Bangalore District Court
Kengeri Ps vs Venkatesh Kamanur on 29 May, 2025
IN THE COUR T OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, L.L.B, PGDHRL
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1627/2021
Complainant State of Karnataka
By Kengeri P S,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public
Prosecutor)
Accused Venkatesh Kamanur
S/O Kamanur
Venkatesh @ Yosobu. V,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.65, 1st Main
Road, Brindavan Layout,
Doddabele Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.K.Narendra
Babu, advocate)
2 S.C.No.1627/2021
Date of offence 30.08.2021
Date of report of 30.08.2021
offence
Name of the Sri.Sudharshan Reddy
complainant
Date of 04.01.2023
commencement of
recording of evidence
Date of closing of 16.01.2025
evidence
Offences complained U/sec.302 of IPC
of
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty
J UD GME N T
The present case emanates from the first
information statement tendered by Sri.Sudharshan
Reddy S/o Nagireddy to the Kengeri police station on
30.08.2021 at 9.30 a.m registered in Cr.No.315/ 2021.
2. The crux of the case of the prosecution could be
summarised as follows;
The informant claims to have been residing in the
house No.1037, Ground Floor, Gowramma Building, 1 st
3 S.C.No.1627/2021
Cross, Pattanagere, Rajarajeshwarinagar Bengaluru-
560098 and working in the Medplus in the capacity of a
supervisor since about 10 years. Smt.Anitha,
Smt.Anjali, Smt.Thilaga, Smt.Thulasi, Smt.Leelavathi
and Smt.Vani also working in Medplus were residing in
house No.65, 1st Main Road, Brindavana Layout,
Doddabele Road, Kengeri, Bengaluru. Smt.Anitha
employed in Medplus and the accused also previously
employed in Medplus were in love with each other.
About 5-6 months prior to the incident, the accused is
said to have deserted his employment at Medplus and
was living with his friends, Sri.Mohan and others and
was working elsewhere. Even during that period, the
accused and Smt.Anitha were in contact with each
other.
3. On 30.08.2021 at 7.00 a.m., when the
informant was in his house an employee of the
4 S.C.No.1627/2021
Medplus, Sri.Preetham had called him to inform that
the accused had taken Smt.Anitha and had pierced
knife in her body near KSRTC Depot, near Doddabele
Road. The victim, Smt.Anitha was being shifted to the
hospital. The informant had then rushed to the B.G.S
hospital where the doctors are said to have informed
this informant that chances of survival of Smt.Anitha
was too bleak and there was no heartbeat. But after
sometime the doctors had examined and found the
victim to have died failing to respond to the treatment.
The accused had killed the victim with intention to kill
her as a result of dispute arising between them after
having been in love for over 2 years. Hence, the
information was lodged for necessary action against the
accused.
4. Accused is in J.C. Charges framed. Case
stood posted for statement of the accused under section
5 S.C.No.1627/2021
313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused has denied the charge and
claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case, the prosecution has
examined its witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15. The
documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.45 and material
objects marked as M.O.1 to 14.
6. The following judgments are relied upon by
the learned counsel for the accused.
(i) (2024) 1 SCR 248: Darshan Singh V/s. State of
Punjab.
(ii) (2024)1 SCR 306: Pradeep Kumar V/s. State of
Haryana.
7. Heard both. The points that arise for my
consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubts that was
the death of Smt.Anitha, W/o
accused a homicidal?
6 S.C.No.1627/2021
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
30.08.2021 at 6.30 a.m, the accused
had taken Smt.Anitha and had
pierced knife in her body and killed
her and thereby committed an
offense punishable under Sec.302 of
IPC
3. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as
hereunder:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
: R EA SO N S :
9. Point No.1: P.W.1, Sri.Sudharshan Reddy, is
a supervisor in Medplus at Kengeri for about 10 years.
C.W.2, 3, 19 to 23 are employees in the Medplus. The
accused was also an employee in the Medplus and had
left it about 5-6 months prior to the incident and was
working elsewhere.
7 S.C.No.1627/2021
10. On 30.08.2021 at 7.00 a.m, C.W.3 is said to
have called the deceased was murdered and she is being
taken to the B.G.S hospital. Thereafter, C.W.2 and this
witness claim to have gone together to the B.G.S
hospital. The deceased had died and was informed that
between 6.30 a.m and 7.00 a.m the accused is alleged
to have attacked the deceased with knife behind a bus
near KSRTC bus depot Kengeri Main Road. The
deceased was an employee in the Medplus and hence,
the witness claims to have lodged information with the
police by way of statement. The witness is found to have
identified his signature on the first information
statement. Ex.P.1 is the first information statement and
Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness is
found to have identified his signature on the
panchanama at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the
witness. M.O.1 to 5 articles were seized under the
8 S.C.No.1627/2021
panchanama at the spot. C.W.2 and 3 were also present
at the spot and the witness identifies these witnesses in
the 8 photographs. Ex.P.4 are 8 photographs. Ex.P.5 are
12 photographs of the deceased.
11. During the cross examination it is found to
have been elicited through this witness that at the time
of the alleged incident this witness is not aware as to
where the accused was working but asserts that he
knew the place where the accused was residing then.
The accused and this witness were not in contact with
each other. This witness and the accused never met
with each other as well. The deceased was a native of
Chitthor district in Andhra Pradesh, but did not know
the name of the place. The witness does not have
acquaintances with the members of the family of the
deceased. The witness is not aware of residential
address of the deceased while she was working in
9 S.C.No.1627/2021
Medplus but the deceased was not working anywhere
prior to her employment with the Medplus. The witness
is not aware as to whether the deceased was married.
There are 112 employees employed with the Medplus.
The witness is not aware as to which of their employees
were married and those who were unmarried. The
accused while he worked in Medplus was not allotted
the guest house pertaining to the company. The witness
is found to have admitted that usually he would not be
aware of the personal information of each employee but
volunteers to state that however, he knows regarding
the personal information of some employees. C.W.2 and
this witness are residing at different areas and not in
the same house. After about 20 minutes of this witness
reaching the hospital C.W.2 had arrived at the hospital
and prior to this witness C.W.3 was present in the
hospital. The deceased was alive when this witness had
10 S.C.No.1627/2021
arrived at the B.G.S hospital. The company would also
reimburse the medical expenses of its employees. The
deceased was initially taken to H.K hospital and
thereafter, she was shifted to the B.G.S hospital.
