Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Abdul Waheed Sanaullah on 13 April, 2022
KABC010281492014
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH61)
Dated this the 13th day of April 2022
PRESENT: SRI VIDYADHAR SHIRAHATTI, LL.M.,
LX ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
S.C. No. 1530/2014
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by it's
The Police Inspector,
Kamakshipalya Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused : 1. Abdul Waheed Sanaullah,
S/o Sanaullah,
Aged 40 years,
R/a No.751, 1st Stage,
3rd Block, BDA Complex,
Al Hilalnagar, HBR Layout,
Kalyan Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Also R/a Yard No.1327,
Road : 5325, Block 953,
Askar,
Kingdom of Bahrain. (Splitup)
2. Ishrath,
W/o Mukthiyar,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a No.145, 5th Cross,
Amar Layout, D.G. Halli,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
2
SC No.1530/2014
3. Jaber Ahmed @ Jabeer @
Tabrez Ahmed,
S/o Riyaz Ahmed,
Aged about 29 years,
R/a No.59, 5th Cross,
Amar Layout, D.G. Halli,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
4. Mohammed Jamir @ Jamir,
S/o Mohammed Abbas,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a No.3839, 5th Cross,
Siddartha Nagar,
Chalavadipalya,
Goods Shed Road,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru - 560 033.
(Accused No.4 is dead, hence the
case against him is abated)
5. Jahir @ Jakir,
S/o Abdul Gansi,
Aged about 27 years,
R/a No.90, 4th Cross,
Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
6. Sikandar Khan @ Sikandar,
S/o Khan Sab,
Aged about 25 years,
R/a No.263, 3rd Cross,
Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
7. Shabbir Khan @ Shabbir,
S/o Late Abdul Lathif Khan,
Aged about 22 years,
R/a No.263, 3rd Cross,
Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
3
SC No.1530/2014
8. Nahim Pasha @ Nahim,
S/o Alim Pasha,
Aged about 24 years,
R/a No.165, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross, Vinayaka Theater,
Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
9. Asif Ali Begh @ Alam,
S/o Shoukath Ali Begh,
Aged about 26 years,
R/a No.86/3, 1st Cross,
Dr. TCM Rayan Road,
Siddartha Nagar, Mysore Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru - 560 018.
10. Syed Rabu @ Rabulla,
S/o Late Syed Mukthiyar,
Aged about 25 years,
R/a No.162, 3rd Cross,
Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru.
11. Sahabuddin Khan,
S/o Fakruddin Khan,
Aged about 27 years,
R/a No.269, 2nd Cross,
Tippu Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru - 560 018
(By Sri K. Ram Singh, Advocate
for accused No.2)
(By Sri JC, Advocate for accused
No.3)
(By Sri Mohammed Pasha C,
Advocate for accused No.5 to 11)
Date of offence 07/05/2014
Date of report of offence 07/05/2014
Name of the complainant Smt Naseema Taj
Date of commencement 20/12/2017
4
SC No.1530/2014
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 12/11/2021
Offences complained of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302
& 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11 found not
guilty.
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet has been filed by Police Inspector, Kamakshipalya police station against the accused No.1 to 11 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 & 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
The complainant by name Smt Naseema Taj W/o Aslam Pasha who is the motherinlaw of deceased Sadiq Pasha. She has alleged that, one Tabrez Begh came near the house of complainant on 07.05.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., and informed her that, when both of them were returning home from the shop owned by her soninlaw (Sadiq Pasha), situated at Kamakshipalya, Sumanahalli, at that time 7 - 8 unknown persons came in a bike and auto rickshaw, dashed against the bike of the deceased and assaulted the deceased with chopper and long and caused injuries. At that time, the deceased Sadiq Pasha jumped to the drainage and all the accused persons assaulted him by means of longs and deadly weapons on his body 5 SC No.1530/2014 and due to the assault, Sadiq Pasha was died. Hence, the informant sought action against the accused persons.
3. On the basis of the said information, the complainantpolice have registered a case against the accused persons in it's Crime No.227/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 120(B) & 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the complainantpolice have arrested the accused persons and thereafter, they were released on bail.
4. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 & 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC. On receipt of the charge sheet, the committal court has secured the accused No.2 to 11 and accused No.1 was absconded. Since the offences alleged against the accused No.2 to 11 are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Learned V ACMM as per order dated 08.12.2014, committed this case against the accused No.2 to 11 to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
5. After committal, the case was registered as S.C.No.1530/2014 and has been made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the accused No.2 to 11 appeared through their counsel.
6
SC No.1530/2014
6. On hearing the prosecution as well as defence counsel as contemplated under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., this Court has framed the charge against the accused No.2 to 11, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 & 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC. The contents of the charge for the above said offences read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them and they denied the same and claimed to be tried.
7. In support of it's case, the prosecution has cited 32 witnesses. Out of that, the prosecution has examined only 10 witnesses as PW.1 to 10 and got marked 56 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.56 and seized articles as MO Nos.1 to 17.
8. The learned prosecutor has given up CW.4, 5, 15, 17, 18, 22 to 25, 29 & 30. CW.8 & 32 are reported to be dead. CW.10, 12 & 13 are not secured in spite of executing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The complainantpolice have failed to secure those witnesses. Hence, those witnesses are dropped as not secured. In order to speedy justice, the evidence of prosecution has taken as closed on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence. The defence of the accused is totally denial of the prosecution case. However, no 7 SC No.1530/2014 defence evidence led in by the accused and no documents are marked.
9. Heard arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.
10. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Sadiq Pasha was culpable homicide and not under natural circumstances?
(2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 and absconding accused No.1 being the brother and sister of deceased Sadiq Pasha having had illwill against the deceased Sadiq Pasha in connection with property and personal matters and accused No.2 and absconding accused No.1 along with accused No.3 to 11 being parties to an illegal agreement, hatched a criminal conspiracy of lynch the deceased on 07.05.2014 and thus accused No.2 to 11 along with absconding accused No.1 committed an offence punishable under Section 120(B) of IPC?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 to 11 along with absconding accused No.1 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of committing the murder of deceased Sadiq Pasha and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 143 r/w Section 149 of IPC?
(4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 to 11 along with absconding accused No.1 being members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of common object 8 SC No.1530/2014 of committing the murder of deceased Sadiq Pasha and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 148 r/w Section 149 of IPC?
(5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, accused No.2 to 11 along with absconding accused No.1 being members of unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained deceased Sadiq Pasha from proceeding in any direction and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC?
(6) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, the accused No.6 dashed his bike to the twowheeler of deceased Sadiq Pasha and caused damage to the tune of Rs.5,000/ and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 427 r/w Section 149 of IPC?
(7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 to 11 along with absconding accused No.1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, on 30.03.2014, the accused No.2 & 3 gave Rs.4,00,000/ to accused No.4 as supari to kill deceased Sadiq Pasha and in turn accused No.4 requested accused No.5 to 11 to assist in the elimination of deceased Sadiq Pasha and as per the plan, on 05.05.2014 accused No.3 had shown the house and shop of deceased Sadiq Pasha and on 07.05.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused persons equipped themselves with second hand mobile phones and took five iron longs from the house of accused No.4 and accused No.4 in Honda Activa bike bearing No.KA02EV8487, accused No.6 & 11 in pulsar bike bearing No.KA04EV2100, accused No.5, 9 & 10 in Yamaha FZ bike bearing No.KA04HM 9 SC No.1530/2014 6237, accused No.7 & 8 in Honda Activa bike bearing No.KA04EZ1827, went towards service road of Tumakuru - Mysuru Ring Road and hide the five iron longs in the bush situated in the drainage and thereafter instructed the accused No.4, 8, 9 & 11 to wait at the said place and accused No.4 waited in front of the shop of deceased Sadiq Pasha, accused No.7 & 6 in their Yamaha FZ bike and Bajaj Pulsar bike respectively waited near petrol bunk situated at Magadi Main Road and accused No.10 waited for the deceased at Sumanahalli in his Honda Activa bike as per plan. When the deceased Sadiq Pasha and CW.2 at about 7.10 p.m., closed the shop and proceeded in KA02HW63488 red color Hero Maestro bike, accused No.4 informed accused No.6, 7 & 10 about dispatch of deceased Sadiq Pasha and all of them followed the deceased in their bikes and when the deceased turned his vehicle from Sumanahalli circle towards Ring Road, as per plan, accused No.6 dashed his pulsar bike to the vehicle of deceased Sadiq Pasha and caused damage to his bike an accused No.5 took the long which was kept in the bush and assaulted on the back of the deceased Sadiq Pasha and when Sadiq Pasha jumped into the drainage, the accused No.5, 8, 9, 10 & 11 assaulted with iron longs all over the body of deceased Sadiq Pasha and all the accused committed his death and thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC?
