Bangalore District Court
Thyagarajnagara P.S vs Vishnu Alias Bhoja on 16 January, 2025
KABC010027302014
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 16th day of January, 2025
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Mala N.D.,
BAL., LL.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 1256/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by Thyagarajanagara Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By : Public prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED : 1) Vishnu @ Bhoja,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No. 85/1, Radhakrishna
Swamiji Road, 1st Block,
Thyagarajanagara, Bengaluru.
2) Shivaraja @ Shiva,
S/o Gangaraju,
2 S.C. No.1256/2015
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No. 14, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross Road,
Dalappa Temple Road,
Nagasandra,
Bengaluru.
3) Rakesha @ Raki,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No. 85/1, Radhakrishna
Swamiji Road, 1st Block,
Thyagarajanagara,
Bengaluru.
4) Prasanna @ Mosaru,
(Split up)
(By : Sri D.M.P., Advocate for A-2
and A-3
Sri K.T., Advocate for A-2)
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1) Occurence of the offence : 21.05.2015 -
and time 21.25
2) Report of the offence and : 22.05.2015
time 8.30 hours
3) Name of the complainant : Sri Nagaraju
3 S.C. No.1256/2015
4) Date of commencement of : 16.07.2016
trial
5) Date of closure of trial : 19.09.2023
6) Offences complained of : Sections 341, 323 and
307 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC
7) Opinion of the Judge : Found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police sub-Inspector of Thyagarajanagara Police Station has submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323 and 307 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC before the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
On 21.05.2015 at about 9.30 p.m. when the complainant was at main road Nagasandra, he heard 4 S.C. No.1256/2015 the noise of galata near HDFC Bank, he came to the said spot, saw his relative Bheemesh lying on the ground, with the help of one Chandra he took him in a autorickshaw, came near Srinivasaraya Road in front of one Mohan Spirit shop and got down from the autorickshaw, by that time accused Nos.1 to 4 along with a child in-conflict with law wrongfully restrained them, accused No.1 assaulted on CW.1's neck and attempted to take away his life, he raised his hands to avoid the blow and sustained injuries on his right hand, complainant tried to rescue CW.2 Bheemesh by that time accused No.2 having snatched the knife from accused No.1 and assaulted on CW.1's left hand, during that time CW.1 pushed accused No.2 being enraged accused No.2 posing life threat stabbed on his stomach and attempted to take away his life. Since, 5 S.C. No.1256/2015 CW.1 stepped back he sustained lesser injury, by that time public started gathering and on seeing them accused ran away from the spot, in this regard complainant Nagaraj after obtaining treatment lodged complaint on 22.01.2015 at about 8.30 p.m. Based on the said complaint this case came to be registered against accused persons in Cr.No.75/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, I.O. visited the place of incident, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.4 in the presence of CW.4 - Manjunath and CW.5 Surya, he seized blood stained clothes of complainant and subjected them under P.F. No.23/2015, he recorded the statements of witnesses, appointed his officials to apprehend the accused persons. Accordingly, 6 S.C. No.1256/2015 they were apprehended and produced before him along with a report, collected wound certificate of CW.1 and CW.2 from KIMS Hospital as per Exs.P.8 to P.10, recorded further statement of CW.1 and after completion of investigation, having of the opinion that there is prima-facie case against the accused persons filed charge sheet for the above mentioned offences.
4. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against accused Nos.1 to 4 by the learned Magistrate, thereafter a criminal case against accused persons was registered in C.C. No.24685/2015 on the file of VIII ACJM, Bengaluru, since offences alleged against the accused persons are exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the same was committed to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge.
7 S.C. No.1256/2015
5. After committal, the case is registered as S.C. No.1256/2015, Prosecution opened the case as required u/s 226 of Cr.P.C., heard the learned counsel for the accused persons, no grounds made out to discharge the accused persons. Hence, charge against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323 and 307 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC was framed, its contents read over and explained to accused persons, they denied the charges levelled against them and claims to be tried.
6. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against accused Nos.1 to 4, prosecution in all has cited as many as 14 witnesses and among them successfully examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked 16 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.16, 8 S.C. No.1256/2015 identified 3 material objects at MO.1 to MO.3. In spite giving sufficient opportunities CW.5, CW.6 and CW.8 have not been secured before this court, hence their evidence has been dropped and thereby prosecution closes its side evidence.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused persons have complied Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., statements of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and they have denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against them and not chosen to lead their side defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the available materials on record.
9 S.C. No.1256/2015
9. The points do arise for my determination are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 21.05.2015 at about 9.15 p.m., within the limits of Thyagarajanagara police station, when CW.1 to CW.3 came in an autorickshaw in front of premises of building No.66, Mohan Spirit Shop accused Nos.1 to 3 along with split up accused No.4 and a child in conflict-with-
law by name Nandakumar in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained them with an intention of committing an offence, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341 r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, under aforesaid circumstances accused Nos.1 to 3 along with split up accused No.4 and child in conflict-with-law by name Nandakumar in furtherance of common intention of committing offence came back side and caught hold them, meanwhile accused No.1 assaulted CW.2 Bheemesh with knife 10 S.C. No.1256/2015 with an intention of causing injury on his person, at that time CW.2 in order to escape raised his hands in the process, accused No.1 assaulted on CW.2 left hand, due to which he sustained bleeding injury, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 324 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
3) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, under aforesaid circumstances in furtherance of common intention accused Nos.1 to 3 along with split up accused No.4 and child in conflict-with-law by name Nandakumar in furtherance of common intention of committing offence causing hurt to CW.1 when he tried to rescue CW.2, accused No.2 took knife and assaulted CW.1 -
Nagaraj, due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand and again accused No.2 assaulted CW.1 -
Nagaraj, when he tried to push accused No.2, he being enraged assaulted him with knife on his stomach with an intention to cause his death, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w Sec.
34 of IPC?
4) What Order ?
11 S.C. No.1256/2015
10. On appreciation of evidence, documents and for the foregoing reasons, my findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative;
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: In the Negative;
Point No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1: It is the specific case of the
prosecution that the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with a child in-conflict with law assaulted CW.1 and CW.2 on 21.05.2015. It is specifically alleged that on 21.05.2015 at about 9.20 p.m. when complainant was near Anjaneya Temple of Nagasandra Main Road, he heard the noise near HDFC ATM, he went to the said 12 S.C. No.1256/2015 spot, he saw his relative Bheemesha i.e., CW.2 lying down, he lifted him up with the help of CW.3 Chandru, took him into his auto, on questioning, he was informed that accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted him, therefore, he went to accused persons along with CW.2 and CW.3 in his auto to question the accused persons for the assault of CW.2, as such, they went near one spirit shop, when they got down from the auto and looking for accused persons, accused No.1 assaulted CW.2 with a knife, when he tried to escape he sustained injuries on his left hand. During that time, CW.1 came inbetween and tried to rescue CW.2, by that time he was assaulted by accused No.2 on his left hand with a knife and thereby during that time when CW.1 pushed accused No.2, he being enraged once again stabbed on his stomach and thereby 13 S.C. No.1256/2015 attempted to commit his murder. Thereafter, by hearing their hue and cry public gathered, as such accused fled away from the spot. During this process CW.3 was also assaulted by accused persons. Therefore, the complainant and CW.2 went to the hospital, obtained treatment and on the next day at morning 8.30 lodged complaint.
12. On this back ground, prosecution has cited as many as 14 witnesses and succeeded in examining 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11, complainant Nagaraj is examined as PW.2, injured and eye witness Bheemesh is examined as PW.3, another eye witness Chandrashekhar is examined as PW.4, police officials who stated to have apprehended accused persons are examined as PW.1, 8 and 10, spot mahazar witness Manjunatha and seizure mahazar witness Subhash are examined as PW.5 and 14 S.C. No.1256/2015 PW.7, eye witnesses Perumal is examined as PW.6, medical officer is examined as PW.9 and I.O. is examined as PW.11. The prosecution also relied on the documents such as complaint at Ex.P.1, statement and further statement of CW.3 at Exs.P.2 and P.3, seizure mahazar and spot mahazars at Exs.P.4 and P.7, wound certificates at Exs.P.9 and P.10, FIR at Ex.P.14, statement of witnesses etc., and also got identified 3 material objects as MO.1 to MO.3.