Whereas, the bills pertaining to H.K hospital were not
furnished, but Sri.H.R.Prakash had furnished bills
pertaining to B.G.S hospital. This witness is not aware
as to whether the investigating officer had collected bills
from Sri.H.R.Prakash. This question would be relevant
to investigating officer. C.W.2, 3 and this witness are
residing at different places and it is admitted by this
witness that they were not eye witnesses to the incident.
It was a company security who had narrated the
incident to C.W.3 when this witness also came to know
of the manner in which the incident had taken place.
The witness is found to have denied the suggestion that
as this witness was not an eye witness to the incident,
11 S.C.No.1627/2021
he could not have identified the spot where the incident
is alleged to have taken place. This witness is found to
have asserted that at the time of drawing up of
panchanama C.W.19 and 20 were also present. The
witness also would admit that these witnesses, C.W.19
and 20 are not to be found in the photographs. The
witness is unable to recall as to the gadgets in which
the photographs were taken. The witness was there in
the hospital for about 1-1½ hours. It is also the say of
this witness that he had not tendered the first
information statement in the hospital but at the police
station. The writer of the station is said to have reduced
the information in writing to which this witness claims
to have affixed his signature. It was about 10.30 a.m. in
the morning when this witness claims to have been
present at the police station for lodging information.
Along with this witness, C.W.2, 3 and C.W.19 were also
12 S.C.No.1627/2021
present in the police station while this witness had
tendered first information statement. The witness is
unable to recall as to where the articles were sealed. The
photographs at Ex.P.5 were taken at the hospital, but it
was not in the presence of this witness.
12. According to the witness, before he reached
the hospital C.W.3 was already present and twenty
minutes later C.W.2 had reached the hospital. When the
witness had reached the hospital the deceased was
alive. It was Sri.Hari, one of the employees of the
Medplus company and the accused who had shifted the
deceased to the H.K hospital. The witness does not
know as to what had transpired at the H.K hospital and
why the deceased was brought to the B.G.S hospital.
The witness had admitted that C.W.2, 3 and this
witness had not witnessed the incident in person. The
witness admits that he had rushed to the hospital
13 S.C.No.1627/2021
hearing the deceased was in difficulty. It was a security
who is said to have informed the C.W.3 of the incident.
The witness had denied the suggestion that as he was
not an eye witness to the incident he was not competent
to identify the spot. Smt.Anjali and Smt.Thilaga were
present at the time when the panchanama was drawn.
The witness admits that the photographs said to have
been taken at the spot would not reveal the presence of
Smt.Anjali or Smt.Thilaga. The witness does not know
as to the gadget used for taking photographs. The spot
where the incident is said to have taken place is
admitted to be a busy road but the time at which the
incident is said to have taken place would also assume
importance. Merely on account of the fact that the spot
where the incident is said to have taken place is a busy
road there can be no assumption or presumption
raising doubt as to the happening of the incident. The
14 S.C.No.1627/2021
witness is found to have asserted that he had visited the
police station about 3-4 times. The witness had stated
that on the day, when he had lodged the first
information statement he had reached the station at
10.30 a.m and along with him C.W.2, 3 and Smt.Anjali
were present, but Smt.Thilaga had not accompanied
this witness. Smt.Thilaga was married but the witness
was not aware as to the marital status of Smt.Anjali.
Smt.Anjali and Smt.Thilaga had quit the job in
Medplus within two months of the incident. This
witness had not inquired with Sri.Arun, company
watchman as to the source from which he was informed
of the incident. This witness is found to have revealed
that a police had reduced in writing the statements
made by this witness and thereafter this witness claims
to have signed on it. However, the first information
statement is a typed document and the witness had
15 S.C.No.1627/2021
even identified his signature on it. The witness does not
disown the contents of the document and therefore
merely on the basis of the statement of C.W.1, the
prosecution case cannot be doubted.
13. P.W.2, Sri.Sudhakar Reddy, claims to be the
Manager of Medplus working there for more than 12
years. C.W.1, 3 and C.W.19 to 23 are the employees in
the company. The accused was also an employee in the
Medplus and had quit the job about 5-6 months prior to
the incident. The deceased was also an employee in the
company and the deceased and the accused were seen
moving together too close. The witness was a spot
panchanama witness as well. The witness is found to
have identified his signature on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6.
Ex.P.2(b) and Ex.P.6(a) are the signatures of this
witness. Ex.P.2 is the spot panchanama and Ex.P.6 is
the notice. The witness had stated that on 30.08.2021
16 S.C.No.1627/2021
at about 10.00 a.m the police had come to the spot and
in the presence of C.W.1 and 3 spot panchanama was
drawn and M.O.1 to 5 were caused to be seized.
M.O.1(a) to 5(a) are the signatures of this witness Ex.P.4
are the photographs taken during the drawing up of
panchanama. Ex.P.3 is the rough sketch of the spot.
14. The witness claims to be native of Marepalli
in Andhra Pradesh. The witness had gone to the
hospital between 7.30 a.m and 8.00 a.m. The accused
had not called either this witness or C.W.1 or C.W.3.
The witness does not know as to the hospital to which
the deceased was first shifted. According to this witness,
C.W.1 and he had gone together to the hospital and by
that time C.W.3 was already present in the hospital.
They were at the hospital till 10.00 a.m. The police had
come to the hospital and thereafter C.W.1, 3, this
witness claim to have accompanied the police to the
17 S.C.No.1627/2021
spot. This witness is found to assert that he along with
C.W.1 had gone to the police station before 12-00 -
12.30 p.m. this witness further asserts that he had not
affixed his signature on any document at the police
station. It was only C.W.1 who had signed on the first
information statement. Amongst the women employees
after the incident Smt.Anjali and Smt.Thilaga had quit
the job. The witness does not know the residential
address of the accused while he stayed with his friends.