(8) What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative. Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : In the Negative.
Point No.5 : In the Negative.10
SC No.1530/2014 Point No.6 : In the Negative.
Point No.7 : In the Negative.
Point No.8 : As per final order for following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1: In order to prove that the deceased died of homicidal death, the prosecution mainly relied upon the contents of inquest report and postmortem report as well as the charge sheet papers. Here in this case, the postmortem report and inquest report are marked by consent as Exs.P.25 & P.10, respectively. The Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of deceased, opined in the postmortem examination report that, "Death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple chop injuries sustained".
13. Such being the case, if we carefully appreciated all these facts, it would certainly indicate that the deceased died of homicidal death. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 & 8 clearly reveals that the death of deceased is homicidal death. No other inference as to the death of deceased can be drawn from these facts except the inference that the deceased died of homicidal death. The very narration of complaint charge sheet papers and depositions goes to show that the deceased was died due to the assault by unknown persons, by using the weapons like MO Nos.5 to 9. The prosecution papers indicate that 11 SC No.1530/2014 the deceased died of homicidal death and itself is sufficient to hold the same. Therefore, the materials placed on record by the prosecution coupled with the contents of inquest report, postmortem examination report and report of the examination of the weapons and charge sheet enclosures are sufficient to hold that the deceased died of homicidal death. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.
14. Points No.2 to 7: When it is held that the deceased died of homicidal death, heavy burden casts on the prosecution to prove that it is the accused before the Court, who caused the death of deceased intentionally.
15. Here in this case though the police have cited as many as 32 witnesses in the charge sheet, the prosecution is able to examine only 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10.
16. PW.1 being the complainantcumcircumstantial witness who simply deposed that she knows accused No.2 only. She does not know any of the accused in this case. CW.3 is her daughter and deceased Sadiq Pasha was the husband of CW.3. The deceased Sadiq Pasha had cordial relationship with CW.3. Accused No.2 is the sister of deceased Sadiq Pasha. She is not aware about the cordial relationship with the deceased Sadiq Pasha and his sister i.e., 12 SC No.1530/2014 accused No.2. After the marriage, CW.3 and her husband shifted their residence to Dubai Layout on the reason that the deceased Sadiq Pasha quarreled with accused No.2. She is not aware about the quarrel and the incident. The deceased Sadiq Pasha was murdered and the witness was not aware about who committed the murder of the deceased Sadiq Pasha. She identified the dead body and identified the signature. But she has denied that she has not given any statement before the investigating officer. She is not aware the contents of Ex.P.1/complaint and identified the signature marked as Ex.P.1(a) and she has not given any statement before the police.
17. At this stage the learned Public Prosecutor has treated PW.1 as hostile witness and examined, wherein she denied to have stated before the police that in view of quarrel with accused No.2 and accused No.2 gave supari to other accused who committed the murder of deceased Sadiq Pasha in view of enmity. She denied that on 07.05.2014, at about 7.30 p.m., CW.2 came to PW.1's house by running and informed her that while himself and deceased were proceeding on a bike at Sumanahalli Ring Road, about 7 to 8 persons came in 2 auto and a bike and there knocked their bike, dragged the deceased Sadiq Pasha to a drainage and assaulted him with weapons. She also denied the other suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor and she has also not identified the accused persons and 13 SC No.1530/2014 not given any statement marked as per Ex.P.3. The statements of witnesses were marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4 and she has not identified.
18. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.4, it can be said that her hostile evidence goes to the root of the case and creates a doubt as to the involvement of these accused in the commission of offences alleged. The entire case of prosecution becomes doubtful in view of hostile evidence of PW.1.