13. In this back ground it is necessary to go through the evidence of all the witnesses, complainant Nagaraj is examined as PW.2, he has deposed that CW.2 - Bheemesh was his brother, he knew the accused persons, he also identified the accused persons, he has deposed that, about two years back at about 9.15 when he was coming in a two wheeler he 15 S.C. No.1256/2015 asked the accused persons to leave place in order to proceed further by making horn, for which they abused him in filthy language, thereafter on the same day they picked up quarrel with CW.2 - Bheemesh, accused No.2 was about to cut CW.1's neck with a knife, he escaped by raising his hand and sustained blood injury on his hand, by that time he intervened to pacify the matter, during that process accused No.1 Vishnu stabbed him on his right side stomach, he sustained injuries. Therefore, himself and his brother went to Kempegowda Hospital, obtained treatment and accordingly lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 on the next day, he identified the same.
14. Thereafter, on the next day of court hearing this witness has further deposed in detail as per the contents of Ex.P.1 stating that at about 9.20 p.m. near 16 S.C. No.1256/2015 SBI ATM his relative CW.2 was assaulted and he fell down in that assault, by that time, he came to the spot saw his relative lying on the road, he made him to drink water with the help of CW.3, he lifted him, he inquired him and came to know that accused No.1 caused assault on his neck. Based on his complaint, police conducted mahazar as such he affixed signature, he was very much present, during mahazar, police seized his clothes i.e., under garments during panchanama, he also identified the knife allegedly involved in the commission of offence.
15. Further, this PW.2 was partially treated hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination he has admitted that the incident is occurred near HDFC Bank ATM situated near Anjaneya Temple, on 25.09.2015, he having learnt about the assault on 17 S.C. No.1256/2015 CW.2, he along with CW.2 and CW.3 went to Mohan Spirit Shop as to ask the accused persons about the incident and when they reached Mohan Spirit shop and got down from his auto, they were attacked by accused persons, accused No.1 once again tried to assault CW.2 by a knife on his neck, he raised his hand in order to escape, as such he sustained the injury on his right hand, by that time this PW.1 went to rescue CW.2, as such accused No.2 Shiva stabbed him on his stomach with a knife. They were assaulted by accused Nos.1 to 4, since public gathered all the accused persons fled away from the spot. This witness was cross-examined by the defence counsel. During his cross-examination he has stated that he do not know to read and write except making signature. In his cross-examination this complainant has admitted that CW.2 Bheemesh was 18 S.C. No.1256/2015 lying in front of SBI ATM on Nagasandra main Road, which is a densed placed, where there are several shops.
16. It is admitted that at the time of incident complainant and CW.2 and CW.3 - Chandru were very much present. When the defence counsel questioned this witness as to who lodged the complaint before the police, this witness has repeatedly stated that it was CW.2 lodged the complaint before the police. From the evidence of this witness it can be noticed that the alleged place of incident is a highly densed and commercially busy place. From the chief examination of the complainant it can be noticed that at one instance he stats that he was assaulted by accused No.1 Vishnu on his left portion of stomach and in his cross- examination he has stated that accused No.2 by 19 S.C. No.1256/2015 snatching the knife from accused No.1 stabbed him on his stomach. Apart from cross-examination, the chief examination of this witness itself is contrary. At one stretch, he says that he was assaulted by accused No.1, at another stretch he says he was assaulted by accused No.2. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1 it is not clear who has caused assault on him.
17. It is also to be noted that, at first instance this witness has deposed that CW.2 Bheemesh was lying on the road due to assault by some unknown persons, at later stage he says that he was assaulted by accused Nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, alleged first incident of assault, on CW.2 Bheemesh was in front of HDFC Bank ATM. However, no mahazar is drawn on the said place of incident.