The witness also does not know as to the affairs of the
other women employees. The witness also does not
know regarding the marital status of the deceased. The
witness admits that he is not an eye witness to the
incident. The photographs were taken in the mobile of
the police official and this witness does not recall as to
the identity of the witness. Now these discrepancies are
not such as to shake the credibility of the witness. Now
18 S.C.No.1627/2021
during the cross examination the role of a number of
other employees of the company was made to surface on
the record. All these aspects would have been
considered by the investigating officer and the nexus of
these employees with the incident are not even found to
have been whispered during the trial. Hence only
account of the fact that the role of some of the
employees are referred to during the cross examination
would not be sufficient to raise doubt in respect of the
case of the prosecution. The first information statement
was received at the police station at 9.30 a.m and the
spot panchanama was drawn between 10.45 a.m and
21.10 p.m. these documents were not confronted to the
witness and his attention drawn to these facts. Now
according to the witness the police had come near the
spot at about 10.00 a.m and that C.W.1 and this
witness had gone to the police station before 12.00 p.m.
19 S.C.No.1627/2021
these are discrepancies no doubt but the attention of
the witness was not drawn to these aspects to make
these contradiction a material contradiction enabling
the accused to raise defence. An attempt was made to
paint that the spot where the incident had taken place
was a pubic road. But, the situation at the spot needs
to be appreciated to hold as to whether in fact it is so.
There was a KSRTC bus parked by the side of the road
and the incident had taken place in the space between
the bus and the western edge of the Kengeri Road and
the time of the incident was between 6.00 a.m and 7.00
a.m. considering these aspects, it cannot be held that
there was possibility of public able to view the incident.
The documents would also demonstrate that the first
information statement was received at the station at
9.30 am and thereafter the panchanama at the spot was
drawn between 10.45 a.m and 12.10 p.m.
20 S.C.No.1627/2021
15. P.W.3, Sri.Preetham Kumar is also an
employee in the Medplus at its Kengeri branch. This
witness claims to have been working as the supervisor
of the company. Even this witness is found to have
deposed in a manner similar to P.W.2. This witness was
also a witness to the spot panchanama at Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.2(c) is the signature of the witness. The witness
had identified the photographs at Ex.P.5. The witness
had also identified M.O.1 to 5 seized at the spot. The
signature of this witness on these objects are marked as
M.O.1(b) to 5(b). Even this witness is found to have
adhered to the statement that he had gone to the
hospital first and after about 20 minutes C.W.1 and 2
had arrived at the hospital. According to this witness,
apart from C.W.1, 2, this witness and police officials
there were none at the spot. Another defence was
sought to be raised through this witness that the
21 S.C.No.1627/2021
deceased was married and her husband used to meet
the deceased quite often and the marriage of the
deceased was not working. These facts are however not
within the knowledge of this witness. The defence
appears to be not consistent with the witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution and moreover
during the investigation the marriage of the deceased in
turmoil had not surfaced. These questions relating to a
specific defence are not found to be put to the other
witnesses also.
16. P.W.4, Sri.Songharikrishna is a witness to the
spot panchanama at Ex.P.7. The witness had identified
his signature on Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7(a) is the signature of the
witness who claims to have signed at the spot where the
alleged incident is alleged to have taken place. Ex.P.8
and 9 are the photographs. The witness had also
identified himself in the photographs.
22 S.C.No.1627/2021
17. During the cross examination it was elicited
through the mouth of this witness that he had no
acquaintances with the accused. He had not visited the
police station in relation to this case at any point of
time. The witness asserts that he is unable to read or
write. The witness claims that he is not aware of the
contents of the document. He had signed on the
instructions of the police. The witness is unable to
identify the other panch witnesses found in the
photographs. Now in so far as the language is
concerned this witness is found to have deposed
without the assistance of any translator. Therefore the
witness understands Kannada language. The witness
does not have any sort acquaintances with the accused.
It would also be difficult for a person to remember the
entire contents of the panchanama and reproduce it on
account of lack of memory. The circumstances would
23 S.C.No.1627/2021
fortify this aspect. The panchanama was drawn during
31.08.2021 but was examined on 12.02.2024 after more
than two years. Any material contradiction sought to be
brought about through the witness must be by drawing
the attention of the witness to the specific statement in
the document which is not found to be done in this
case. Therefore, even with the statements elicited
through the witness during the cross examination one
would without any doubt be able to conclude that the
credibility of the witness is not shaken and the witness
is trustworthy. The testimony of this witness could be
believed.
18. P.W.5, Smt.Anjali is a native of Kuppam,
Kadapanadam Taluk, Chitthor District. The witness
claims to have studied with the deceased at G.P.W
Women's Polytechnic college at Palamaneru during
2017. The deceased is said to be a native of
24 S.C.No.1627/2021
Madanapalli. After the education, the deceased is said
to have been employed in Medplus in Bengaluru. During
2021, this witness had inquired with the deceased
regarding a suitable job for her. The deceased is said to
have asked this witness to come to Bengaluru. This
witness claims to have come to Bengaluru in search of a
job and started living with the deceased in a room in the
building with three floors. Smt.Thilaga, Smt.Leela,
Smt.Anitha were residing in the room. After some days,
Smt.Veena had joined Smt.Leela and others. The
witness also had identified the accused through V.C.
The room in which this witness was residing was in the
second floor and in the third floor the accused, Sri.Hari,
Sri.Ravi, Sri.Gangamohan were also residing on rental
basis. They all were employed in the Medplus company.
Intimacy developed between the accused and the
deceased. The two were in love and this witness had
25 S.C.No.1627/2021
overheard the accused requesting the deceased to marry
him. On 31.08.2021, the deceased is said to have left for
work at 6.00 a.m and this witness along with
Smt.Thilaga had left for the work at 6.30 a.m. when this
witness and Smt.Thilaga had come near the spot they
had heard a screaming voice and had found accused
near the injured deceased. A veil was wound around her
neck and a knife was in the hand of the accused. The
accused on seeing this witness is alleged to have thrown
away the knife and asked this witness to call an auto-
rickshaw. Thereafter, this witness along with the
accused had shifted the deceased to a nearby hospital.