19. P.W.2 is the panch witness and circumstantial witness. PW.2 stated that he does not know CW.1, 3 and deceased and he has not identified the accused. He has not deposed any statement before the police that the accused No.4 to 11 assaulted deceased Sadiq Pasha and committed his murder and the police have not called him to identify the accused persons. In his presence the police have not conducted any mahazar. This PW.2 is completely turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He denied to have given statement as well as not seen the incident and quarrel that the accused persons with the deceased. Hence, he has clearly stated that the police have not conducted any mahazar in his presence as per Exs.P.6 & P.7 and even he has not given any statement before the investigating officer and his statements have been read over to the witness and same are marked as Exs.P.5, P.6 & P.8. This 14 SC No.1530/2014 circumstantial witness who has not stated anything about the incident, but identified only the signature of Ex.P.7(a). He denied to have given several statements before the police with regard to the incident of murder of deceased Sadiq Pasha. Therefore, the hostile evidence of these witnesses also creates a doubt as to the occurrence of the incident as alleged in the complaint as well as the involvement of these accused in this case.
20. PW.3 is CW.3 being a wife of deceased Sadiq Pasha. She has also not supported the case of prosecution. She knows the accused No.2, who is the sister of her husband. She does not know about the dispute was pending between accused No.2 and her brothers. Accused No.2 was residing with her husband after returned from Dubai. Her husband was murdered about 3 years back, while he was returning from his work place. She is not aware about the incident of murder of her husband and she has not given any statement before the police on 07.05.2014. She has stated that her sister informed that somebody had attacked her husband, who suffered injuries and was taken to Gurusree Hospital, where he was declared as dead.
21. At this stage, PW.3 has been treated as hostile and cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, wherein she denied to have stated before the police that the accused before the Court that 15 SC No.1530/2014 the accused No.2 is the sister of deceased Sadiq Pasha, who has committed murder of her husband. She denied the suggestion that the accused before the Court and others assaulted and committed murder of her husband, in view of dispute with property. She denied the suggestion that she gave statement before the police as per Ex.P.9.
22. PWs.4 & 5 are the panch witnesses, who have present at the time of recovering the material objects, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have stated that the police had not called them to act as panch witnesses, but police have obtained their signatures in the police station. Police had not seized any articles or weapons in their presence and drew any mahazar at the instance of the accused. The seizure mahazar bears the signature of witness and same was marked as Ex.P.11 and it bears the signature as Ex.P.11(a) and the other mahazars were marked as Exs.P.12 to P.16. These witnesses are also denied that they were not present at the scene of offence and not drew any spot mahazar in front of them as per Ex.P.17. They have stated that they are not aware about the contents of Exs.P.10 to P.16.
23. In the crossexamination PWs.4 & 5 are completely turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and they further denied their presence and police drew the mahazar. 16
SC No.1530/2014
24. CW.7 is examined as PW.6 who is witness to the inquest panchanama. The inquest panchanama was marked with the consent of the accused as per Ex.P.10. However, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has deposed that he has not signed the inquest panchanama and has not given any statement before the investigating officer and he is not aware about Sadiq Pasha and revenge of accused No.1 to 3. He has stated that he was not present at the time of drawing of Ex.P.10.
25. In the crossexamination PW.6 has denied the suggestions opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and he has identified his signature in Ex.P.10 and the same was marked as Ex.P.10(b). The evidence of this witness is not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is not important to consider the case.
26. CW.11 is examined as PW.7, who is a recovery pancha and the panchaname was marked as Ex.P.23 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that the police have not recovered any material objects in his presence and have not drawn the panchaname.
27. In the crossexamination PW.7 has denied that the police have seized a blue color bag and 5 longs. Therefore, his evidence is not sufficient to prove the recovery.
17
SC No.1530/2014
28. CW.14 is examined as PW.8, who is a Doctor, who conducted the postmortem and submitted a report as per Ex.P.25. The postmortem examination report is marked with the consent. The Doctor has also examined the weapons and given his opinion as per Ex.P.26. In the crossexamination PW.8 has denied the suggestions by the learned counsel for the accused.
29. CW.16 is Regional Transport Officer, who is examined as PW.10, who has given examination report of vehicle bearing No.KA 02HW6488 as per Exs.P.52 & P.53. His evidence is not important to the prosecution case.