20 S.C. No.1256/2015
18. PW.3 - Bheemesh is the brother of complainant. It is the specific case of the prosecution that since accused Nos.2 and 3 have assaulted this PW.3 - Bheemesh on the alleged place of incident he was lying in front of the HDFC Bank ATM, as such complainant rushed to the spot, inquired him and came to know that he was assaulted by accused Nos.1 to 3 and then he went in search of accused persons and reached Mohan Spirit Shop and it is there CW.1 and CW.2 both were attacked by accused No.s 1 to 4, as a result, they sustained grievous injuries as alleged. This witness identified the accused persons. At first instance, he has deposed that, about two years back, he was coming from his house some unknown person had assaulted him by a knife, he has stated that the accused persons who were present in the court hall 21 S.C. No.1256/2015 were not the persons who assaulted him on the said day of incident, he pleaded his ignorance about his statement given before the police and also failed to identify MO.3 knife before the court.
19. On the next day of hearing, this witness has completely supported the case of prosecution by deposing that CW.1 is his brother and C W.3 is relative, on 21.05.2015 inbetween 8 to 8.30 near HDFC Bank ATM accused Nos.2 and 3 under the influence of alcohol on the street were creating nuisance, as such he warned them not to do such acts, therefore he was assaulted by them. When public gathered, accused Nos.2 and 3 escaped. Thereafter, CW.1 Nagaraj and CW.3 - Chandra Shekhar came to the spot, he informed them about the quarrel, as such all the three went in search of accused persons, when they reached 22 S.C. No.1256/2015 near Mohan Spirit shop, there they found accused persons, they got down from the auto, during that time accused No.1 stabbed him by a knife on his right hand and CW.1 was stabbed on his stomach by a knife, therefore they went to police station.
20. This PW.3 has further deposed that, he gave statement and further statement before the police. This witness identified accused No.1 and failed to mention the names of accused persons and identified them in the court hall. He identified the signature in the spot mahazar. He was partly cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein he has admitted that he has identified the another child in-conflict with law who is allegedly involved in the incident and admitted that accused No.1 Vishnu tried to assault him on his neck by a knife, by that time he raised his hand, as such he 23 S.C. No.1256/2015 sustained injuries on his left hand and by that time accused No.2 by snatching the knife from accused No.1 stabbed on CW.1's left hand, since CW.1 pushed him he once again stabbed on his stomach.
21. During his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not deposed about smoking and drinking habits of accused persons and he has not lodged any complaint about alleged nuisance used to be caused regularly by accused persons near HDFC Bank ATM. From the evidence of this witness it can be noticed that there are improvisation and contradictions to his statement and denied the suggestion that he was not at all assaulted by the accused persons.
22. PW.4 - Chandra Shekhar is an eye witness to the alleged incident and completely turned hostile and 24 S.C. No.1256/2015 not supported the case of prosecution, nothing substantial has been elicited from the evidence of this witness PW.4. It is to be noticed that PW.3 Bheemesh also remained absent for further cross-examination and chosen to subject himself to complete cross- examination.
23. PW.5 - Manjunath a spot mahazar witness has completely turned hostile not supported the case of prosecution. Similarly, PW.6 Perumal who had given statement before the police about the alleged incident has also turned completely hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
24. Further, PW.7 - Subhash a seizure mahazar witness stated to be present while seizing the knife MO.3 as per Ex.P.3. All these PW.5 to PW.7 completely 25 S.C. No.1256/2015 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Though, the prosecution has cross- examined these witnesses nothing substantial was elicited from the evidence of these witnesses.
25. PW.1 - Lokesh and PW.8 - Shrimantha Rathod are police officials, they have deposed about apprehending of accused Nos.2 and 3 and reporting the same before the station house officer, their cross- examination is nothing but denial. Since, the arrest of these two accused are not in dispute. The evidence of these witnesses do not require much discussion.
26. PW.10 - Annapoorna is the then ASI of Thyagarajanagara police station, she has deposed about recording of voluntary statement of accused Vishnu @ Bhoja and taking him to alleged place of incident as per 26 S.C. No.1256/2015 his voluntary statement and drawing up of panchanama as per Ex.P.7 in the presence of witnesses and subjecting the same under P.F. No.45/2015 and reporting the same. Once again, cross-examination of this witness is entire denial of drawing up of seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.7 and tried to elicit the contrary with respect to the place where MO.3 knife was traced as it was mentioned in Ex.P.7 that it was secured in between the grass in Komala park.
