Bangalore District Court
State By Adugodi Police Station vs A.1 Dhananjaya Palamneri on 22 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-65), AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. MADHUSUDHAN B.,
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.878/2011
COMPLAINANT:- State by Adugodi Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: A.1 Dhananjaya Palamneri
(Split up)
2. Hemanth Kumar @ Hemanth @ Hemu,
S/o.Adinarayana,
R/at No.1526,
Anjaneya Gudi Beedi,
2nd Cross, Samrat Layout,
Arakere, Bengaluru.
3. Ravi,
S/o. Nagarajachar,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.11/12,
7th Cross, Lalajinagara,
Lakkasandra, Adugodi,
Bengaluru city.
2 S.C.No.878/2011
1. Date of commission of offence : 18.4.2011
2. Date of report of offence : 18.4.2011
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : A.2 on 20.04.2011
A.3 on 18.04.2011
4. Name of the complainant : Sri.Sharanagouda V.H.
5. Date of recording evidence : 28.3.2012
6. Date of closing evidence : 9.7.2014
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.489-B and 489-C of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.2 & 3 are
Acquitted U/s. 235(1)
of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. K.N.Pyarejan Adv. for A.2
& A.3)
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Adugodi police station, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused for trial of offences punishable U/s. 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C., in Cr.No.104/2011.
3 S.C.No.878/2011
2. Brief facts of this case may be stated as under;
On 18.4.2011 Sub-Inspector of Adugodi Police Station was on patrolling duty along with other police officials, in order to trace out accused in Cr.No.90/2011. When P.S.I. was near Bengaluru Dairy Circle, at about 7.00 p.m., at that time, one person, on seeing police officials tried to escape. Therefore, on suspicion police officials chased and caught hold him. On interrogation he disclosed his name and address as Ravi S/o. Nagarajachar (accused No.3). On further interrogation, P.S.I. came to know that, accused No.3 - Ravi was possessing one counterfeit currency note of denomination of Rs.500/- with its number as No.7AA -798735. On enquiry accused No.3 - Ravi disclosed that, accused No.2 - Hemanth was to pay him an amount of Rs.3,000/-. Thus, said Hemanth has given him that currency note and also 5 other currency notes. Therefore, P.S.I., arrested accused No.3 and took him to police station where he lodged a complaint on behalf of State. On the basis of complaint, case in Cr.No.104/2011 is registered by preparing a F.I.R., alleging commission of offence punishable U/s.489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. Accused No.3 was subjected to further interrogation. On the basis of voluntary statement, Investigating Officer has seized 5 other counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each. Further, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.3, Investigating Officer has arrested accused 4 S.C.No.878/2011 No.2 - Hemanth and recorded his voluntary statement, on the basis of which, 6 other counterfeit currency notes were recovered by preparing mahazar.
3. Investigating Officer concerned has recorded statement of witnesses. Counterfeit currency notices were sent to R.B.I. Note Mudrana (P) Ltd., Mysore to ascertain genuineness or otherwise of suspected currency notes. After obtaining opinion report from Reserve Bank of India, charge sheet is laid against accused showing accused No.1 as absconding. These accused No.2 and 3 were apprehended by police during investigation and remanded to J.C. Thereafter both accused obtained bail. Learned magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences, passed orders for registration of one criminal case against accused for trial of offences punishable U/s.489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. On 28.6.2015 Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of case to court of Sessions, Bengaluru for trial of offences punishable U/s. 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. Thereafter, case against accused is registered as S.C.No.878/2011. After hearing, charges against accused No.2 and 3 were framed which they denied, hence claims to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused prosecution in all cited 10 witnesses. Among them, prosecution got examined 8 witnesses 5 S.C.No.878/2011 as Pw.1 to Pw.8 and 12 documents were got exhibited at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and also got identified 12 counterfeit currency notes marked at Mo.1.
5. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, statement of accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded by giving an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. Accused No.2 and 3 have denied the evidence of the prosecution.
6. Defence of accused No.2 and 3 is of total denial of prosecution case. However, accused No.2 and 3 did not lead their defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of the prosecution side and defence side.