30. CW.31 is examined as PW.9, who is investigating officer, who has spoken to the facts with regard to registration of crime, submitted First Information Report, drew mahazar as per Exs.P.7, P.10 to 17 & P.23 and registered a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 & 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC. This witness denied all the suggestions of defence in the crossexamination.
31. On perusal of evidence of all these witnesses, it can be said that their evidence assumes little importance and does not carry much weight. It can be said that except the evidence of formal witness i.e., PWs.8 to 10, there is no cogent and consistent material to believe the case of the prosecution. The hostile evidence of the 18 SC No.1530/2014 material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7 goes to the root of the prosecution case and creates a doubt as to the case of the prosecution.
32. CWs.10, 12 & 13 are also material witnesses and are not secured in spite of executing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and the material witnesses as CWs.1 to 3 & 6 to 9 & 11 have not supported the case of the prosecution. As such, absolutely there is nothing on record to believe that the accused persons before this Court, committed the murder of deceased Sadiq Pasha. CW.3 being the wife of deceased has also not supported the case of the prosecution. The hostile evidence of PWs.1 to 7 cuts the very root of the prosecution case and creates a doubt. Therefore, absolutely there is nothing on record to believe the case of the prosecution. As such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of these accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, these accused persons are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Points No.2 to 7 in the 'Negative'.
33. Point No.8: In view of my findings on the above Points No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11 are hereby acquitted for 19 SC No.1530/2014 the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 & 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC.
The case against accused No.4 is abated.The bail bonds of accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11
and that of their sureties stand cancelled.The bail bonds of accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11
executed for the purpose of compliance under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C., is in force for 6 months from today.
Charge sheet papers and seized articles be preserved till disposal of splitup charge sheet pending against accused No.1.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2022) (Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: PW.1 Smt Naseema Taj PW.2 Tabrez Begh PW.3 Smt Noor Zaiba PW.4 Syed Shabuddin PW.5 Rafiq PW.6 Mohammad Mubarak Pasha PW.7 Majal Ali Khan PW.8 Dr. Dileep Kumar K.B. PW.9 Purushotham M.L. PW.10 Hanumanthappa R 20 SC No.1530/2014 List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution: Ex.P.1 Complaint of CW.1/PW.1. Ex.P.1(a) Signature of CW.1/PW.1 in Ex.P.1.
Ex.P.2 Statement of CW.1/PW.1. Ex.P.3 Statement of CW.1/PW.1. Ex.P.4 Statement of CW.1/PW.1. Ex.P.5 Statement of CW.2/PW.2. Ex.P.6 Statement of CW.2/PW.2. Ex.P.7 Spot mahazar. Ex.P.7(a) Signature of CW.2/PW.2 in Ex.P.7. Ex.P.8 Statement of CW.2/PW.2. Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.8. Ex.P.9 Statement of CW.3/PW.3. Ex.P.10 Inquest report.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.10. Ex.P.10(b) Statement of PW.6/CW.7.
Ex.P.11 Seizure panchaname.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.11. Ex.P.11(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.11.
Ex.P.12 Seizure panchaname.
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.12.
Ex.P.13 Seizure panchaname.
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.13. Ex.P.13(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14 Seizure panchaname.
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.14. Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31.
Ex.P.15 Spot mahazar.
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.15.
Ex.P.16 Seizure panchaname.
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.16. Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.16.
Ex.P.17 Panchaname.
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW.4/CW.6 in Ex.P.17.
Ex.P.18 Statement of PW.4/CW.6. Ex.P.19 Statement of PW.4/CW.6. Ex.P.20 Statement of PW.4/CW.6. Ex.P.21 Statement of PW.4/CW.6. Ex.P.22 Statement of PW.4/CW.6. Ex.P.23 Seizure panchaname.
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW.7/CW.11 in Ex.P.23.
Ex.P.24 Statement of PW.7/CW.11.
21
SC No.1530/2014
Ex.P.25 Postmortem report of PW.8/CW.14.
Ex.P.25(a)}{ Signatures of PW.8/CW.14 in Ex.P.25.
& (b)}{
Ex.P.26 Opinion given by doctor.
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW.8/CW.14 in Ex.P.26.
