spl.C.No.87/2018 on right hand, right side of the head, elbow, right hand and leg in his complaint is admitted. Therefore the discrepancies in the evidence of the P.W.1 with that of the P.W.2 who has not at all specified about the life threat being given by the accused persons to C.W.1 but he has mentioned only assault being made on C.W.1. Similarly the P.W.10 the so called eye witness to the incident has not specified about the abusive words being used and life threat being given by accused No.1 to P.W.1. The P.W.12 has deposed that he had sound and went outside the house and saw assaults being made by accused and victim were exchanging blows. Therefore with regard to sec.506 of IPC, there is no corroboration placed on record, as such these Point Nos.4 and 5 are answered in the Negative.
25. POINT NO.8 & 9: In the case on hand, to prove sec.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the complainant has compromised with the accused persons. Therefore in the absence of specific mention with regard to abusive words used by the 49 Spl.C.No.87/2018 accused persons abusing the victim by taking his caste, there is no any mention made in the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to castiest remark made by accused No.1 so as to lower the respect to the caste of the victim C.W.1. Under these circumstances, in the absence of corroborative material evidence, the accused are intimidated the C.W.1 or gave life threat or abused only with an intention to degrade the caste of the victim are not forthcoming. This court by following the citation of our Hon'ble Apex Court in (2020)10 SCC 710 in case of Hitesh Verma V/s. State of Uttarakhand and another wherein it is held that:
"Held, all insults or intimidation to person will not be offence under the 1989 Act, unless such insult or intimidation is only on account of victim belonging to SC/ST- Thus, offence under the 1989 Act would be made out, when member of vulnerable section of society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment, because of belonging to that vulnerable section of society-Assertion of title over land by either of parties, is not due to either indignities, humiliations or harassment-Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
Further more, as per FIR, allegations of abusing informant (R-2 herein) were within 50 Spl.C.No.87/2018 four walls of her building-it is not case of informant, that there was any member of public(not merely relatives or friends) at the time of incident, in the house-Therefore, basic ingredient, that words were uttered "in any place within public view", is not made out"
26. Accordingly, this court is satisfied to answer these point Nos.8 and 9 in the Negative.
27. POINT NO.10 : In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506 R/w 149 of IPC, and sec.3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
The accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are set at liberty.
However, the bond executed in compliance of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal period. M.Os.1 to 7 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcription thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2025).
51 Spl.C.No.87/2018(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Muniyappa
P.W.2 Manjunatha
P.W.3 Vittal
P.W.4 Nagesh
P.W.5 Narasimha
P.W.6 Narayanaswamy
P.W.7 Srinivas
P.W.8 Santhosh Kumar.A.M
P.W.9 G.Krishna Swamy
P.W.10 Latha
P.W.11 Dr.Ramya.R
P.W.12 Gopalakrishna.M
P.W.13 Dr.Mohan Kumar.G
P.W.14 C.N.Bhopaiah
52 Spl.C.No.87/2018
P.W.15 Krishnappa.V
P.W.16 B.M.Narayanaswamy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of PW-1, PW-15 Ex.P.2 Photo Ex.P.3 Photo Ex.P.4 Mahazar Ex.P.4(a)(b)(c) Signature of PW-1, PW-4, PW-14 Ex.P.5 Mahazar Ex.P.5(a)(b) Signature of PW-5, PW-14 Ex.P.6 Panchanama Ex.P.6(a)(b) Signature of PW-7, PW-8 Ex.P.7 Statement of PW-7 Ex.P.8 Statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.9 Caste Report of complainant,A-1 to 4 Ex.P.10 Caste Report of A5 to 7 Ex.P.11 Rough Sketch Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW-9 Ex.P.12 Requisition Ex.P.13 Medical Report Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW-11 Ex.P.14 Medical Certificate Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW-13 Ex.P.15 PF.65/18 Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW-14 Ex.P.16 PF.69/18 53 Spl.C.No.87/2018 Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW-14 Ex.P.17 FFirst Information Report Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW-15 Ex.P.18 Order of DCP Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW-16 Ex.P.19 PF.73/2016 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW-16 Ex.P.20 & 21 Photographs Ex.P.22 Requisition letter Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW-16 Ex.P.23 Requisition letter Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW-16 Ex.P.24 Requisition letter Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW-16
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 Statement Ex.D.2 Statement Ex.D.3 complaint
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1 Steel Rod
M.O.2 & 3 Wooden Sticks
M.O.4 Shirt
M.O.5 Shirt
54 Spl.C.No.87/2018
M.O.6 Banian
M.O.7 cC.D.
(Rajesh Karnam K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.