8. On the material placed before this court, the following points that have arisen for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.4.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., near Dairy Circle, Bengaluru city accused No.3 - Ravi N. found in possession of counterfeit currency note of Rs.500 and thereafter accused No.3 found in possession of 5 counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 each in house situated at H.No.11/2012, M.K.Rangaswamy Layout, Lakkasandra, knowing the same to be counterfeit notes and with an intention to use the said notes as genuine currency notes thereby accused No.3 committed offence punishable U/s. 489-C of I.P.C.?6 S.C.No.878/2011
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 19.4.2011 accused No.2-Hemanth found in possession of 6 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.500 each with knowledge that same are counterfeit currency notes and with an intention to use the said notes as genuine currency notes thereby accused No.2 has committed offence punishable U/s. 489-C of I.P.C.?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on or before the above mentioned two days accused No.2 and 3 have received counterfeit currency notes from accused No.1 with knowledge that same are counterfeit currency notes with an intention to circulate those counterfeit currency notes as genuine currency notes, thereby accused No.2 and 3 along with absconding accused No.1 committed offence punishable U/s. 489-B of I.P.C.?
4. To what Order ?
9. 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
10. POINTS NO.1 to 3 :- I have taken these points together to avoid repeated discussions, since these points are interlinked.
11. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued contending that, prosecution has proved the recovery 7 S.C.No.878/2011 of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.2 and 3 through the mouth of Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.6 and Pw.8. He also argued contending that, main ingredients of the offences U/s.489-B and 489-C are proved by the prosecution. Hence, insisted for recording conviction.
12. Per contra learned advocate appearing for accused also vehemently argued contending that, prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges leveled against accused. He further argued contending that, through prosecution witnesses have stated something against accused No.2 and 3 but on strict scrutiny of their version, it is very much clear that, there is no any corroboration between version of Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.6 and Pw.8. He further argued contending that, recovery of counterfeit currency notes as indicated in panchanamas marked at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.9, are not proved by the prosecution. He further argued contending that, if version of Pw.6 is accepted then entire versions of Pw.2 and Pw.3 is to be discarded in which case prosecution neither proved contents of Ex.P.2 nor Ex.P.4. He also argued contending that, main ingredients of the offences alleged against accused neither stated by Pw.1 nor Pw.3. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon decisions reported in 2002 SCC Crime 758, 1992 Crl.L.J. 2102, and another decision reported in (1979) 4 SCC 723.
8 S.C.No.878/2011
13. Keeping these rival contentions and also principles laid down in the above dictums in my mind, I have gone through the material on record. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution Pw.1 is P.S.I. on whose complaint a case against accused No.1 to 3 is registered. Pw.2 and Pw.6 are the panch witnesses for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4. Pw.3 is Police Inspector who registered a case against accused on the complaint of Pw.1 and also conducted investigation. Pw.4 is Deputy Manager of Reserve Bank of India, Mysore. Pw.5 is a police constable who accompanied Pw.1 while conducting patrolling duty on 18.4.2011. Pw.6 is panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4. Pw.7 is another police constable who according to story of prosecution, was deputed to Reserve Bank of India with recovered counterfeit currency notes to obtain opinion about the genuineness or otherwise of seized notes. Pw.8 is panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.9. Thus, it is clear that, prosecution has examined almost all material witnesses except Cw.5, who according to story of the prosecution is another panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.9. Cw.6 is another witness who is serving in Reserve Bank of India, Mudrana (Pvt.) Ltd., at Mysore, but prosecution has not examined this witness. Thus, only two witnesses were not examined by the prosecution.
9 S.C.No.878/2011
14. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is expected to prove the main ingredients of the offences punishable U/s. 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. In this case, prosecution has mainly relying upon testimony of Pw.1 to Pw.3, Pw.6 and Pw.8, who are most material witnesses. Therefore, I have to analyze their evidence.