Ex.P.27 Memorandum of PW.9/CW.31.
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.27.
Ex.P.28 Report for production of accused.
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.28.
Ex.P.29 A portion of the voluntary statement of accused - Ishrath.
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of the accused - Ishrath in Ex.P.29.
Ex.P.29(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.29.
Ex.P.30 A portion of the voluntary statement of accused - Jabbir.
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of the accused - Jabbir in Ex.P.30.
Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.30.
Ex.P.31 Police notice issued by PW.9/CW.31.
Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.31.
Ex.P.32 A portion of the voluntary statement of accused - Jabbir.
Ex.P.32(a) Signature of accused Jabbir in Ex.P.32.
Ex.P.32(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.32.
Ex.P.33 Report of Vasimulla/CW.29.
Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.33.
Ex.P.34 Report of Vasimulla/CW.29.
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.34.
Ex.P.35 A portion of statement of accused - Zaheer.
Ex.P.35(a) Signature of the accused - Zaheer in Ex.P.35.
Ex.P.35(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.35.
Ex.P.36 A portion of statement of accused - Sikandar Khan.
Ex.P.36(a) Signature of the accused - Sikandar Khan in Ex.P.36.
Ex.P.36(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.36.
Ex.P.37 A portion of statement of accused No.7/Shabbir Khan.
Ex.P.37(a) Signature of the accused - Shabbir Khan in Ex.P.37.
Ex.P.37(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.37.
Ex.P.38 Report of CW.29.
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.39 A portion of statement of accused.
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of accused in Ex.P.39
Ex.P.39(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.39.
Ex.P.40 A portion of statement of accused - Syed Rabu.
Ex.P.40(a) Signature of accused - Syed Rabu in Ex.P.40.
Ex.P.40(b) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.40.
Ex.P.41 Notice issued to CW.12 & CW.13.
Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.41.
22
SC No.1530/2014
Ex.P.42 Panchaname.
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.42.
Ex.P.43 Submission of CW.29 for production of accused No.11.
Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.43.
Ex.P.44 A portion of voluntary statement of accused - Shahabuddin
Khan.
Ex.P.44(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.44.
Ex.P.44(b) Signature of accused - Shahabuddin Khan in Ex.P.44.
Ex.P.45 Notice issued by PW.9/CW.31.
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.45.
Ex.P.46 Police notice issued by PW.9/CW.31.
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.46.
Ex.P.47 Report issued by CW.29 for production of accused No.8.
Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.48 A portion of statement of accused No.8
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW.9/CW.31 in Ex.P.48.
Ex.P.48(b) Signature of accused No.8 in Ex.P.48.
Ex.P.49}{ Memorandum dated 13.05.2014, 12.05.2014 & 15.05.2014
to P.51}{ issued to CW.29.
Exs.P.49(a)}{ Signatures of PW.9/CW.31 in Exs.P.49 to P.51.
to P.51(a)}{
Ex.P.52 Request letter.
Ex.P.53 Report from Investigating Officer.
Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW.10/CW.16 in Ex.P.53.
Ex.P.54 Hand sketch map of the spot.
Ex.P.55 Application with call details of Airtel.
Ex.P.56 Application with call details of Vodafone.
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution: MO.1 Green color fullsleeve shirt.
MO.2 Green color fullpant.
MO.3 Leather belt.
MO.4 Blue color underwear.
MO.5}{ Longs (5 in Nos.).
to 9}{
MO.10}{ Mobiles (3 in Nos.) (One Nokia & Two Samsung).
to 12}{
MO.13}{ Mobiles (5 in Nos.).
to 17}{
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence: NIL 23 SC No.1530/2014 List of documents marked on behalf of defence: NIL LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
24 SC No.1530/2014 Judgment pronounced in open Court, vide separate judgment.
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 & 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC.
The case against accused No.4 is abated.
The bail bonds of accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11 and that of their sureties stand cancelled.
The bail bonds of accused No.2, 3 & 5 to 11 executed for the purpose of compliance under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C., is in force for 6 months from today.
Charge sheet papers and seized articles be preserved till disposal of splitup charge sheet pending against accused No.1.
LX ACC & SJ, Bengaluru City.
25 SC No.1530/2014