27. PW.9 - Dr Shashidhara is the medical officer who has deposed about giving treatment to the PW.2 - Nagaraja and PW.3 Bheemesh and has opined that injury sustained by both PW.2 and PW.3 are simple in nature, he denied the suggestion of defence counsel that he has issued the wound certificate at the instance of investigation officer. It is also deposed by this medical 27 S.C. No.1256/2015 officer that after obtaining the treatment PW.2 and PW.3 have not visited to him for further treatment.
28. Lastly investigation officer is examined as PW.11, he has deposed in detail right from registration of the case till completion of the investigation and filing of charge sheet by saying that he conducted spot mahazar in the presence of witnesses, seized blood stained clothes of the complainant, recorded statements of mahazar witnesses as well as eye witnesses, deputed the officials for apprehending of accused persons and collected wound certificate and after completion of investigation filing charge sheet against the accused persons on the opinion that there is prima-facie case against them.
29. In the cross-examination this witness pleaded his ignorance as to say whether the spot mahazar witnesses 28 S.C. No.1256/2015 are localites or not and also admitted that he has not conducted any mahazar near HDFC Bank ATM and also not visited the KIMS Hospital, thereafter, denied the suggestion of defence counsel that he has filed a false charge sheet against the accused persons.
30. On over all consideration of the available evidence, it can be observed that there are two incidents on the same day, admittedly the first incident of quarrel was near HDFC Bank ATM, where CW.2 Bheemesh was assaulted by accused Nos.2 and 3 and it is thereafter near Mohan Spirit shop accused Nos.1 to 4 assaults CW.1 to CW.3, where CW.1 and CW.2 i.e., complainant Nagharaj and Bheemesh sustained stab injury and obtained treatment after the injury. The complaint is on the next day morning of the incident. The evidence of this PW.2 is contrary as at one instance he says that he was assaulted by accused No.1 on his stomach and on the later part he 29 S.C. No.1256/2015 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused No.2 on his stomach by a knife. It is to be noted there are variations in the chief examination of complainant with respect to the time of alleged incident. At first instance, he has stated that it was about two years back at 9.15 p.m. and in the next date of chief-examination the time of incident is deposed differently. Thereafter, this witness remained absent and not subjected himself for complete cross-examination.
31. Similarly, injured victim PW.3 - Bheemesh at first instance has shown hostile attitude towards prosecution by saying that he was assaulted by some unknown person and accused were not the persons who assaulted him and PW.2 on the alleged date of incident, he denied for having given the statement before the police also and failed to identify the knife allegedly involved in the commission of offence, thereafter, in the next day of chief examination he has supported the case of prosecution by 30 S.C. No.1256/2015 deposing similar to the version of his statement which is contrary and also improvising the case of prosecution. Even this witness at first instance he deposed that he sustained injury on his right hand by accused Nos.2 and 3 and on his neck by accused No.1, thereafter, in the cross- examination, the learned defence counsel successful in eliciting the contradictions as to the statement before the police to the effect that a child in-conflict with law was involved in the commission of alleged offence as on the date of alleged incident and the said portion is marked as Ex.P.11, he has deposed contrary version to his examination in chief in the cross-examination with respect to the injury sustained by himself and the PW.2. This witness also remained absent before the court and not subjected himself for further cross-examination which clearly shows that the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 are incomplete due to their absence before the court. 31 S.C. No.1256/2015
32. Another eye witness and also who was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons was one Chandra Shekhar. It is the case of the prosecution that he had accompanied CW.1 to the place of incident i.e., to the place where PW.2 - Bheemesh was fell in front of HDFC Bank ATM due to the assault by accused Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, he had accompanied PW.2 and PW.3 to the Mohan Spirit Shop, where he was also subjected to assault by accused Nos.1 to 4, however, this witness has completely turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, as such evidence of this witness is of no use to the case of prosecution.