15. Prosecution is expected to prove the contents of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.9 which are seizure mahazar under which as many as 12 counterfeit currency notes of face value of Rs.500/- each alleged to have been recovered. It is specific case of the prosecution that out of 12 counterfeit currency notes, 6 counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused No.3- Ravi, while remaining 6 counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.2- Hemanth. It is also case of the prosecution that, accused No.2- Hemanth is implicated in this case mainly on the voluntary statement of accused No.3- Ravi. It is specific case of the prosecution that, accused No.1- Dananjaya, who gave counterfeit currency notes to accused No.2 - Hemanth. But accused No.1 is absconding. Therefore, charge sheet is laid against accused No.2 and 3 showing accused No.1 is absconding. As per the case of the prosecution on 18.4.2011 accused No.3 - Ravi was arrested on suspicion and thereafter, after interrogation one counterfeit 10 S.C.No.878/2011 currency note was seized from his possession. On 19.4.2011, five other counterfeit currency notes were seized from one house bearing No.11/1A situated at 4th Cross, M.K. Rangaswamy Layout , Lakkasandra, Adugodi. Ex.P.2 is first seizure mahazar under which one counterfeit currency note of Rs.500/- denomination was recovered from the possession of accused No.3 - Ravi on 18.4.2011. I have gone through the contents of Ex.P.2. I have also gone through the versions of Pw.1 and Pw.2. As already stated Pw.1 is the complainant who was serving as P.S.I., of Adugodi Police Station. Ex.P.1 is the complaint/ Varadhi submitted by Pw.1 and on the basis of Ex.P.1, one case in Cr.No.104/2011 is registered. After registration of the case, Pw.3 started investigation and on 18.4.2011 itself he has recovered one counterfeit currency note from the possession of accused No.3 as indicated in Ex.P.2. But mere marking of panchanama is not conclusive proof of contents of mahazar as well as recovery of counterfeit currency notes. On strict scrutiny of evidence of Pw.3 with version of Pw.2 and Pw.6, I find much variance between their versions. Because as per contents of Ex.P.2, Pw.6- Vijayasimha is the panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.2. Pw.6 in his evidence stated that, four counterfeit currency notes were seized by police in his presence. In his examination-in-chief itself he states that, Ex.P.4 was prepared and conducted and seized four counterfeit currency notes denomination of 11 S.C.No.878/2011 RS.500/- each from the possession of accused No.2- Hemanth. But infact, as per the case of prosecution, five counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.3 - Ravi as indicated in Ex.P.4. Even without going through the cross-examination of Pw.6, I can safely come to the conclusion that version of Pw.2 and Pw.3 is to be discarded, if evidence of Pw.6 is considered, since his version runs contrary to the contents of Ex.P.4. Pw.6 never states that, panchanama was conducted in his presence and seized five counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.3 by name Ravi. So there is glaring discrepancies between versions of Pw.6 with contents of Ex.P.4. Even a step ahead on closed scrutiny of version of Pw.2 with version of Pw.3, I am of the opinion that, even versions of Pw.2 and Pw.3 are not in corroboration on material aspect. Because Pw.2 in his examination-in-chief states that, on 19.4.2011 police seized five counterfeit currency notes from the house in which he was serving as a driver. I feel it necessary to reproduce relevant portion of evidence of Pw.2 which reads as under;
"gÀ« ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ EzÀÝ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£É gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä ¯ÉÃOmï£À°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C°è £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ 3£Éà DgÉÆæ gÀ« EzÀÝ. ¥ÉÇðøï£ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤£Éß SÉÆÃmÁ£ÉÆÃlÄ ¹PÀÌ ºÁUÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ 5 SÉÆÃmÁ£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹QÌªÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. 3£Éà DgÉÆæ 12 S.C.No.878/2011 gÀ« ºÀwÛgÀ ¥ÉÇðøï£ÀªÀgÀÄ 5 SÉÆÃmÁ£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß E¹zÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ."
Where as Pw.3 in his evidence stated as under;
"¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄä J®ègÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÁ¸À ¸ÀܼÀªÁzÀ ®PÀ̸ÀAzÀæ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¯Á¯ïf£ÀUÀgÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÁ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÁV vÁ£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À EgÀĪÀ PÉÆoÀrUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ MAzÀÄ læAQ£À ©ÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃmï §ÄPÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ CzÀgÀ°èzÀÝ 500 gÀÆUÀ¼À 5 £ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁdgï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤.¦. 4gÀAvÉ ªÀĺÀdgï ªÀiÁr CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ."
Thus, as per the say of Pw.2, five counterfeit currency notes were seized from owner of house which is situated at Rangaswamy Layout. Further, version of Pw.2 disclosed that, this accused No.3 is driver and he was serving with owner of house in which five counterfeit currency notes were seized. But contrary to this Pw.3 in his evidence states that, five counterfeit currency notes were seized from a house which is situated at Lalji Nagar of Lakkasandra Layout. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.4, I have noticed that, five counterfeit currency notes were seized from the top roof of the house, but not in the room. Contents of Ex.P.4 on this aspect reads as under;
"£Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀÄ læAPï£À°è EnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ EnÖgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 13 S.C.No.878/2011 dªÀiÁ¬Ä¹ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV £ÀA.11-1J, 4£Éà PÁæ¸ï, JA.PÉ.
gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä ¯Éà Omï, ®PÀ̸ÀAzÀæ, DqÀÄUÉÄÁÃr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ UÉÃmï zÀsQëuÁ©üªÀÄÄRªÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ M¼À ¥ÀæªÉò¹ ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉ ªÉÄîPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ªÉÄnÖ®ÄUÀ½zÀÄÝ, F ªÉÄÃnÖ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ 4£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÁéªÀtôUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ, DgÉÆæ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄïÁÒªÀtôAiÀÄ ¸ÉÆïÁgï ªÁlgï »Ãlgï£À PɼÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è EnÖzÀÝ MAzÀÄ vÀUÀr£À ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ vÀ£Àß §½ EzÀÝ QìÄAzÀ ©ÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃmï §ÄPï£À°èzÀÝAvÀºÀ 500 gÀÆ. ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ 05 £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀ."
Therefore, a serious doubt has arisen in my mind about the truthfulness of story as put forth by the prosecution in the matter of recovery of five counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.3- Ravi.
16. Another mahazar is Ex.P.9 under which as many as six counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.2- Hemanth @ Hemanth Kumar. On this aspect also I have gone through the version of Pw.3 who is main witness for prosecution. Though Pw.3 states that, six counterfeit currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.2 - Hemanth, but he has not specifically stated the day on which he has seized six counterfeit currency notes. Pw.8 is panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.9. But this witness has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, version of Pw.8 is not 14 S.C.No.878/2011 helpful for the prosecution to prove either contents of Ex.P.9 or recovery of six counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.2- Hemanth. Cw.5 is another panch witness for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.9, but prosecution has not examined this witness despite granting sufficient opportunities. As per the contents of Ex.P.9, mahazar was conducted in the house bearing No.1526 which belongs to one Seenappa. But Investigating Officer has not at all recorded statement of said Seenappa, who is owner of the house bearing No.1526, nor recorded the statement of another house owner under whom, accused No.3- Ravi was serving as driver.
17. Person with whom accused No.3 - Ravi was serving as a driver and owner of house bearing No.1526 are the material witnesses. Even for a movement, it is held that, police concerned have seized counterfeit currency notes, but the place where seizure was conducted or the place where those notes were kept, are not house of either accused No.2 or accused No.3. More particularly, on going through the cross- examination of Pw.2, it is clear that, owner of the house and even wife of owner of house were present, when mahazar marked at Ex.P.4 was conducted. Therefore, evidence of owner of both houses is most relevant in order to appreciate the contentions of prosecution. Thus, it is clear that, 15 S.C.No.878/2011 there is no any conclusive proof about the contents of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.9. Even otherwise also none of the witnesses have stated the main ingredients of the offences punishable U/s.489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. Ofcourse, I have not given much importance to version of other witnesses since evidence of main material witnesses does not corroborates with each other on material aspect. When prosecution has failed to prove the very recovery of 12 counterfeit currency notes, case has put forth by the prosecution, contention of prosecution cannot be believed or accepted. Ofcourse, I have also gone through the principles laid down in the above dictums. If the principles laid down in the above dictums are applied to the case on hand, there is no any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that, prosecution has not proved main ingredients of the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, on going through the entire materials placed in this case, I am of the opinion that, prosecution failed to prove its case against accused as alleged. Consequently, charges are not sustainable. Accordingly, I answer these points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
18. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on the above points No.1 to 3, accused No.2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. Being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
16 S.C.No.878/2011
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable U/s. 489-B and 489- C of I.P.C.
Their bail bonds and surety bond stands cancelled. The entire case file and 12 notes marked at Mo.1, shall be preserved till completion of split up case against accused No.1.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2015.) (MADHUSUDHAN B.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Sharanagouda V.H.
Pw.2 Ramaiah
Pw.3 Shivashankara Reddy B.
Pw.4 Manojkumar Sahoo
Pw.5 John Kenni
Pw.6 Vijaysimha
Pw.7 Raveendra B. Holduru
Pw.8 Kashi
II. For Defence:-
- Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the
Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Report
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
17 S.C.No.878/2011
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.3 Sealed cover
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.4 Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.4(c) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.5 Sealed cover
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.6 F.I.R.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.7 Voluntary statement of Accused Ravi
Ex.P.8 P.F.No.42/2011
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.9 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.10 P.F.No.43/2011
Ex.P.11 Voluntary statement of accused - Hemanth
Ex.P.12 Opinion Report
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of Pw.4
For Defence side:-
Nil
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 12 Notes (Denomination of
Rs.500 each)
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.