Smt.Thilaga was sent in another auto to the office to
inform the owner of the company regarding the incident.
The deceased was first shifted to a hospital in Kengeri
and thereafter on the advice of the doctors there the
deceased was shifted to Rajarajeshwari hospital in an
26 S.C.No.1627/2021
ambulance. The deceased was again shifted to global
hospital. Thereafter, this witness claims to have
returned to the office. C.W.1 had then informed this
witness regarding the death of the deceased. This
witness claims to have gathered information that the
accused had stabbed the deceased as she had turned
down the proposal for marriage. The witness had
identified the accused in Ex.P.10. The witness had also
identified the knife, foot wear/ sandal of the deceased
veil around the neck of the deceased. The witness also
had identified 8 photographs marked as Ex.P.4. The
witness had identified 12 photographs marked as
Ex.P.5.
19. During the cross examination apart from
having elicited through this witness that the deceased
and this witness were studying in various branches of
the college. The witness was not aware as to the
27 S.C.No.1627/2021
deceased in love with a boy in the college. The name of
the boy is not found to be suggested to the witness and
the question itself appears to be vague enough to be
considered as a defence. The witness is found to have
stated that she is not aware of background of her
roommates including the deceased while working at
Medplus. She had also come to know that the deceased
was married when she came to Bengaluru. However
according to this witness during the stay of the
deceased in Bengaluru she had no occasion to see the
husband of the deceased visiting her. There is no
further probe into this aspect and therefore again a
vague defence without any substance.
20. The suggestion that on seeing this witness
near the spot the accused out of fear had asked to call
an auto rickshaw which was admitted by this witness
would show that the accused was in fear and is on
28 S.C.No.1627/2021
account of being caught in the act. The witness admits
the suggestion that the accused had asked to call for an
auto with an intention to save the deceased. Now the
intention of a person cannot be gathered by the opinion
of another witness but has to be gathered from the acts
and conduct of the accused in the circumstances
surrounding the alleged criminal act. Therefore the
admission of this witness that the accused was making
efforts to save the deceased and the intention was to
ensure that the deceased survived by all means cannot
be of any aid to the accused. Now therefore it is clear
that it was the accused who had first seen the body of
the deceased and if the accused was not working in the
Medplus what prompted him to be present at the spot at
the relevant point ought to have been answered by
raising questions during the cross examination. It is not
the case that the accused is without any worldly
29 S.C.No.1627/2021
knowledge. If at all the circumstances was such as to
apparently reveal the involvement of a person in the
attack what prevented the accused from informing the
police till the case was lodged formally by C.W.1. Now
the contention of the accused who had volunteered to
enter the witness box and being examined as D.W.1 was
that the police had ignored his statement and had
proceeded to receive statement from C.W.1. Even
thereafter, the accused had sufficient opportunity to
tender in writing what had actually transpired and what
was his role avoiding confession of the guilt. But, in the
absence of any such attempts and materials to that
extent being placed on record there is no absolutely no
substance in the defence and the defence appears to
have been taken as a straw that could probably help the
case tilt in this favour. The story of another individual
alleged to have committed the act witnessed by the
30 S.C.No.1627/2021
accused and informed to this witness was denied by
this witness. The cross examination would go to the
extent of establishing that the chappals/ sandals were
planted at the spot but is not convincing enough to
digest the very idea. The suggestion that there were
none who had witnessed the manner in which the
deceased had sustained injuries would demolish the
very defence sought to be raised by the accused. The
witness admits that the knife at the spot was vegetable
cutting knife. The metal portion of the knife was
embedded/ stuck in the body of the deceased and the
handle was broken and lying on the ground. They are at
M.O.1 and 2. The witness is found to have stated that
she was accompanied by the police to the spot where
M.O.1 and 2 were found at the spot. The witness asserts
to have overheard the request made by the accused
proposing to marry and the deceased refusing while
31 S.C.No.1627/2021
conversing through mobile. The witness admits that she
had not stated this before the investigating officer and
the statement that Smt.Thilaga was asked to go to the
office. These are not omissions so material enough
sufficient to discredit the witness only on this score.
Apart from this, nothing much appears to have been
elicited through this witness to raise a defence that
could help the accused. The testimony of this witness
would rather corroborate the case of the prosecution.
21. P.W.6, Smt.Leelavathi had identified the
accused through V.C, claims to be a co-employee with
the deceased and her roommate along with other
women employees. The witness claims that their room
was in the second floor and the room in the third floor
in the same building was occupied by the accused and
some male employees. The witness was cross examined
at length although there was nothing stated by her in
32 S.C.No.1627/2021
respect of relationship between the deceased and the
accused. A suggestion was made interestingly to the
witness that she had no occasion to see the accused
and deceased moving together. The witness admits that
she had not probed the matter with the deceased. It is
quire but natural that these witnesses and other
roommates were only colleagues and not members of a
family so as to probe into the personal affairs of one
another. Be that as it may during marathon cross
examination not one suggestion appears to have been
whispered to this witness regarding the nature of the
deceased, affinity with other colleagues. Therefore the
entire testimony of this witness would support the case
of the prosecution rather than be considered even
remotely to be of any assistance to the defence of the
accused.
33 S.C.No.1627/2021
22. P.W.7, Sri.Diwakar is a witness to seizure
panchanama at Ex.P.12. Ex.P.11 is the notice and
Ex.P.12 is the seizure panchanama. The witness is
found to have identified his signatures on these
documents. They are at Ex.P.11(a) and 12(a). Under the
seizure panchanama Ex.P.13 and 14 were caused to be
seized. Ex.P.13 is the receipt and Ex.P.14 is the print
out for having paid the amount of Rs.80-00 digitally.
The knife is said to have been purchased at the Crown
Villagia Super Market. The date of purchase as shown
in the document is 28.08.2021 about two days prior to
the incident.