33. Similarly, the spot mahazar witness is one Manjunath he also turned hostile before the court, one Perumal who is cited to depose about the incident also turned hostile. Thereafter, another seizure mahazar witness 32 S.C. No.1256/2015 as per Ex.P.7 has also turned hostile, as such the evidence of these two witnesses are of no use. The other police official witnesses who have spoken regarding apprehending of accused persons which is not in dispute. I.O. has admitted that he has not conducted mahazar on the alleged place of incident near HDFC Bank ATM and since the prime witnesses who are complainant and injured witnesses remained absent before the court and not subjected themselves for cross-examination, it cannot be said that their evidence is complete. Moreover, both the witnesses at the first instance have not properly supported the case of the prosecution and at the later stage they have deposed contrarily to their earlier version of chief examination. Therefore, much weightage cannot be attached to these prime witnesses.
34. Another eye witness Chandrashekhar turned completely hostile, therefore the evidence of eye witnesses is 33 S.C. No.1256/2015 also not useful to the case of the prosecution. As such, formal evidence of I.O., medical officer and police officials remains for consideration. Since, independent spot mahazar witnesses and seizure mahazar witnesses have completely turned hostile, it cannot be said that the I.O. has established the mahazars drawn by him on the aforementioned dates. Though, both the injured witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution at the first instance, deposed contrary version in their cross- examination, the said conduct of injured made this court to disbelieve their version, as such it cannot be said that the prosecution has convincingly established its case with convincing, cogent and corroborative evidence. Under these circumstances, except the formal evidence of I.O. and medical officer, there is nothing on record to prove the guilt of accused persons for the aforesaid offences due to the absence of material witnesses as well as due to the hostile 34 S.C. No.1256/2015 attitude of mahazar witnesses. Under such circumstances, a serious doubt arises in the mind of the court about genuineness of prosecution story. Therefore, points No.1 to 3 answered in the Negative.
35. POINT NO.4: In view of the above finding on points No.1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that, the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the aforementioned offences. Hence, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Invoking provision u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 341, 323 and 307 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C.35 S.C. No.1256/2015
The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 and their sureties bonds stand cancelled.
Bail bonds executed by accused Nos.2 to 4 u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
MO.1 - Bermuda and MO.2 -
banian seized under P.F. No.23/2015 are ordered to be destroyed being worthless and MO.3 - knife seized under P.F. No.45/2015 is ordered to be confiscated after the appeal period.
Jail authorities are directed to release the accused No.1, after obtaining bail bond and surety bonds u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., if he is not required in any other case.36 S.C. No.1256/2015
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required u/s 365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I / Sr. Sheristedar, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this 16th day of January, 2025) (MALA N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.37 S.C. No.1256/2015
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 : Lokesha PW.2 : Nagaraju PW.3 : Bheemesha PW.4 : Chandrashekhar PW.5 : Manjunatha PW.6 : Perumal PW.7 : Subhash PW.8 : Shrimanth K. Rathod PW.9 : Dr K. Shashidhara PW.10 : Annapoorna PW.11 : B. Shivakumar II. For Defence:- -Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature Ex.P.2 : Portion of statement Ex.P.3 : Re-statement 38 S.C. No.1256/2015 Ex.P.3(a) : Signature Ex.P.4 : Seizure mahazar Exs.P.4(a) : Signatures to (c) Exs.P.5 : Portions of statement and P.6 Ex.P.7 : Spot and seizure mahazar Exs.P.7(a) : Signatures and (b) Ex.P.8 : Portion of statement Exs.P.9 : Wound certificates and P.10 Exs.P.9(a) : Signatures and (b) 10(a) and (b) Ex.P.11 : Portions of statement and P.12 Ex.P.13 : Property Form Ex.P.13(a) : Signature Ex.P.14 : FIR Ex.P.14(a) : Signature Ex.P.15 : Property Form Ex.P.15(a) : Signature Ex.P.16 : Requisition 39 S.C. No.1256/2015 IV. For Defence side:- -Nil-
V. List of material objects marked:-
MO.1 Burmuda
MO.2 Banian
MO.3 Knife
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.