23. D.W.1 during the cross examination admits
that he had gone to the super market about a couple of
days prior to the incident. It is also brought about that
he was using the mobile with SIM No.9916*****02 that
also had 'PhonePay' and 'G' Pay applications. However,
34 S.C.No.1627/2021
the accused is found to have attempted to bring in a
friend of his by name Sri.Naveen. According to this
witness, D.W.1 he had accompanied Sri.Naveen to the
super market. Sri.Naveen is said to have purchased
fruits etc. At one stretch D.W.1 is found to have stated
that no payments were made digitally. Thereafter. he is
found to have stated that it was sri naveen who was
using the mobile and had used it on that day as well.
The witness again asserts that on 28.08.2021 he had
given the mobile to Sri.Naveen. Now the prosecution
having established a circumstance that the accused had
purchased the knife a couple of days prior to the
incident it was for the accused to explain as to what
happened with the knife purchased on that day and the
purpose for which he had purchased it. Moreover, the
accused was not working with Medplus at or about the
time of the alleged incident. In the absence of a probable
35 S.C.No.1627/2021
explanation regarding the purchase of knife this shall be
considered as one of the strongest circumstance against
the accused. During the cross examination it was
elicited that there are CCTV cameras installed in the
super market and the super markets would be flooded
by customers everyday. The witness admits that the
cashier in the super market would mention the name
stated by the customer. However, it is not made clear as
to the purpose for which an individual would state the
name of the accused. It is also not clear as to the malice
intention against the accused that prompted the
individual to state the name of the accused. Therefore,
the seizure of the documents at Ex.P.13 and 14 in the
presence of the accused under Ex.P.12 is established by
the prosecution. On the contrary, the accused has not
been able to sufficiently explain the purpose for which
the purchase was made. Be that as it may it is not the
36 S.C.No.1627/2021
testimony of the accused alone that is considered for
appreciating the case put forth by the prosecution.
24. P.W.8, Sri.Anil is a manager at the Medplus
working for 7 years in the capacity of a manager. This
witness is found to have deposed similar to the other
employees examined by the prosecution. This witness
also would not profess to be an eye witness. The witness
had heard from other employees. During the cross
examination it was elicited through this witness that
there were about 500 employees amongst them 450 was
given lodging facility. According to this witness, when he
was in the police station C.W.1 and 3 were not with
him. The police were already present in the hospital by
the time this witness reached the hospital. C.W.19 to 24
had informed this witness regarding the incident.
37 S.C.No.1627/2021
25. P.W.9, Sri.Ravindra Prasad who is acquainted
with Hindi. Hence, the deposition of this witness was
recorded with the assistance of a translator. This
witness claims to be employed in the Medplus and the
accused was his roommate. According to this witness,
the accused had informed him of the affair with the
deceased. During the cross examination it was elicited
through this witness that he had come to know of the
affairs between the accused and the deceased as the
inmates of the residential building used to talk about it
he had gained knowledge. The remaining part of the
cross examination would confine to the denial of the
statement made during the examination in chief. Apart
from this nothing much appears to have been elicited
through this witness to hold that there were other
circumstances that could probablise the killing of the
38 S.C.No.1627/2021
deceased. The husband of the deceased is not in the
picture at all at or about the time of the incident.
26. P.W.10, Dr.Punitha claims to have been
working since 2015 as professor in the department of
forensic medicine and toxicology R.R.Nagar medical
college. On 31.08.2021, the witness/ expert claims to
have received requisition from the Kengeri police to
conduct autopsy over the mortal remains of the
deceased. The witness claims to have conducted
postmortem of Smt.Anitha aged about 23 years with
history of murder. The postmortem was conducted
between 11.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., there were as many
as 11 traces of injuries of various natures on the body of
the deceased. The injuries constituted incised wound
and abrasion. The death was due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. Ex.P.15 is
the postmortem report and Ex.P.15(a). The witness also
39 S.C.No.1627/2021
identifies M.O.1 to 7. The witness had no occasion to
see M.O.1 and 2 before her opinion was obtained. The
other part of the cross examination are confined to
denial of the process of autopsy in the form of
suggestions that are found to have been denied by the
witness.
27. P.W.11, Mr. Mohammad Ahmad Faraz claims
to have purchased the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
01-F-8514. The witness had identified his signature on
the notice at Ex.P.16. The signature of the witness is at
Ex.P.16(a). The bus was parked at the spot where the
alleged incident had taken place. Ex.P.17 is the receipt.
The witness had identified the bus in the photographs
at Ex.P.4(a). The receipt is in the name of Arhan
Enterprises and the witness claims to be its sole
proprietor. However, there are no documents to show
that Arhan Enterprises is being managed by this
40 S.C.No.1627/2021
witness. Be that as it may the question is here is in
respect of the spot and not the ownership of the bus.
28. P.W.12, Sri.Srinivas is a witness to Ex.P.18,
notice and signature of the witness is at Ex.P.18(a). The
witness claims to be the owner of the building No.65
where the deceased and other women employees were
residing. Similarly the accused and his companions
were residing. According to this witness, the tenants
were originally from Andhra Pradesh and were employed
in a pharmaceutical company. He was informed of an
affair between two employees and one of them had
taken the woman outside and killed her. This witness is
not an eye witness and the prosecution had not
projected him to be so. The witness only reveals the
name of tenants as Sri.Harikrishna and Sri.Venkatesh.
About 6 months prior to the alleged incident
Sri.Harikrishna is said to have approached this witness
41 S.C.No.1627/2021
and informed him of one of the inmates vacating the
room and had therefore sought for proportional
reduction in the quantum of rent. The witness identifies
the deceased in Ex.P.5. Ex.P.19 is the photograph
identified by this witness. Ex.P.20 is the rent agreement.
29. The witness was cross examined by the
learned Public Prosecutor on permission. The
suggestions made to this witness are found to have been
denied by him. Ex.P.21 is the contradiction in the
previous statement of the witness said to have been
recorded during investigation under section 161 of the
code of criminal procedure. According to this witness, a
separate rent agreement was executed with
Sri.Harikrishna which is neither secure nor produced.
The witness Sri.Harikrishna is found to have not
whispered regarding the agreement with this witness.
However the witness, Sri.Harikrishna P.W.4 has given
42 S.C.No.1627/2021
accounts of stay with the accused and his relationship
with the deceased.
30. P.W.13, Dr.Gunjan a medical officer claims to
have worked at the B.G.S Global Hospital for the period
between 2014 and 2023. The witness had deposed
regarding the fact that she had examined the deceased,
Smt.Anitha brought with the history of assault by
husband and had noticed injuries on the body of the
deceased. The deceased was in a very critical state and
was treated at the hospital. The deceased had failed to
respond to the treatment and had succumbed to the
injuries. The witness claims to have issued MLC
intimation at Ex.P.22. The deceased was initially taken
to the R.R.Nagar Medical College and there she was
referred to this hospital. The person accompanying the
deceased had introduced himself as the husband of the
deceased. Ex.P.23 is the intimation and Ex.P.24 are the
43 S.C.No.1627/2021
medical records. Smt.Chaithra and this witness claim to
have treated the deceased. The witness asserts that the
contents of Ex.P.23 are in her handwriting. There was
no possibility of the deceased responding to the
treatment.
31. P.W.15, Sri.Siddappa Kenganavar, P.S.I
claims to have discharged duties as P.S.I in Kengeri
Police Station between 2021 and 2024. On 30.08.2021
at 9.30 a.m while in charge of the police station had
received first information statement at Ex.P.1 from
C.W.1 and registered case in Cr.No.315/2021. Ex.P.1(b)
is the signature of this witness. Ex.P.46 is the first
information report and Ex.P.46(a) is the signature of the
witness. It was elicited through this witness that C.W.1
was not acquainted with Kannada. However, it must be
appreciated that even while deposing no assistance of
translator was taken and therefore he was in a position
44 S.C.No.1627/2021
to understand Kannada. The remaining part of the cross
examination were confined to denial of the process of
investigation. The suggestions were all denied by the
witness.
32. P.W.14, Sri.Vasanth, Dy.S.P Lokayuktha
claims to have discharged duties as P.I in Kengeri police
station for the period between 2020 and 2022. On
30.08.2021, C.W.48 had received the first information
statement tendered by C.W.1 and registered a case in
Cr.No.315/2021. The witness had identified the
signature of C.W.48 on Ex.P.1 at Ex.P.1(b). Ex.P.25 is
the first information report and Ex.P.25(a) is the
signature of the witness. He had deputed C.W.41 and
47 for tracing and apprehending the accused. The
witness had then proceeded to the B.G.S Global
Hospital and found that the deceased was a native of
Andhra Pradesh. The witness claims to have arranged to
45 S.C.No.1627/2021
secure relatives of the deceased. The dead body was
sent to the R.R.Nagar Medical College. He had then
visited the spot, secured the presence of C.W.2 and 3.
The witness claims to have conducted spot panchanama
at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2(d) is the signature of the witness.
Ex.P.6 is the notice and Ex.P.6(c) is the signature of this
witness. The contents of Ex.P.2 are said to have been
written by Sri.Shivahuchaiah, A.S.I and had identified
his signature. Ex.P.2(e) is the signature of the A.S.I.
M.O.1 to 5 were caused to be seized under Ex.P.2.
M.O.1(c) to 5(c) are the signature of this witness. He
claims to have recorded the statement of C.W.44.
33. The accused was then traced apprehended
and produced before this witness. C.W.47 is said to
have tendered a report. Ex.P.26 is the report and
Ex.P.26(a) and (b) are the signatures of C.W.47 and this
witness respectively. He had recorded the statement of
46 S.C.No.1627/2021
C.W.41. The witness claims to have recorded the
statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Ex.P.27 is the statement, Ex.P.27(a) and
(b) are the signatures of this witness and left thumb
impression of the accused. He had then secured C.W.4
and 5 caused notice to be served on them. Ex.P.28 is
the notice and Ex.P.28(a) to (c) are the signatures of this
witness and C.W.4 and 5 respectively. Ex.P.29 is the
panchanama and Ex.P.29(a) is the signature of the
witness. The signatures of C.W.4 and 5 are at Ex.P.29(b)
and (c). Ex.P.29(d) is the signature of the author of the
document, Sri.Shivahuchaiah, A.S.I. M.O.11 to 14 are
said to have been seized at the spot shown by the
accused based on the statement made by him.
M.O.11(a) to 14(a) are the signatures of this witness. At
the time of drawing up of panchanama a rough sketch
was prepared and photographs were taken. Ex.P.3(a)
47 S.C.No.1627/2021
and 4(c) are the signatures of this witness. On
31.08.2021, this witness claims to have secured the
presence of C.W.6 to 8 and had drawn inquest
panchanama. Ex.P.30 is the notice and Ex.P.30(a) to (d)
are the signatures of this witness and C.W.6 to 8.
Ex.P.31 is the inquest panchanama and Ex.P.31(a) to (d)
are the signatures of this witness and C.W.6 to 8. Ex.P.5
are the photographs taken at the time of inquest
panchanama. Ex.P.5(a) is the signature of the witness.
He had recorded the statement of C.W.9 to 12. Ex.P.32
is the receipt for having delivered the mortal remains of
the deceased after the autopsy. Ex.P.32(a) is the
signature of the witness. The witness claims to have
secured C.W.13 to 15 in whose presence panchanama
was drawn at Ex.P.7. Ex.P.7(b) to (d) are the signatures
of this witness and C.W.13 to 15. Ex.P.7(e) is the
signature of Sri.Shivahuchaiah. Ex.P.8 and 9 are the
48 S.C.No.1627/2021
photographs and Ex.P.9(a) is the signature of the
witness.
34. The witness had then secured C.W.16 to 18
and caused notice to be served on them. Ex.P.33 is the
notice and Ex.P.33(a) to (c) are the signature of this
witness and C.W.16 to 18. Ex.P.34 is the panchanama
and Ex.P.34(a) is the signature of the witness. Ex.P.34(b)
to (d) are the signatures of C.W.16 to 18. Ex.P.34(e) is
the signature of Sri.Shivahuchaiah. Ex.P.19(a) and 18(b)
are the signatures of the witness. C.W.36 had produced
rent agreement at Ex.P.20. Ex.P.20(a) is the signature of
the witness. The witness had then caused notice to be
served on C.W.31 to produce documents for having sold
knife to the accused. Ex.P.35 is the notice and
Ex.P.35(a) and (b) are the signatures of this witness and
C.W.31. On 01.09.2021, the witness claims to have
recorded statements of C.W.19 and 20. The witness
49 S.C.No.1627/2021
claims to have secured certificate under Section 65 B of
the Indian Evidence Act for having taken the
photographs. Ex.P.36 is the certificate and Ex.P.36(a)
and (b) are the signatures of this witness and C.W.46.
On 02.09.2021, the witness claims to have recorded the
statements of C.W.21 to 23. On 04.09.2021, the witness
claims to have recorded the statement of C.W.28 to 30.
On 06.09.2021, for the second time notice was caused
to be served on C.W.31.
35. On 07.09.2021, the witness claims to have
sent requisition for preparing sketch of the spot.
Ex.P.37 is the requisition and Ex.P.37(a) is the signature
of the witness. The witness claims to have made
requisition to the D.C.P for securing the CDR, CIF
report in respect of the mobiles used by the accused
and the deceased. Ex.P.38 is the requisition and
Ex.P.38(a) is the signature of the witness. The witness
50 S.C.No.1627/2021
claims to have made requisition to the depot manager
KSRTC in respect of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-
8514. Ex.P.39 is the requisition. On 08.09.2021, C.W.40
is said to have produced postmortem report and clothes
found on the body of the deceased in a sealed cover.
Ex.P.15 is the postmortem report and Ex.P.15(b) is the
signature of the witness. M.O.6 to 10 are the articles.
On 10.09.2021, the witness claims to have recorded the
statement of C.W.37. On 11.09.2021, C.W.31 is said to
have appeared in the police station to produce
documents. The witness claims to have secured C.W.22
and 23 and caused notice to be served on them. Ex.P.11
is the notice and Ex.P.11(c) is the signature of the
witness. Ex.P.13 and 14 were caused to be seized under
Ex.P.12. Ex.P.12(c) is the signature of the witness.
Ex.P.13(a) and 14(a) are the signatures of this witness.
On 14.09.2021, claims to have sent the articles to the
51 S.C.No.1627/2021
FSL through C.W.43. Ex.P.40 is the requisition and
Ex.P.40(a) is the signature. Ex.P.41 is the
acknowledgement and Ex.P.41(a) is the signature of the
witness.
36. On 15.09.2021, the witness claims to have
received Ex.P.17. Ex.P.17(a) is the signature of the
witness. On 15.11.2021, the witness claims to have
received a letter along with the sketch. Ex.P.42 is the
letter and Ex.P.42(a) is the signature of the witness.
Ex.P.43 is the sketch and Ex.P.43(a) is the signature of
the witness. Ex.P.44 is the photograph and Ex.P.44(a) is
the signature of the witness. The witness claims to have
received medical records from the hospital at Ex.P.24.
awaiting FSL report as the investigation was complete
police report with materials gathered was filed. Ex.P.45
is the FSL report and Ex.P.45(a) is the signature of the
52 S.C.No.1627/2021
witness. The witness asserts that P.W.12 had made a
statement under Ex.P.21.
37. Ex.P.7 is the panchanama drawn on
31.08.2021 between 10.20 a.m and 11.00 a.m. The
accused had led the police and the two panch witnesses
to the spot where the alleged incident had taken place.
Ex.P.8 and 9 are the photographs said to have been
taken when Ex.P.7 was drawn. The panchanama does
not contain endorsement or recitals as to who and using
which gadget the photographs were taken. The
panchanama also does not contain the signature of the
Siddaiah, A.S.I. be that as it may the A.S.I has
furnished certificate under section 65 B of the Indian
Evidence Act. The same is at Ex.P.36. The certificate
does not specify the particulars of the gadget used for
taking photographs and developing the same. Even
without the photographs the recitals in the
53 S.C.No.1627/2021
panchanama are sufficient to hold that the document
was drawn at the spot. Ex.P.11 is the notice caused to
be served on C.W.32 and 33 on 11.09.2021. Ex.P.12 is
the panchanama drawn at the Crown Villagia Super
market. This is based on the statement of the accused
made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.13 would reveal the name of the purchaser as
Sri.Venkatesh Kamanur and the name of the accused
also is Sri.Venkatesh Kamanur. The article purchased
as a knife for Rs.80-00. Ex.P.14 is the receipt for having
received the payment of Rs.80-00 online from UPI ID
No.9916**** 02. Ex.P.19 are the two photographs taken
at the super market at the time of drawing up of
panchanama at Ex.P.12.
38. According to Ex.P.15, the death of the
deceased was due to shock and Hemorrhage due to
54 S.C.No.1627/2021
injuries sustained. The injuries found on the body of the
deceased were opined to be ante mortem.
39. Ex.P.16 is the notice and Ex.P.17 is the
receipt issued by the assistant accounts officer KSRTC
Bengaluru on 18.08.2021. the receipt is in the name of
Arhaan Enterprises.
40. Ex.P.18 is the notice served on Sri.Srinivas
through his son Sri.Abhishek for production of rent
agreement. Ex.P.20 is the copy of the rent agreement 11
months executed on 05.09.2020 between Sri.Srinivas
and Smt.Leelavthi D/o K.M.Rajendra Prasad.
41. Ex.P.22 is the medico legal case report issued
by the BGS Global hospital on 30.08.2021 by
Dr.Srikanth. The deceased was brought by
Sri.Venkatesh relationship with the deceased is shown
to be husband. The deceased was brought with the
55 S.C.No.1627/2021
history of assault by husband and homicidal injury in
the form of cut injury over the throat with a knife. It is
not the defence of the accused that the name of the
husband of the deceased was Sri.Venkatesh. There is no
suggestion to the effect that the name of the husband of
the deceased was Sri.Venkatesh. On the contrary, the
accused is found to have throughout maintained that he
had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Ex.P.23
also would mention the name of Sri.Venkatesh as
husband.
42. According to the report at Ex.P.26, the
accused was apprehended and produced before the
investigating officer at 2.30 p.m on 30.08.2021. The
statement of the accused was recorded under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 30.08.2021. Ex.P.29 is
the panchanama drawn on 30.08.2021 between 3.00
p.m and 4.00 p.m.
56 S.C.No.1627/2021
43. Ex.P.31 is the inquest panchanama and
column VII enlists injuries found on the body of the
deceased. These injuries are also found to be enlisted in
postmortem report at Ex.P.15.
44. Ex.P.34 is the panchanama drawn for having
seized documents at Ex.P.13 and 14. This panchanama
was drawn on 31.08.2021 between 11.00 a.m and 11.40
a.m in the presence of panch witnesses.
45. Ex.P.45 is the FSL report where the clothes of
the accused and that of the deceased had blood stains
that were detected to belong to group 'A'. These
circumstances would clearly establish the nexus
between the accused and the deceased. The injuries
found on the body of the deceased that were ante
mortem are not self inflicted. The injuries are opined by
the expert to be homicidal in nature and the injuries
were in fact the cause for the death of the deceased.
57 S.C.No.1627/2021
Considering the materials placed on record and in the
light of the discussion made in the foregoing
paragraphs, I have answered the points No.1 & 2 in the
Affirmative.
46. Point No.3 : With these discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
To hear on sentence on
30.05.2025
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of May, 2025) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE I have heard both regarding the sentence. The learned prosecutor has submitted that accused is held guilty for an offence punishable Sec.302 of IPC. He requested maximum 58 S.C.No.1627/2021 punishment and maximum fine in view of the barbarity with which the consequences of death was committed.
2. Heard and perused the records. Under the circumstances, the court is left with the following option:
ORDER Acting U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and also liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable Sec. 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Furnish the free copy of Judgment to accused and complainant forthwith.
Intimate the same to Jail Authorities for necessary action.
Copy of the Judgment shall sent to the District Magistrate as per Sec.365 Cr.P.C.
Copies of the Judgment shall also be furnished to the authorities as per Rule 59 S.C.No.1627/2021 7(1) under Chapter 8 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice.
(Balachandra N Bhat) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sudharshan Reddy P.W.2 : Sudhakara Reddy P.W.3 : Preetham Kumar P.W.4 : Songa Harikrishna P.W.5 : Amjali P.W.6 : Leelavathi P.W.7 : Diwakar P.W.8 : Anil P.W.9 : Ravi Prasad P.W.10 : Dr.Puneetha P.W.11 : Mohammed Ahmed Faraz P.W.12 : Srinivas P.W.13 : Dr.Gunjan P.W.14 : Vasantha C. P.W.15 : Siddappa B. Kenganavar II. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a-d) : Signatures of witnesses
60 S.C.No.1627/2021
Ex.P.2 : Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.2(a to e) : Signatures of witnesses
Ex.P.3 : Rough sketch
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.4 : Photographs
Ex.P.4(a) : Photographs
Ex.P.5 : Photographs
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.6 : Notice
Ex.P.6(a to c) : Signatures of witnesses
Ex.P.7 : Panchanama
Ex.P.7(a to c) : Signatures of the witnesses
Ex.P.8 : Photograph
Ex.P.9 : Photograph
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.10 : Accused photo
Ex.P.11 : Notice
Ex.P.11(a to c) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.12 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.12(a to c) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.13 : Super Market bill Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.14 : Paytm print Ex.P.15 : Postmortem Report Ex.P.15(a&b) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.16 : Notice Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.17 : Receipt Ex.P.18 : Notice Ex.P.18(a) : Phone number of C.W.12 son Ex.P.19 : Photograph Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.20 : Rent agreement Ex.P.20(a) : Signature of witness 61 S.C.No.1627/2021 Ex.P.21 : Statement of P.W.12 Ex.P.22 : Medico Legal Case Report Ex.P.23 : Police intimation Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.24 : Medical documents Ex.P.25 : FIR Ex.P.25(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.26 : Statement Ex.P.26(a&b) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.27 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.27(a&b) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.28 : Notice Ex.P.28(a to c) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.29 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.29(a to d) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.30 : Notice Ex.P.30(a to d) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.31 : Postmortem Report Ex.P.31(a to d) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.32 : Acknowledgment letter Ex.P.33 : Notice Ex.P.33(a to c) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.34 : Panchanama Ex.P.34(a to e) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.35 : Notice Ex.P.35(a & b) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.36 : Certificate u/Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.37 : Letter to Assistant Executive Engineer Ex.P.37(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.38 : Letter to Deputy Commissioner of Police Ex.P.38(a) : Signature of witness 62 S.C.No.1627/2021 Ex.P.39 : Letter to Manager of KSRTC Ex.P.40 : Letter to Director of FSL Ex.P.40(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.41 : Acknowledgment letter from FSL Ex.P.41(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.42 : Letter from Assistant Executive Engineer Ex.P.42(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.43 : Sketch Ex.P.43(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.44 : Photograph Ex.P.44(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.45 : FSL Report Ex.P.45(a) : Signature of witness III. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Venkatesh Kamanuru IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 : Blood stained knife
M.O.1(a&b) : Signatures of the witnesses
M.O.2 : Handle of M.O.1
M.O.2(a to c) : Signatures of the witnesses
M.O.3 : One pair of slipper
63 S.C.No.1627/2021
M.O.3(a to c) : Signatures of the witnesses M.O.4 : Blood stained soil M.O.4(a to c) : Signatures of witnesses M.O.5 : Soil M.O.5(a to c) : Signatures of the witnesses M.O.6 : Maroon colour dupatta M.O.7 : Pant M.O.7(a) : Signature of witness M.O.8 : Inner wear M.O.8(a) : Signature of witness M.O.9 : Inner wear M.O.9(a) : Signature of witness M.O.10 : Chudidar Top M.O.10(a) : Signature of witness M.O.11 : Shirt M.O.12 : Jeans Pant M.O.13 : Baniyan M.O.14 : Mask M.O.11(a) to 14(a) : Signatures of witnesses.
(Balachandra N Bhat) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.